|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Blasphemy in Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4388 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
All I meant was it was too involved and such involvement is not needed. You guys don't need to prove your case of predictions but prove your case that these predictions qualify as having tested a great hypothesis as Toe is.
Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Robert,
All I meant was it was too involved and such involvement is not needed. You guys don't need to prove your case of predictions but prove your case that these predictions qualify as having tested a great hypothesis as Toe is. It represents a non-trivial (/understatement) test that supports evolutionary theory. This is what evidence is. Moreover, it does it in such a way as to be so unlikely for such a thing to have occurred by chance, that it shows beyond reasonable doubt that evolution is indeed indicative of reality. This completely scuppers your claim when you "say there was no evidence in the first place to justify Toe". There is. You just won't/can't look at it & incorporate it into your worldview. Not accepting evidence is an entirely different kettle of fish to there being no evidence. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrPhy42 Inactive Member |
So Rob, you would maintain that geology, biological anthropology, paleontology and any other historical sciences are invalid and should be ignored? The scientists who work in this field are all hacks? By the same note, the same people that attempt to support thse claims you have made (who claim to use these same sciences) are also all invalid?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: Please demonstrate how chemistry and physics use a different scientific methodology than evolution i.e. both use indirect evidence (particularly sub atomic physics). Why is it "correct" there but inappropriate in biology?
quote: Ok, great authority. Please, using the bible, explain how the methylation patterns of the H19 locus contribute to genomic imprinting of this gene. Thanks in advance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4388 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
This is an important point here.
Perhaps it is wrong for us to say there is no evidence for Toe. I'm not sure but it doesn't matter. Toe is a great idea about great matters. And great ideas to take thier place must have the WEIGHT of evidence behind them. Your "test" is a minor examination based on some minor premise as I see it. If there was real evidence then we creationists and the public would be drowning in it. Again however the difference between evidence shorn of assumption is the ruling point. Off thread (i think) but defeating your example doesn't requier chance but reinterpretation of rocks in the field.Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4388 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
No subjects should be ignored. What should be ignored is if these subjects claim thier conclusions are based on science and this is not the case.
Geology is science when it deals with today's actions and results. When it deals with yesterdays actions (but not observed) then it must make its case. Saying this is geology too isn't good enough anymore in a progressive world. Paleotology is about evidence of the past and also must demonstrate its conclusions are based on the scientific method that justifys its conclusions indeed. In short subjects like biology that deal with life must literally deal intimate substance with intimate instruments. That is biology.Pick axes and dynamite is not biology. It is history of biological entities past and thats all. Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4388 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Because historical subjects deal with the past they must have a greater or accurate weight of evidence to justify thier conclusions.
Because what they conclude and claim is not now observable. So the methodology for historical subjects is clearly to all different from chemistry. The latter deals deals with today's observations of its actions and results. Historical biology deals with bits and pieces of results of unobserved actions. The latter needs balancing evidence for what the former demonstrates before our eyes. Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrPhy42 Inactive Member |
So you would disregard everything that you regard as not directly observable as false?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: Hmmm so when was the last time you observed a quark directly? How about hydrogen combining with oxygen..have you really ever directly observed this? I guess you would have to conclude that water and matter do not exist? Biology is no different from chemistry...and yes, evolution can be observed in the present in fast reproducing organisms. Make a Boot camp topic and we can discuss it futher.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Robert,
Perhaps it is wrong for us to say there is no evidence for Toe. There's no perhaps about it. It would be lying, given I have presented evidence.
Toe is a great idea about great matters. And great ideas to take thier place must have the WEIGHT of evidence behind them. And the odds of 300 cladograms matching stratigraphy as well as they do against the odds of it happening by chance are 5.68*10^323:1. This is a colossal weight of evidence.
Your "test" is a minor examination based on some minor premise as I see it. You are kidding me, right? The test is based upon the molecular & morphological data of over 300 cladograms, globally. The correlation is MASSIVE, absolutely massive. There is nothing minor about it. And for the record, the "minor" premise is evolution, & that's is being tested, not assumed.
Again however the difference between evidence shorn of assumption is the ruling point. There is no assumption of evolution, that is what is being tested.
Off thread (i think) but defeating your example doesn't requier chance but reinterpretation of rocks in the field. Go for it, mate. I'd love to see how you explain the correlation of cladograms with stratigraphy to the tune of 5.68*10^323:1 against such an occurrence by chance.
If there was real evidence then we creationists and the public would be drowning in it. There is, but when people are intellectually dishonest enough to dismiss odds of 5.68*10^323:1 as being "minor", then you have to wonder at their capacity for logic, don't you? Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024