Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 11:52 PM
20 online now:
DrJones*, edge, Tanypteryx (3 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,100 Year: 5,137/19,786 Month: 1,259/873 Week: 155/460 Day: 97/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Blasphemy in Science
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 31 of 40 (149694)
10-13-2004 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by mark24
10-10-2004 7:58 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mark24, posted 10-10-2004 7:58 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by mark24, posted 10-13-2004 3:43 PM Robert Byers has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3303 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 32 of 40 (149706)
10-13-2004 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Robert Byers
10-13-2004 2:49 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Robert Byers, posted 10-13-2004 2:49 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Robert Byers, posted 10-14-2004 3:57 PM mark24 has responded

    
MrPhy42
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 40 (149795)
10-13-2004 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Robert Byers
10-13-2004 2:46 PM


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?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Robert Byers, posted 10-13-2004 2:46 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Robert Byers, posted 10-14-2004 4:21 PM MrPhy42 has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4583 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 34 of 40 (149828)
10-14-2004 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Robert Byers
10-13-2004 2:46 PM


quote:
The operative word in fact is historical. It defines the difference from the other subjects that actually use science correctly and so have credibility to make thier claims.

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:
well we have the authority the Bible.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Robert Byers, posted 10-13-2004 2:46 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Robert Byers, posted 10-14-2004 4:29 PM Mammuthus has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 35 of 40 (149956)
10-14-2004 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by mark24
10-13-2004 3:43 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mark24, posted 10-13-2004 3:43 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by mark24, posted 10-16-2004 11:58 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 36 of 40 (149959)
10-14-2004 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by MrPhy42
10-13-2004 10:44 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by MrPhy42, posted 10-13-2004 10:44 PM MrPhy42 has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 37 of 40 (149963)
10-14-2004 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Mammuthus
10-14-2004 5:16 AM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Mammuthus, posted 10-14-2004 5:16 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by MrPhy42, posted 10-14-2004 10:59 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 39 by Mammuthus, posted 10-15-2004 4:54 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
MrPhy42
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 40 (150020)
10-14-2004 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Robert Byers
10-14-2004 4:29 PM


So you would disregard everything that you regard as not directly observable as false?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Robert Byers, posted 10-14-2004 4:29 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4583 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 39 of 40 (150041)
10-15-2004 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Robert Byers
10-14-2004 4:29 PM


quote:
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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Robert Byers, posted 10-14-2004 4:29 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3303 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 40 of 40 (150284)
10-16-2004 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Robert Byers
10-14-2004 3:57 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Robert Byers, posted 10-14-2004 3:57 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019