Apple didn't spend millions upon millions of dollars in initial production costs without knowing that the science which went into the design of my Macbook is tested, proven science and reliable technology.
If your hypothesis is correct, then apple should stop trying to improve the Macbook because it has been proven to be the best so it doesn't have to be modified, altered, rebuilt, redesigned etc. No matter what occurs in any scientific endeavor, there is always chances that something is missing, which is why all scientific theories are tentative and subject to change if better data is obtained.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
If your hypothesis is correct, then apple should stop trying to improve the Macbook because it has been proven to be the best so it doesn't have to be modified, altered, rebuilt, redesigned etc. No matter what occurs in any scientific endeavor, there is always chances that something is missing, which is why all scientific theories are tentative and subject to change if better data is obtained.
My post 89 deals with this argument in the clearest terms possible. For you to even raise it as an issue shows that you are grasping at straws and have nothing valid to respond to my arguments with.
I keep hearing this excuse and justification for why evo cannot be absolutely proven or supported with facts, but I completely disagree with you as you say: nothing is absolute in science. An important property of science is tentativity. This statement is absolutely false as it applies to real science.
The way to test the veracity of a scientific hypothesis is a statistical method called "hypothesis testing." The ultimate output of this method is a bell curve demarcated with a confidence interval, which is a point estimate plus/minus a margin of error, which we can state, with a given level of confidence, contains the actual value of the parameter we're trying to estimate.
Then, there's an F-test, which compares the variation in quantitative values explained by the model (i.e., the hypothesis) to the variation not explained by the model.
And, there are significance tests, which tell us whether two values can realistically be considered different from one another.
And, there are more complex things, like bootstrapping. But, none of them is capable of pinpointing an exact value with 100% certainty. Not even engineers and mechanics, whom you laud so completely, can state 100% certainty of their findings. Verifying the findings with real-world tests also does not produce 100% certainty.
-----
Archangel writes:
Apple didn't spend millions upon millions of dollars in initial production costs without knowing that the science which went into the design of my Macbook is tested, proven science and reliable technology.
Apple wasn't testing any scientific theories, either: they were looking for solution that works. For instance, ancient people were able to discover and utilize the combustion power of gunpowder over 1000 years ago. These same people thought the world's functions and processes could be described by the "Wu Xing" ("Five Phases": fire, water, wood, metal and earth), and thought that drinking mercury would make them immortal.
Clearly, being able to make things that work is not the same thing as formulating a theoretical, scientific explanation for [i]why[i] or how they work.
The development of your computer, although heavily reliant on theories about electricity, optics and information, is not analogous to theoretical science, and theoretical science has more right to claim the title "real science" than does engineering or technology.
Edited by Bluejay, : Only one article is required before a word
It was posted as evidence of evolutionists truth RAZD, and in opposition to that perceived truth. How can you people not comprehend that? It is the only way to debate false outcomes. First post the lie the other guy is promoting and then explain why it's a lie. That is what I did, and if it is beyond you to comprehend that, then I'm sorry for you.
Here is the quote once again:
quote:Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)
Note that the "fraud" being presented here is the model of Neanderthal as a knuckle-dragging ape, and the "exposing" of the "fraud" is the new model of the erect Neanderthal.
Thus, the "disproof" of this "fraud" is that Neanderthals are like humans. So, in order for you to continue using this quote to support your argument that Neanderthal as an evolutionary fraud, you have to maintain the argument that Neanderthal is like humans. Otherwise, you have contradicted your own source.
That is why everybody is on to you about this. You think Neanderthal is an inhuman ape, but this is the very idea that you presented as being a fraud!
If your hypothesis is correct, then apple should stop trying to improve the Macbook because it has been proven to be the best so it doesn't have to be modified, altered, rebuilt, redesigned etc. No matter what occurs in any scientific endeavor, there is always chances that something is missing, which is why all scientific theories are tentative and subject to change if better data is obtained.
My post 89 deals with this argument in the clearest terms possible. For you to even raise it as an issue shows that you are grasping at straws and have nothing valid to respond to my arguments with.
You did not deal with this in post 89, nor anywhere else.
You claimed that the MacBook is an example of absolute knowledge derived from science. If the MacBook can be improved upon in the future, this would show that our knowledge about how to make the best MacBook possible is incomplete (tentative), thus, your claim is wrong.
It was posted as evidence of evolutionists truth RAZD, and in opposition to that perceived truth. How can you people not comprehend that?
It is quite simple Archangel:
(1) Because even that quisling weasel argument fails. The original neanderthal representations are not a fraud - remember what I said in Message 64 about the definition of fraud?
to be a "scientific hoax\fraud" it needs to be deliberately perpetuated by a scientist, preferably an evolutionary biological scientist (cold fusion does not qualify)
to be a "creationist hoax\fraud" it needs to be deliberately perpetuated by a creationist
Pretty simple criteria.
Would you agree that those definitions apply?
To be a fraud it must be an intentional deception for a purpose - what you see instead is increased understanding as more information becomes available, refining the original picture with new details not known before, again as noted in Message 64:
quote:
Neanderthal:
Again, this is not a fraud. This is not false. There is no deception here. There is even more evidence for Neanderthals than there is for Java Man.
quote:The Neanderthal (pronounced /ni(ː)ˈndərtɑːl/, /ni(ː)ˈndərθɔːl/), or /neɪˈndərtɑːl/)[1], also spelled Neandertal[2], is an extinct member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies of humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate species (Homo neanderthalensis).[3] The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 600,000—350,000 years ago.[4] Proto-Neanderthal traits are occasionally grouped to another phenetic 'species', Homo heidelbergensis, or a migrant form, Homo rhodesiensis. By 130,000 years ago, complete Neanderthal characteristics had appeared. These characteristics then disappeared in Asia by 50,000 years ago and in Europe by 30,000 years ago.[5] The youngest Neanderthal finds include Hyaena Den (UK), considered older than 30,000 years ago, while the Vindija (Croatia) Neanderthals have been re-dated to between 32,000 and 33,000 years ago. No definite specimens younger than 30,000 years ago have been found; however, evidence of fire by Neanderthals at Gibraltar indicate that they may have survived there until 24,000 years ago. Modern human skeletal remains with 'Neanderthal traits' were found in Lagar Velho (Portugal), dated to 24,500 years ago and controversially interpreted as indications of extensively admixed populations.[6]
Neanderthal stone tools provide further evidence for their presence where skeletal remains have not been found. The last traces of Mousterian culture, a type of stone tools associated with Neanderthals, were found in Gorham's Cave on the remote south-facing coast of Gibraltar.[7] Other tool cultures sometimes associated with Neanderthal include Chtelperronian, Aurignacian, and Gravettian, with the latter extending to 22,000 years ago, the last indication of Neanderthal presence.
Neanderthal cranial capacity is often thought to have been as large or larger than modern humans, indicating that their brain size may have been the same or greater. In 2008, a group of scientists made a study using three-dimensional computer-assisted reconstructions of Neanderthal infants based on fossils found in Russia and Syria that shows that they had brains as large as ours at birth and larger than ours as adults.[8] On average, the height of Neanderthals was comparable to contemporaneous Homo sapiens. Neanderthal males stood about 165—168 cm (65—66 in) and were heavily built with robust bone structure. They were much stronger, having particularly strong arms and hands.[9] Females stood about 152—156 cm (60—61 in).[10] They were almost exclusively carnivorous[11] and apex predators.[12]
For some time, scientists debated whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Genetic statistical calculation (2006 results) suggests at least 5% of the modern human gene pool can be attributed to ancient admixture, with the European contribution being from the Neanderthal.[14] Some morphological studies support that Homo neanderthalensis is a separate species and not a subspecies.[15] Some suggest inherited admixture. Others, for example University of Cambridge Professor Paul Mellars, say "no evidence has been found of cultural interaction"[16] and evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies have been interpreted as evidence Neanderthals were not a subspecies of H. sapiens.[17] A controversial study of Homo sapiens mtDNA from Australia (Mungo Man 40ky) suggested that its lineage was not part of the recent human genomic pool and mtDNA sequences for temporally comparative African specimens are not yet available.
quote:The discovery in 1856 of a skullcap and partial skeleton in a cave in the Neander valley near Dusseldorf, Germany, signaled the first recognized fossil human form. While it was later realized that several Neanderthal sites had previously been discovered, their remains were not recognized as those of an archaic form of human until the discovery of "Neanderthal Man." In 1864 a new species was recognized: Homo neanderthalensis.
Neanderthals inhabited Europe and western Asia during the latter part of the Pleistocene. The climate in these regions was much colder than it is today, and several glaciations, or Ice Ages, are known to have occurred during the time of Neanderthal occupation. Neanderthal localities are known today from Spain to Uzbekistan (near Afghanistan). Several important sites in the vicinity of Qafzeh Cave, Israel, suggest that Neanderthals arrived in the region after modern Homo sapiens. This would indicate that the population of modern humans in this area was not descended form Neanderthals, and that there was some period of coexistence, or an alternating series of migrations into this region by the two species. Neanderthals are known from Europe and western Asia from about 200,000 years to about 30,000 years ago, when they disappeared from the fossil record and were replaced in Europe by anatomically modern forms.
The original interpretation of Neanderthal anatomy was one of a primitive early human based on a flawed reconstruction of the nearly complete skeleton of an elderly Neanderthal male found at La Chapelle-aux-Saints, France (second photograph from the top). However, Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens) are very similar anatomically -- so similar, in fact, that in 1964, it was proposed that Neanderthals are not even a separate species from modern humans, but that the two forms represent two subspecies: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens. This classification was popular through the 1970's and 80's, although many authors today have returned to the previous two-species hypothesis. Either way, Neanderthals represent a very close evolutionary relative of modern humans.
Several features of the skeleton unique to Neanderthals appear to be related to cold climate adaptations. These features include limb-bone proportions and muscle attachments indicative of a broad, slightly short, and strong body; a large, rounded nasal opening; and a suite of anatomical traits of the skull (compare the crania of H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens).
In all, the fossil record for Neanderthals is significantly better than for earlier human species. One reason for this is that Neanderthal fossils are relatively young compared to other early human species, and fossils decay over time. But another very important factor is the purposeful burial of their dead. Many Neanderthal sites include the remains of individuals who were deliberately placed in graves dug into the earth. Some of these burials show evidence that may indicate that these graves were adorned with offerings (such as flowers). This cultural advance, which represents an awareness and recognition of life and death, may have first been practiced by the Neanderthals.
There is no intentional deception using false information here. The original reconstruction was perhaps unfortunate, but it was not an intentionally false portrayal, and the reconstructions have changed as more information has become available. THIS IS HOW REAL SCIENCE WORKS.
Once again, you have failed to provide an example of a fraud intentionally used by scientists to deceive the public into believing in evolution - your claim - and curiously, all you have shown is continued creationist falsehoods, misrepresentations, and deceptions -- creationist fraud.
(source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)
Way to keep current with scientific findings Archangel. Why do creationists need to use outdated and superseded information, while ignoring modern information, if not to intentionally deceive you and the common public? Can you answer that?
Instead of Neanderthal being a fraud we see - again - that the creationist claim that there is a fraud here is another creationist fraud.
(Curiously you have not replied to this message which answers each of your purported frauds and debunked them with the facts.)
Instead of exposing evolutionary lies, your website is a fraud, a hoax, trying to deceive people about the facts.
(2) Because you are still using something you don't believe to try to discredit evolution. This means that any argument you make is of questionable value at best, because you have demonstrated a willingness to use information you think is false.
Is it a valid argument, if I try to tell you that the bible is false because website X says it was written by monkeys, even though I don't believe that it was written by monkey? Of course not.
You don't like evolution? Tough. You want to debunk it? Then use facts, don't hide behind information from others that you don't even believe, as that is dishonest.
(3) Because we can agree with you that the information on the website is invalid - you disagree with it and we disagree with it - so we can discard it. The problem then is that you are left with no support for your argument.
First post the lie the other guy is promoting and then explain why it's a lie. That is what I did, ...
No, that is NOT what you have done. You may think that you posted "the lie" but each one of these examples falls flat from what you have claimed, and you have absolutely and completely FAILED to then explain why it's a lie. All you have done is (mis)use the website.
Curiously you have spent more time saying that what is on that website is a lie according to your belief than in dealing with evolution and the evidence that the website itself is a fraud.
... and if it is beyond you to comprehend that, then I'm sorry for you.
Curiously, I am not the one using false information from websites that I don't believe, I am not the one in massive denial of the plentiful and readily available evidence of reality, and I am not the one claiming that the whole world, if not the universe, is a lie because of my beliefs.
No the point that website is trying to make is that when neanderthals were initially described the ape-like features were accentuated, making it appear as a transitional species. This is what the website is suggesting was fraudulent, since science has apparently had to back-track as new evidence has come to light which puts neanderthals much more similar to us. Certainly most creationist websites you go to class neanderthals as human.
So you are disagreeing with this website and agreeing with the initial findings of science based on that first discovery in 1909. If you disagree with the websites findings why are you using it, and why should we even bother reading it, when it does not reflect your views? How many other arguments in that website do you disagree with? Would it not have been easier to simply post your own views on the subject rather than linking to this website, since it now gives the appearance that you will agree with anything that questions evolution, even if the arguments also contradict your own position. This is what I find most sad, when a creationist announces that evolution is all a fraud and trots out the same tired old examples, some of them not even frauds, showing they have put no thought into it and are simply regurgitating what they have read.
Archangel, like I said, I am trying to help you, because I know you are trying to do the right thing. We have different conventions than you do about what counts as deception. I am not going to continue to argue about whether or not it was right for you to do as you did, because it isn't an important point of contention. Now that you know our convention, it may help you so that you avoid doing it again, right or wrong. Regardless, I suggest a better method for you in starting topics: Use the evidence that we ourselves say that we accept, as in the images of the fossil skulls that have been posted. They have names, and you can look them up. For example, do a little research on the specimen La Ferrassie 1. Is it an ape skull? A human skull? A fraud? We need your perspective on this, because it is one of the many skulls that we use to conclude that there were Neanderthals and that we share a common ancestry with modern apes. It is better not to quote from creationist sites in your opening post. The evidence that anti-evolutionists claim that we accept is almost always irrelevant, and it is likely to be a step backward for you making a difference in the way we think.
You're confusing engineering (Apple's MacBook) with science, but they do have a lot in common. Engineering takes a scientific approach to design and construction. Science attempts to extend our understanding of the natural world. Like I said, there's some overlap, but in general engineering doesn't often have much to do with the falsifiability and tentativity of theories concerning the nature of the real world, while science does. Apple, for the most part, isn't doing scientific research, they're doing engineering. That's why their hardware and software people are called hardware and software engineers. Your other examples of "the internal combustion engine, the jet engine, the V type Harley engine" are also examples of engineering. Your example of flu vaccines is an example biological engineering, though the original research revealing the role of viruses in nature was certainly science.
Evolution is science because it applies the scientific method to our study of the natural world, just like all other science. Whether we're talking about theories of relativity or gravity or germ disease or evolution, they're all science and they're all tentative, open to change in light of new evidence or improved insight.
The principle of tentativity of scientific theories derives from the requirement that scientific theories be falsifiable, which means they can never be proven. They can be supported by evidence, even considerable evidence, and they can become accepted by a great many scientists, but they can never be proven. Newton's laws of motion were never proven, they were just supported by evidence and tentatively accepted until something better came along, as was the case when Einstein introduced relativity. Evolution is science in the same way Einstein's theory of relativity is science, tentatively accepted because of the broad array of supporting evidence and because of successful predictions, but only until new evidence or improved insight forces us to modify or even replace it.
This is why you have to start talking about the evidence. You can see the early signs of disgust in the reactions of some of the other participants as you ignore the evidence and instead just bluster along with repeated unsupported accusations that evolution is based upon frauds and lies.
This is why you have to start talking about the evidence. You can see the early signs of disgust in the reactions of some of the other participants as you ignore the evidence and instead just bluster along with repeated unsupported accusations that evolution is based upon frauds and lies.
Creationism has no evidence, they have only belief.
If they had evidence they would have presented it by now. But what we see instead are unsupported statements of belief. This thread is littered with them.
Doesn't the new creationist museum have a sign something to be effect, "Believe, don't think" -- I don't have time to search for a photo right now.
That is the exact opposite of science.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
How is applying engineering to shrink computer parts the same as theoretical science?
What about the Mac Book is revolutionary? What about it shows completely new thinking?
Because looking at it, all they really did was apply a MAC OS, miniaturize some parts (questionable if they even did it given how computers are actually made) and give it a nice exterior while charging an obscene premium compared to comparable PCs.
I can see that this is a waste of time since you evo proponents are more interested in going after me and insulting me rather than objectively considering the truth of my arguments. You people are so dishonest that you will call the science which led to these computers we are all using, engineering rather than the pure science they represent. You either forget or just are in denial to the fact that only around 6 or 7 decades ago computer science was completely theoretical. You have completely ignored the examples I gave about the many natural toxins in nature which animals use for self defense, and are currently used in medicine. And I mean Blow Fish toxin, Sea Urchin Toxin and Jelly Fish Toxins for example. They are broken down to their molecular level, chemically separated, refined and tested in combinations to determine which properties have value in various applications as general medicines, vaccines, anti-virals and pain controllers. None of these results are based on guess work or hoping they are right before manufacturing begins on a final drug. They know through solid science and testing what to expect before patenting, copyrighting and trademarking these drugs for public consumption. Why do you think the list of warnings on the labels are longer than the description of what the drug does for its user?
Again, not true at all. Not with real science anyway. Real science is absolute and comes to absolute conclusions based on what we know at the time. This doesn't mean that what we learn in the future wont add to that knowledge, but what we learn in the future shouldn't nullify the science of the past. For example, just because 2 years from now scientists will discover a new medical application for a refined process of a new property in the Blow Fish Toxin, that in no way nullifies the current drug or drugs which have been refined from that deadly poison in its natural form but is currently helping people in a refined form.
Only in evolution science must they revamp the current thinking and redefine it constantly based on new and undeniable observations which completely negate prior beliefs. Have you ever heard an auto manufacturer claim that the engines they put in their cars last year were a mistake which new technology proves never should have been offered in the first place? Of course not. We may be inventing new technology like Hybrid, Electric and Fuel Cell Technology for pollutions sake, but nobody is saying its necessary because internal combustion engines just don't perform well anymore.
In fact, IC engines are the standards which new technologies must compete with before they will be accepted as reliable new power plants in cars. That is real and true science. It is testable and repeatable and verifiable before being accepted as the norm. Give me that reliability with evolution and you will have a convert. But you can't and that's because it's a man made lie and a manufactured myth with no basis in fact at all.
Real science which is founded upon a foundation of proven and tested conclusions builds upon that foundation with new technologies, applications and innovations based on new insights which are applied to it. But the foundation upon which the science rests remains unchanged and consistent as it was originally defined and proven to function in the real world. The fact is that evolution cannot even agree on the foundational principles upon which it is built starting with the age of the earth and the universe we inhabit. And my argument which has only been responded to with excuses is that until the foundational beliefs regarding the origin of life on earth are absolutely determined and known, then it is impossible to build a realistic explanation for the process itself.
In addition to these problems, you all seem oblivious to the fact that in just determining the age of the earth come numerous theoretical applications which are all determined by our very limited ability to interpret them, and that how one theory affects, or is affected by another is well beyond our ability to judge at this time. You seem oblivious to the fact that these unknowns can completely undo the results you will sit here and defend as accurate to the death when you know nothing for certain at all.
You people will consider we christians to be backward thinking believers in myths, when it is you who are steeped in believing in magical processes which you couldn't prove are real or accurately applied if your life depended on it. Just think, you are proposing that around 3.5 billion years ago, life spontaneously appeared on earth from non-life. And you will insist that I am the ignorant one who clings to fairy tales. Or that Dawkins, one of your atheist heros, speaks of the possibility that life arose from aliens implanting their genetic material here in order to overcome the impossibility of the spontaneous life problem. But it is we who are deluded. Get a clue guys and then come back when you want to seriously discuss the problems with evolution and the fact that it is only by promoting frauds that this scam is called a science at all.
Or that Dawkins, one of your atheist heros, speaks of the possibility that life arose from aliens implanting their genetic material here in order to overcome the impossibility of the spontaneous life problem.
Hah! He didn't do anything of the sort. He simply said that if earthly life were intelligently designed that doesn't demonstrate that a god did it. Exactly as Behe said, "Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being"
Get a clue guys and then come back when you want to seriously discuss the problems with evolution and the fact that it is only by promoting frauds that this scam is called a science at all.
This seems the only part of your 1800 word rant that is anything to do with frauds. We all know that frauds have occurred, and it is interesting that you raise medical research as an example of 'true science' since it is generally agreed that medical research has a significant amount fudged results and outright fraud! (Source).
We all know about examples of hoaxes, misinterpretation, frauds and overeager reporting in both pro-creationist and pro-evolution related circles (I've lost count of the number of times the newspapers have told me that we've cured AIDS or Cancer (since we are presenting cartoons at the moment allow me to present this)). Do you have any evidence that they have been a significant contributing cause behind the public acceptance of evolution? I have no stake in the matter: If everybody in the USA that believed evolution was true because of Piltdown man then that wouldn't affect the truth or falsity of evolution.
So are you able to support your claim?
I can see that this is a waste of time
If you think defending your position is a waste of time, I advise you stop engaging in debate and instead set up your own blog or website or write a book where you can tell the world about the dishonesty of whomever you like. You'll find that in a debate format you don't just get to 'tell it as it is' without getting challenged that the way you are telling it is indeed the way it is.
Edited by Modulous, : added note about medical research and science journalism including cartoon.
™ Version 4.2
