|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discussion of Phylogenetic Methods | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
vaporwave writes: No matter how weak naturalistic origin of life theories may become, no matter how much that claim may appear to be false, the academic community will never consider the central idea of a naturalistic origin of life to be disproved. Perhaps rethought entirely but never dismissed or replaced... (indeed the alternative is not even to be considered) Again, more utter bullshit from vaporwave. Sorry but again you simply show you are totally clueless about even the most basic facts. If you can present an example of a non-natural cause and explain how it works then of course science would have to take non-natural causes into consideration. It really is that simple. Present an example of a non-natural cause and an explanation of how it works. The facts are we have the fossils so we win and we have the natural causes so we win. Creationism has been DOA for well over a hundred years and it smells like it's been dead far longer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Let me rephrase that. No matter how weak naturalistic origin of life theories may become, no matter how much that claim may appear to be false, the academic community will never consider the central idea of a naturalistic origin of life to be disproved. Well, again, that's a self-serving fantasy about a universe very different to the one we live in. It is in fact normal for people to adjust their beliefs in accordance with the evidence. Creationists don't, but that's because they work using the rules of religion rather than science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The evolutionist will assume whatever he needs in order to reconcile the theory.
You have this backwards. Scientists of all kinds work from data to theory. If new or old data does not fit the theory, then the theory has to be modified or discarded. Creationists, on the other hand, work from belief. If old or new data does not fit the belief, then that data has to be denied, misrepresented, or ignored.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Yes indeed. If. Let me know when you're able to demonstrate the reasoning or lack of reasoning of this non-evolutionary creature generator. Until then you're just philosophically speculating to the extreme... Which is totally fine, just don't try to smuggle it in as scientific evidence for your theory. I demonstrate it like this. You can't think of an alternate theory that would produce the same evidence. You can't begin to think of such a thing. So merely speculating that there might be one which you can't even think of would be idle and vacuous pseudoscientific speculation which can have no place in science. We can't base scientific reasoning on a daydream which you haven't even had yet --- on a daydream that one day you might have a daydream --- on something you can't even imagine, but you can imagine being able to imagine it. In science such speculation about speculation is worthless, no matter how much it may comfort the religious. It says a great deal about the weakness of the creationist view that you find it necessary to attack the scientific method itself, and to adopt rhetorical positions that would render all of science impossible ... just so's you can dispute evolution. It's like someone adopting a philosophy that nothing is true just so he can say that "It's not true that I took the cookies from the cookie jar". Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Look at the related field of Origin of Life studies to get some inkling of the metaphysical commitment. It doesn't matter how much the various OoL theories may struggle, the general academic community knows with complete certainty that it happened completely naturally somehow.
And the various religious communities know with complete certainty that it was a result of supernatural forces. So? In any case, origin of life studies are not evolution--completely different fields.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2666 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
I demonstrate it like this. You can't think of an alternate theory that would produce the same evidence. You can't begin to think of such a thing. So merely speculating that there might be one which you can't even think of would be idle and vacuous pseudoscientific speculation which can have no place in science. But you are the one guilty of this so far. You've claimed to hold insight into the probabilities of how life would look if common ancestry were false.
If the set was not produced by copying with variation, there is only an infinitesimal chance that it would have this property of robustness by accident Earlier here you stated that genetic/morphological concordance of life would be "accidental" if not for evolution. I'm still waiting for you to explain how you got this knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2666 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
Do you accept that common descent is falsifiable? Yes. But practically every idea is falsifiable in some way so this isn't saying much. It's like the bare minimum requirement in science. Falsifiability doesn't necessarily translate to a robust ironclad theory that no reasonable person can question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
vaporwave writes: Yes So why don't you find the evidence to disprove it instead of all this pseudo-philosophical waffle you're dolling out? This is not some esoteric, logic-based problem to be solved purely by reading websites and thinking hard - it's evidence based. The ToE stands or falls on it's empirical evidence, not on a bunch of wordy argument. It can be disproved, your side has had a century and a half to produce the damning evidence against - the theory even tells you where to look for it - but you have produced absolutely nothing, just vapor.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And vaporwave's prolonged futile assault on the scientific method itself continues.
But you are the one guilty of this so far. No.
You've claimed to hold insight into the probabilities of how life would look if common ancestry were false. No.
Earlier here you stated that genetic/morphological concordance of life would be "accidental" if not for evolution. No. If you don't understand my point, why don't you ask me to explain it instead of making up crazy stuff in your head?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Look at the related field of Origin of Life studies to get some inkling of the metaphysical commitment. It doesn't matter how much the various OoL theories may struggle, the general academic community knows with complete certainty that it happened completely naturally somehow. Again you demonstrate ignorance regarding science, moving from your ignorance of how evolution actually works now to more general ignorance of all science. Ignorance is not a crime, nor is it derogatory, it is just unawareness of things (undereducated might be a better term), it is curable with education.
Here's a little chart of the scientific method for your use:
Note it is a continual feedback loop, testing keeps being done and each successful test leads to more tests. Nothing is ever proved. Now we come to Origins of Life, which is not part of evolution (evolution is the change in a living population -- no living population no evolution), And this leads to all kinds of questions (not least of which is "what is the definition of life?" -- try it -- give us your definition). Another is "what is the evidence for origin of life?" ... and the evidence is:
Therefore somewhere between ~4.5 byr and ~3.5 byr ago life began. So the next question is "How can that occur?" And that is being tested with a wide variety of hypotheses that posit different scenarios, and that provide tests using objective empirical evidence to see if they work. A couple of old threads discussing these are:
Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I) and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) Now a question for you: IFF we posit that "God did it" then how do we test that? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2666 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
If you don't understand my point, why don't you ask me to explain it I addressed your point. Go ahead and explain how you didn't mean what you plainly wrote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I addressed your point. No.
Go ahead and explain how you didn't mean what you plainly wrote. No. You're doing such a good job of explaining how I didn't mean what I plainly wrote that you hardly need any help. I don't know who you can actually hope to deceive on this subject, which I think makes this kind of a strange hobby for you to have. But we are obviously two very different people. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You're doing such a good job of explaining how I didn't mean what I plainly wrote that you hardly need any help. I don't know who you can actually hope to deceive on this subject, which I think makes this kind of a strange hobby for you to have. But we are obviously two very different people. Apparently what we are seeing is a creationist devolving into a troll. With no cogent argument and no response to the several posts pointing towards erroneous and false arguments, the poster falls back on twisting words to get a rise out of people rather than a discussion. Waste of bandwidth, imho. But still a good foil to speak to the peanut gallery, demonstrating the failure of these purported "arguments" -- most of which are pratts (more like coming to an axe fight without an axe). Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
It's really simple, there is ample evidence of natural causes but no one has ever presented any evidence of any un-natural causes.
Until someone can present one example of some un-natural cause for ANYTHING there is simply no reason to even consider un-natural causes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
It's really simple, there is ample evidence of natural causes but no one has ever presented any evidence of any un-natural causes. Simple -- as soon as something is observed and verified it becomes natural caused ...
by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024