|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
Hey Peanut Gallery? Y'all in Lurkersville. Anyone believing any of this? Honestly. Anyone? Well, like the rest of science, the real test for a replacement theory is whether any biologists will start using it in their work. I just don't see any way anyone can use this silly BS to do better science. As an entomologist, not a single bit of his nonsense can be applied to my studies.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
Message 3 The newest attempt to summarize the falsification.
MrID writes: (The normal and technical naming and nomenclatures, some confirmed mechanisms of change but always controlled, and almost all technical terms used in Biology and its related fields, should be retained. But anything that has connection with ToE, evolution and Darwin, must be discarded and replaced, considered pseudo-science, unless the topics are criticizing them.) I especially like the part where anything with a connection to Darwin must be discarded and replaced. I feel confident in saying that MrID has never read any of what Darwin wrote, since he has clearly demonstrated that he has no clue what biological evolution is or how it works. My expectations of entertainment are diminishing.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
He could have then pointed to a similar experimental test that falsifies evolution. But . . . no. Instead, we just get the insistent "Evolution is falsified" over and over without any actual falsification. We are now in the era of: if I say I did something then that's as good as doing it and if I say I did it a bunch of times that means I really, really did it. There's still some true entertainment value here after all. Here's MrID's sammary that Percy requested
Message 5 MrID writes: Thank you. I think that I should make a summary of it.I think this one will work. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Introducing ToE's Replacement In science, a wrong theory or explanation must be falsified and be replaced. In here, I falsified Evolution because Evolution is wrong. Science must talk and explain reality, but Evolution is not discussing reality for the following reasons: quote: I love "Wrong basis of reality," but then they get better, "Limited Scope of reality in biology," "No exclusive explanation," and finally "Natural Methodological inconsistency." These are going to be tough to refute! (mainly because I can't stop laughing...ok I made that part up, but how the heck did he even come up with this gibberish?)What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
MrID kind of reminds me of that guy Tesla from a long time ago here at EvC. Made a career of incoherence.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
intellen did get some hits on google, though. but they all kinda still look like he made a typo. just being generous here. To me the whole line is just nonsensical gibberish. None of his attempts to describe evolution bare any resemblance to reality. It's all just empty meaningless repetitious nonsense, and it doesn't get better with refinement. We may have actually found the mythical, long sought after, bottom of the barrel!What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
just so long as religion doesn't insist on silly ideas about reality, like YEC et al. It seems to me that is the definition of religion, insisting on silly ideas about reality.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?
MrID writes: There are four major mistakes or errors of Biological Evolution that could NO longer be defended by any fair and honest proponents of Evolution. Ironically, this is sort of true, but I'm not aware of anyone who understands biological evolution ever defending MrID's four major mistakes. It's all a huge strawman.
MrID writes: These are the basis, the exclusivities, the methodologies and limited view of reality. I tried to read his explanations at his link, but it is just meaningless crap that has no actual relationship to biological evolution. He seems to be trying to use fallacious reasoning to invalidate concepts that are not part of biology, without actually performing any biological research. It's all word games by someone who does not understand the language he is trying to use. He hasn't demonstrated any knowledge of biology or comprehension of how to convince biologists that evolution doesn't explain life on this planet.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
The boy cannot explain. And I don't see this as any language or cultural stop but an intellectual one. I seriously do not think he understands his own proposal. Yeah, but he claims to be the discoverer of intelligence, how embarrassing that he's wrong!What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
Just as there are alternate facts there must be alternate intelligence. Trying to imagine it...
It's likely that MrId has a HUGE brain. Yes, every cell is intelligent...What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
Do scientists know how evolution works?
Dredge writes: Scientists claim to know how evolution works No scientist claims we know everything about how evolution works, but we do know a lot. We are still making observations and discoveries every day.
Dredge writes: but if you gave the evolutionary scientists of the world the task of producing (evolving) a eurkaryote from a prokaryote ... or producing (evolving) an amphibian from a fish ... they'd be utterly c-l-u-e-l-e-s-s. Well, if they did, you would just say they weren’t doing it properly anyway. Humans have spent the past 10,000 years or more, turning wolves into poodles and thousands of other species into tens of thousands of varieties of domestic plants and animals. So, while we might be clueless about your silly tasks, what we have achieved is quite remarkable.
Dredge writes: So much for knowing how evolution works! Knowing how a process works has no bearing on whether we could duplicate the steps the process took 500 million or 3 billion years ago.Your silly assertions are the same as saying, physicists claim to know how nuclear fusion works, but they wouldn’t have a clue about creating a star from a cloud of Hydrogen. Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes:
Sort of ... I would say whatever fantastic explanations their vivid imaginations dream up are meaningless because they can't be tested. Anyone can talk. Well, if they did, you would just say they weren’t doing it properly anyway. I didn't say anything about "fantastic explanations their vivid imaginations dream up." I said if they did your "assignment", you would say they did it wrong.
Dredge writes: Anyone can talk. Yes that is true, and you have convinced us that you never know what you are talking about.
Dredge writes: If someone claimed to know how to produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote, for example, I would accept their explanation when they actually produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote. Can you give us any examples of "someone" claiming they know how to "produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote"? Can you explain why "someone" would want to "produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote"? Do you think anyone would care about producing a eukaryote from a prokaryote, to "prove evolution" to a bunch of creationists? Scientists already have studied most of the processes involved, so they don't need convincing, and none of them care about whatever fantastic explanations YOUR vivid imaginations dream up.
Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes: Humans have spent the past 10,000 years or more, turning wolves into poodles and thousands of other species into tens of thousands of varieties of domestic plants and animals. Darwinist scientists claim that the evolutionary process that allows a dog to be produced from a wolf is the same evolutionary process that produced the history and diversification of life on earth. Can you give us some examples of "Darwinist scientists"? I know a lot of scientists who study evolutionary biology and I have never heard a single one refer to themselves as "Darwinist scientists". Your assertion is incorrect, scientists do not claim the process that produced dogs from wolves is the same evolutionary process that produced the history and diversification of life on earth. Dogs were artificially selected and bred for domestication, not evolved. Some of the processes are the same, mutations, genetics reproduction, etc., because they are biological organisms.
Dredge writes: But give the evolutionary scientists of the world the task of producing a eukaryote from a prokaryote ... or an amphibian from a fish ... or a reptile from an amphibian ... and they wouldn't have the foggiest; they wouldn't even know how to get to first base. Repeating your silly task still does not make it valid. What possible purpose would anyone see in wasting their time on that? Evolutionary scientists spend their lives studying the evidence that exists right now. Every single shred of evidence discovered so far supports the observation that life is evolving and is the result of billions of years of evolution.
Dredge writes: That proves they don't know how life evolved over deep time. Their simplistic nineteenth-century theory fails miserably. Well, since it is demonstrably incorrect, it proves you don't know what you are talking about. Maybe you are unaware, but this is 2022, not 1859, and what we have learned since 1859 fills libraries and museums around the planet and it all supports evolution.
Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes:
... and the irony is, none of those achievements required Darwinian theory. LOL Humans have spent the past 10,000 years or more, turning wolves into poodles and thousands of other species into tens of thousands of varieties of domestic plants and animals. The true irony is that you are completely unaware that domesticating and breeding all those plants and animals gave us incredible insights and knowledge into the biology of all organisms and how they have evolved and are evolving. You have it ass-backwards, the knowledge gained from breeding and other studies lead to the conclusion that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the variety of life on this planet. Now we can apply that knowledge.Edited by Tanypteryx, . Edited by Tanypteryx, . Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes:
No ... but plenty claim to know how evolution works. Can you give us any examples of "someone" claiming they know how to "produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote"? Two completely different things then. And I claim to know how evolution works.
dredge writes: This seems like a logical conclusion to me: And that's why no one is asking you to do any science. I will be sure and let my colleagues know to ignore the "dredge rule."
If someone knows a lot about micro-evolution but doesn't know a thing about how any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record proceeded, that person can't claim to know how evolution works. Well, that's the interesting thing, any good biologist and certainly every paleontologist understands the processes of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. It is microevolution all the way through the transition. There is no separate process of macroevolution. Every evolutionary biologist knows this. The people who cannot claim to know how evolution works are you creationists.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes:
These are probably the same scientists who claim to know how evolution works, but couldn't describe how any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record even got to first base.
Scientists already have studied most of the processes involved, so they don't need convincing
Well, they're probably the ones who have been studying evolutionary processes. They realize that there is really no separate process of evolution called macroevolution, so they describe all evolution as microevolution.
Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes:
What I think is "silly" is claiming to know how evolution works without being to describe even the first step of any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record. Repeating your silly task still does not make it valid. Yes that would be silly, but it turns out they realize that there is really no separate process of evolution called macroevolution, so they describe all evolution as microevolution.
Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes:
... and yet science is as incapable of describing how macro-transitions in the fossil record proceeded as it was in 1859. In other words, science still doesn't know how evolution works. Maybe you are unaware, but this is 2022, not 1859, and what we have learned since 1859 fills libraries and museums around the planet and it all supports evolution. If you read the journals you would find that science describes the process of evolution as microevolution.
Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes:
I accept that Darwinian evolution is the best scientific explanation for what produced the history of life on earth. But as for knowing how evolution produced life on earth, that cannot ever be known ... which means no one can ever claim to know how evolution works. the knowledge gained from breeding and other studies lead to the conclusion that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the variety of life on this planet Sorry Sherlock, science and scientists are defying your orders and have already discovered your forbidden knowledge and are forcing Jesus into narrower and narrower gaps. Macroevolution is just a figment, evolution is just microevolution, forever and ever.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
I'm starting to think you weren't kidding about your IQ.
I know how flight works. I understand aerodynamic principals, but that doesn't mean I can build a jet airliner or fly one. You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that macroevolution is just lots of microevolution, so it is not a separate process. Repeatedly asking us to explain it to you is just lame.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
Dredge writes: you can't describe the process involved in any of the macro-evolutionary transitions I mentioned? The process involved in evolutionary transitions is microevolution. You didn't "mention" any specific species transitions and you have been told, repeatedly, that there is no such process as macroevolution.
Dredge writes: Can you describe the process involved in any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record? No, because the process involved in evolutionary transition in the fossil record is microevolution.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024