Originally posted by telerionI don't believe in creation "science" any more than I believe that evolutionism is a "science." However, the creation sciencists have made predictions that were later observed that support some biblical events.
Still waiting for you to present the creation science.
Originally posted by ColettiYou haven't the slightest idea what science is.
I don't believe in creation "science" any more than I believe that evolutionism is a "science." However, the creation sciencists have made predictions that were later observed that support some biblical events.
and there is no such thing as a creation scientist,, just crackpots
Originally posted by ColettiStill waiting for you to present some creation science. Or maybe even some ID science.
I don't believe in creation "science" any more than I believe that evolutionism is a "science." However, the creation sciencists have made predictions that were later observed that support some biblical events.
Why isn't evolution science again? Was it because macroevolution hasn't been observed or reproduced to what is in your opinion the sufficient bound to go beyond microevolution?
Certainly evolutionary theory produces empirically testable hypotheses. That seems like science to me (i.e. the search for knowledge through hypothesis testing by means of empirical observation). You have argued that the hypothesis can't be falsified, but I don't see any reason to believe that. The theory of evolution is about 140 years old; and it has been tested and has been confirmed so many times and by so many independent means and methods that it is very, very hard to overturn it now.
Today, scientists are making new predictions based on evolutionary theory. Some hypotheses are affirmed and some are rejected by the data. This doesn't mean that when one hypothesis fails that you throw out the baby with the bath water and reject evolutionary theory itself. Now if there were many many occurences of evolution not fitting the data in cases where the theory says that it should, then it certainly would need to be amended, augmented, or perhaps even rejected.
I imagine that if this ever occurs it will be like what happened to classical physics in the years before general relativity and quantum mechanics. The formulas worked great as long as things didn't get too big or too small. As scientists explored these regions however it become clear that new theory needed to be laid down. Nevertheless, even today we do not reject classical physics. Far from it in fact. It serves its purpose quit well on certain scales.
Right now though there is just too much evidence to call for a wide-spread sacking of evolutionary theory, and the YEC's and ID'er's have nothing to stand on but veiled pleas to religion. What was it I heard? The last great discoveries of Young Earth Creationists and Intelligent Design believers was that the earth was over 4 billion years old and that all species of life descended from a common or a few common ancestors.
Originally posted by telerionThe data that supports TOE is similar to random points. Anyone can draw a "tree" that will connect those points. And when evolutionist get a point that does not fit the current tree - they redraw the tree. The TOE is so loosely defined, that the tree can be drawn anyway the random points show up. And when an occasional point falls on a branch - it called proof of TOE.
Still waiting for you to present some creation science. Or maybe even some ID science.
Why isn't evolution science again? Was it because macroevolution hasn't been observed or reproduced to what is in your opinion the sufficient bound to go beyond microevolution?
Certainly evolutionary theory produces empirically testable hypotheses. That seems ...[text shortened]... illion years old and that all species of life descended from a common or a few common ancestors.
One thing that makes it remarkably different from theories in physics - is you can not define an equation for the tree. By making TOE so broad, and impossible to describe mathematically - it can is not falsifiable. TOE believers can always say the data fits the theory.
For all 140 years the TOE has been disputed - where theories in physical like relativity, quantum theories have been accepted. That is because one is good science, and the other is poor science. If TOE was so solid, there would be not be 140 years of debate.
Originally posted by ColettiThere is no scientific debate about the TOE anymore and hasn't been for a hundred years. It is accepted as scientific fact that life on Earth as evolved and changed in a process lasting billions of years. Only crackpots and religious fundamentalists who insist that the stories in Genesis be taken as literal truth have a problem with the TOE. What processes led to evolution is still being actively investigated but the TOE itself is no longer disputed by any serious scientist, at least on scientific grounds. All theories are constantly being tested against new data; the fact is that many explanations of physics accepted in the early 1900's aren't accepted anymore. But fortunately few nutjobs insist that black holes can't exist because they aren't in the Bible, but unfortunately people of limited intelligence like yourself will say over and over again that evolution isn't a proven scientific fact, with the same degree of proof as quantum mechanics or Einstein's Theory of relativity, when it is. That is your loss; now go figure out how ALL the animals got on the Ark, will ya? And, as always when you write something about science, I'm:
The data that supports TOE is similar to random points. Anyone can draw a "tree" that will connect those points. And when evolutionist get a point that does not fit the current tree - they redraw the tree. The TOE is so loosely defined, that the tree can be drawn anyway the random points show up. And when an occasional point falls on a branch - it call ...[text shortened]... and the other is poor science. If TOE was so solid, there would be not be 140 years of debate.
LMFAO!!
Originally posted by ColettiI hadn't noticed that the eruption of Mt. St. Helen's was a flood. Any geologist will tell you that there is ZERO evidence for a world wide flood in the last 10,000 years or EVER for that matter. This post ranks among your stupidest ever and again when you write something concerning science, I'm:
Petrified trees, how they are oriented, the way they penetrate through layers of soil - details were predicted to be cause by a cataclysmic flood event. The predictions were confirmed by the Mt St. Helen's eruption.
LMFAO!!
Originally posted by Colettiplease explain:
Petrified trees, how they are oriented, the way they penetrate through layers of soil - details were predicted to be cause by a cataclysmic flood event. The predictions were confirmed by the Mt St. Helen's eruption.
1) how petrified trees penetrating layers of soil has any connection with any kind of flood.
2) how did that volcanic explosion confirm any thing other than the predictions of geologists and Harry Truman ought to have listened to the geologists.
Originally posted by no1marauderI had to watch the Mt. St. Helen's video every year in my first high school (an xtian one). Fortunately, I got out that crap hole.
I hadn't noticed that the eruption of Mt. St. Helen's was a flood. Any geologist will tell you that there is ZERO evidence for a world wide flood in the last 10,000 years or EVER for that matter. This post ranks among your stupidest ever and again when you write something concerning science, I'm:
LMFAO!!
Originally posted by Coletti
The data that supports TOE is similar to random points.
No. They are driven by a data generating mechanism. You can model them as random if you wish. Essentially this is what a creationist must do, as everything thing in nature is simply the whim of an omnipotent god and thus nothing in nature is necessarily conditioned by something else in nature.
The TOE was originally hypothesized to fit certain rough empirical observation. After discovering the hypothesis, Darwin tested it more rigorously. Then it was challenged, naturally by YEC's and the like (nearly everyone was a YEC/ID person then). Nevertheless, discoveries in geology, paleantology, astronomy, and genetics provided a myriad of information sets to test evolution. Evolution was continually supported by the evidence.
This need not have been the case. If for example geology and astronomy had discovered that the universe and the earth were only a few thousand years old, then evolution would be rejected because evolution requires far more time. If paleantologists repeatedly found fossils of the same species throughout the soil layer so that a dinosaur dig often turned up say a squirrel or maybe a trilobite, then this would discredit evolution since it would suggest that the diverse organisms had all lived contemporaneously. Finally, if genetics had discovered that apes and humans were not very similar genetically at all (say 30% or even 70😵 then this would be very problematic for evolution since descent with modification occurs through the genes.
Of course, nothing like this has happened, and it is not as though all these scientists made sure that there discoveries confired the theory of evolution before they published their results (your redrawing accusation). They had no need to. Independent observations in these areas fit pretty damn well with the TOE. Naturally, the theory has been refined because additional information should produce better theory; however, the components of the theory which conservative religious literalists find so objectionable (old earth, relatedness of all species) have never encountered any serious dilemma with regards to the empirical observation.
And when evolutionist get a point that does not fit the current tree - they redraw the tree. The TOE is so loosely defined, that the tree can be drawn anyway the random points show up. And when an occasional point falls on a branch - it called proof of TOE.
Again this is another blatant mischaracterization. The tree is not evolutionary theory itself. The tree is an attempt to reconstruct the history of which organisms descended from other organisms based upon empirical observation. The very fact that a tree-like structure emerges is excellent evidence for evolution. It isn't like you can draw humans at the base and then reptiles in the middle and trilobites at the ends of the branches. The points do not form some amorphous blob. There is clear direction.
Of course, with more discoveries some hypotheses about which organism came before another are rejected. This is normal; this is science. That's not the same thing however as the whole trunk of the tree shifting or shrinking, or the tree being turned upside down or sideways.
It is religion that demands all empirical observation conform to its doctrine; science conforms to empirical observation.
One thing that makes it remarkably different from theories in physics - is you can not define an equation for the tree. By making TOE so broad, and impossible to describe mathematically - it can is not falsifiable. TOE believers can always say the data fits the theory.
No, they can't. I have already provided plenty of examples of how the theory could be falsified in this post. Actually, the tree that is formed from the observations rests upon mathematics. Given some statistical measure of the uncertainty surrounding the date of different fossils in different locations, one can assign a time period (or band) to an individual species at some confidence level. These bands can then be laid over one another. Measurements of morphological characteristics can also be used to chart the development of branches within a statistical framework. And of course we can create simulated models which do have explicit equations to mimic evolutionary mechanisms.
For all 140 years the TOE has been disputed - where theories in physical like relativity, quantum theories have been accepted.
That's ridiculous. QT is not more accepted than evolution. There are still plenty of controversies with QT. Yes, evolution was disputed upon scientific grounds for a while. Then it became the accepted hypothesis and finally the theory. Today it is only disputed by religious fundamentalist (literalist Muslims, literalist xtians, and the Raelians), and they only object for religous reasons.