• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:381:2733***]Darwinism Descending

Re: Darwinism Descending

Dittohead not! said:
Scientific theories have to make falsifiable predictions.
Click to expand...
Science is incapable of the power of prediction. That power only exists in a closed system, such as mathematics or logic. Science is an open system. Any theory of science must turn to a closed system to gain the power of prediction. That conversion into mathematics or logic of any theory of science is called 'formalizing' a theory. The formalized version is often called a 'law'.
Dittohead not! said:
I've already shown you how that applies to the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...
There is no math equation for the Theory of Evolution. There is not logic equation for the theory of Evolution either. Predictions outside of closed systems are from prophets and seers.
Dittohead not! said:
Plus, evolution makes the prediction that a species isolated from its kind in one way or another begins to change and become different from the rest of the same species.
Click to expand...
If this is what you based the Theory of Evolution on, it has already been falsified by your own lack of definition. What is 'isolation'? How long must it last?
Dittohead not! said:
For example: Some of the steelhead trout that ascended the rivers of North America for thousands of years were cut off from the rest of the species by glaciers during the last ice age. Some of them remained in the waters of the High Sierra in California. The result was this:

...deleted Holy Image of a rather pretty fish...

Pretty, isn't it? It's the California Golden Trout.

There are, of course, many examples of the same thing. That's one of them.
Click to expand...
While a rather pretty fish, it does not prove or disprove anything.
Dittohead not! said:
Had there not been changes in the population that was cut off from the rest, that would have falsified the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...
Not at all. It simply means nothing happened in that case.
Dittohead not! said:
Since there were, it confirmed it.
Click to expand...
No theory is ever proven. Nothing even says that this particular variety of fish evolved as you claimed or for the reasons you claim occurred. That is all just speculation.
There is no supporting evidence that will prove, bless, sanctify, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory. Supporting evidence is not used in science. Only conflicting evidence is used in science. Science has no proofs.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Angel said:
Allowing that "proved wrong" is the right phrase here, it was "natural philosophers," as they were then called, who were tasked with uncovering "God's works," whereas the theologians were tasked with uncovering "God's words." What does any of this have to do with Jastrow's apothegm?
Click to expand...

Did you think using an obscure phrase makes you sound as if you know what you're talking about?

You clearly don't
 
Re: Darwinism Descending

Into the Night said:
Yes there is. The Theory of Creation states that life arrived on Earth through the action of an intelligence.

It is not a theory of science. It is about a past unobserved event. There is no available test of the null hypothesis of that theory.
A god or gods is not required to be the creator for the Theory of Creation either.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "theory of creation."
 
Re: Darwinism Descending

Into the Night said:
Not at all.

Agreed.

Supporting evidence is not used in science. No theory of science contains supporting evidence as part of that theory.

No, it isn't. There is no way to go back to actually see what happened.

That does not test the null hypothesis of the Theory of Evolution.

No, a fact is an assumed predicate.

Not a fact. An argument.

Just like many arguments.

No, it is a subjective statement. It is not quantifiable.

There is no True or False condition for a subjective statement.

WRONG. A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. An 'educated guess' is a theory (if it tries to explain something). Hypothesis stem from existing theories. An example is the null hypothesis.

WRONG. Any new piece of conflicting evidence can falsify a theory of science. Nonscientific theories are not falsifiable.
Click to expand...

There is so much nonsense above that it's not worth addressing it. I will, instead, just concentrate on the most obviously wrong bit of foolishness:
Supporting evidence is not used in science. No theory of science contains supporting evidence as part of that theory.
Click to expand...

What in the name of Gaea and Allah do you think supports any scientific theory?

Is that why you think there is a "theory of creation," because there is no supporting evidence for it at all?
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Dittohead not! said:
Did you think using an obscure phrase makes you sound as if you know what you're talking about?

You clearly don't
Click to expand...
What phrase in my post is obscure to you? Or are you hoping that an obscure reference might serve your purposes? Speaking of obscurities, what are your purposes in these posts anyway?
 
Re: Darwinism Descending

Dittohead not! said:
LOL! Yes, you can "prove" almost anything by citing the right site on the internet.

For example:

The Earth is flat

Demons, not pathogens, cause human illnesses


Anything else I can "prove" for you? Vaccines cause autism? Chemtrails are real? Donald Trump is sane? Any other absurd ideas you'd like proven?
Click to expand...

You're the one who said there's no such thing, not me...moral of this story, be careful what you claim on the net...:roll:
 
Re: Darwinism Descending

Elvira said:
You're the one who said there's no such thing, not me...moral of this story, be careful what you claim on the net...:roll:
Click to expand...

Right, right, there really is a "theory of creationism," along with a flat Earth theory, and a theory that evil spirits cause diseases. All of them are equally supported by fact and logic.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending

Saying that a god did it can hardly be called a theory.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending

Dittohead not! said:
Right, right, there really is a "theory of creationism," along with a flat Earth theory, and a theory that evil spirits cause diseases. All of them are equally supported by fact and logic.
Click to expand...
There's also literary theory, social theory, chess theory, game theory, and so on. Why does this come as a surprise to you?
 
Re: Darwinism Descending

Angel said:
There's also literary theory, social theory, chess theory, game theory, and so on. Why does this come as a surprise to you?
Click to expand...

and there are scientific theories.

Evolution is one.
The germ theory of disease is one.
relativity is one.

Creationism is not one.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending

Here is an interesting article on the subject.

Evolution, Pence argues, is a theory, theories are uncertain, therefore evolution is uncertain. But evolution is a theory only in the scientific sense of the word. And in the words of the National Academy of Sciences, “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” Attaching this label to evolution is an indicator of strength, not weakness.

If you take this approach, you have failed to understand the purpose of Pence’s rhetoric, or why it is so appealing to creationists. Pence is an accomplished politician, and knows exactly how to appeal to his intended audience. He is also an accomplished trial lawyer, which makes him a conjurer with words, and like any skillful conjurer he has pulled off his trick by distraction. Pence has drawn us into a discussion about words, when our focus should be on the evidence.

https://theconversation.com/how-to-...hen-it-comes-to-the-theory-of-evolution-81581
 
Re: Darwinism Descending

zyzygy said:
Here is an interesting article on the subject.

Evolution, Pence argues, is a theory, theories are uncertain, therefore evolution is uncertain. But evolution is a theory only in the scientific sense of the word. And in the words of the National Academy of Sciences, “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” Attaching this label to evolution is an indicator of strength, not weakness.

If you take this approach, you have failed to understand the purpose of Pence’s rhetoric, or why it is so appealing to creationists. Pence is an accomplished politician, and knows exactly how to appeal to his intended audience. He is also an accomplished trial lawyer, which makes him a conjurer with words, and like any skillful conjurer he has pulled off his trick by distraction. Pence has drawn us into a discussion about words, when our focus should be on the evidence.

https://theconversation.com/how-to-...hen-it-comes-to-the-theory-of-evolution-81581
Click to expand...
Interpretation of evidence is theory-laden. Indeed, the identification of evidence qua evidence is theory-laden. You evolutionists are spinning your wheels while imagining yourselves speeding round the track toward a finish line you haven't gotten nearer by an inch.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending

Here's a fun one on natural selection at work. Fun, that is, as long as you aren't a lizard.

https://earther.gizmodo.com/scientists-terrorized-lizards-with-a-leaf-blower-to-stu-1827873907
or
https://www.axios.com/hurricanes-ac...rds-fa98a94e-0f48-46fe-80d9-3d3c6e297120.html

A team of researchers surveyed Anolis scriptus lizards on two islands, and by coincidence the islands were hit by two massive hurricanes just a few weeks later. The researchers went back, and found that the lizards which survived had larger front pads and front arms, and shorter rear legs. They hypothesized that these adaptations allowed them to grip onto perches longer, a theory they tested by blasting the poor lizards with leaf blowers, while they clung onto a pole. Hypothesis confirmed. Seeing the change on both islands, both hit equally by the storms, confirmed that the hurricanes exerted a selective pressure on the lizards. This in turn may explain some differences between these types of lizards in different areas.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending

Into the Night said:
The Theory of Creation states that life arrived on Earth through the action of an intelligence.

It is not a theory of science. It is about a past unobserved event. There is no available test of the null hypothesis of that theory.

You may choose to not believe it. I have no problem with that. Realize, however, that the Theory of Abiogenesis is also not falsifiable and not a theory of science for exactly the same reason.

Both theories remain circular argument, or arguments of faith. Both theories have other arguments extending from them. Both are religions.
Click to expand...

Arrived on Earth, ok. What about evolution? Are you saying that evolution does not exist?
 
Re: Darwinism Descending

Into the Night said:
Yes there is. The Theory of Creation states that life arrived on Earth through the action of an intelligence.

It is not a theory of science. It is about a past unobserved event. There is no available test of the null hypothesis of that theory.
A god or gods is not required to be the creator for the Theory of Creation either.
Click to expand...
In what form did this life arrive on Earth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom