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

[RAMOSS]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Go tell it to your barber.

I am pointing it out here... so people can make their own evalutations.

 

[Angel]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Of course, the physics article in the peer reviewed scientific journal says no such thing.. but that doesn't stop Logicman from making that claim.

I am pointing it out here... so people can make their own evalutations.

Stop projecting, man!
Not everyone is a science toady.
Some of us are still capable of independent thought.

Namaste

 

[devildavid]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Stop projecting, man!
Not everyone is a science toady.
Some of us are still capable of independent thought.

Namaste

Some people are religion toadies. And some are horned toadies.

 

[Angel]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Some people are religion toadies. And some are horned toadies.

But only one Toady Fields.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Space, time, and the universe had a beginning. And you folks still have no clue about the first cause of all that.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” ― Former NASA Scientist Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

What that scientist really found was a bunch of theologians arguing that the Earth is the center of the universe.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Darwinism Descending

What that scientist really found was a bunch of theologians arguing that the Earth is the center of the universe.

Nope, that's what atheists want to believe theologians think.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Nope, that's what atheists want to believe theologians think.

It is exactly what theologians thought before the scientific proof to the contrary became so overwhelming that it could no longer be denied.

 

[Angel]

Re: Darwinism Descending

It is exactly what theologians thought before the scientific proof to the contrary became so overwhelming that it could no longer be denied.

It's exactly what scientists thought too before the new paradigm was accepted.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Darwinism Descending

It's exactly what scientists thought too before the new paradigm was accepted.

and who proved it wrong, theologians or scientists?

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

If there was, he'd be able to provide a consilient body of facts and knowledge to support it.

Same evidence, different interpretation is my bet for the next response.

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.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Space, time, and the universe had a beginning. And you folks still have no clue about the first cause of all that.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” ― Former NASA Scientist Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

Did it? How do you know it began at all? It might have always been here, and will always be.

The Theory of the Big Bang is not a theory of science. It is not falsifiable. It might have been that way, it might not. We don't know.

 

[Angel]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

and who proved it wrong, theologians or scientists?

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?

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Find a mouse with featers and evolution falls down.

Not at all. We simply would call it a bird, not a mouse.

Find a vertibrate with insect eyes and evolution falls down.

Not at all. It would simply result in a new theory about how the eye developed.

Evolution is very falsifiable.

Evolution is not even a theory. It's a word describing 'change', usually over a long period of time.
The Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable. It is not science.

Evolution and natural selection are the same theory.

WRONG.
The Theory of Evolution states that present life is the result of more primitive life mutating over time.

The Theory of Natural Selection states than an organism exists because it is best suited to exist.

They are not the same theory. The Theory of Natural Selection was a theory of science until it was falsified.
The Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable. It was never and never will be a theory of science. It is about a past unobserved event. It is not falsifiable. It will never be possible to test this theory false.

Neither has any evidence that they are at all wrong.

I am not arguing the Theory of Evolution is wrong, merely that it is not a theory of science.
The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. It is wrong.

Obviously not complete is not wrong and finding that some animals have been put into the wrong classification due to selection giving them the same outward appearance and t not being obvious untill DNA information has come along that they have evolved from a different line does not make the whole thing fall down.

I am not arguing that the Theory of Evolution is wrong.

You have no clue.

You are not paying attention.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

I’ll start this list with a classic example of evolution which can be found in many textbooks. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths (Biston betularia) had a light, mottled coloring which was a good camouflage against predators. Before the industrial revolution, a uniformly dark variant of the peppered moth made up 2% of the species. After the industrial revolution, 95% of peppered moths showed this dark coloration. The best explanation as to why this change in the species occurred is that the light moths lost their advantage of camouflage as light surfaces were darkened by pollution, and so light moths were eaten more frequently by birds. The peppered moth as an example of evolution has been attacked recently, usually as to the cause of the shift in coloration, but the example still stands as a major shift in a species caused by mutations leading to variation and natural selection.

https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

One nerve cell that is receptive to light and when it is dark the coral feels something like pain. Thus ducks. Fairlly easy.

That is a complex structure.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

The one hand clapping thing is something within physics that you have no clue about. It is not philosophy but the result of experimentation with the very very tiny and high energy where events happen with seemingly an inbalance of energy and momentum. The "Where is the rest of it" question.

Hilarious! Physics describes the sound of one hand clapping??? :lamo

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

You don't know what philosophy is, you do fake science and philosophy..

History of Ideas (2 semester class)
Phil 101
Modern Philosophy

Philosophy isn't defined by a college course! :lamo

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

You forgot science.

Not at all.

General scientific illiteracy is what keeps the debate about evolution going.

Agreed.

There is no debate among people who understand what a scientific theory
is and what the overwhelming body of evidence supporting it is.

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

You're the one who keeps saying that a theory has to be falsifiable. The theory of evolution is falsifiable,

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

but only should some rather unlikely evidence come to the surface.

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

Anyway, a fact is falsifiable.

No, a fact is an assumed predicate.

It's raining today is a fact.

Not a fact. An argument.

Look out the window, and you can either confirm it, or falsify it.

Just like many arguments.

It rains a lot here in December is an opinion.

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

Even a dry December doesn't falsify it, just makes one wonder if it's true or not.

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

An hypothesis is an educated guess that fits all of the known facts.
Once an hypothesis is tested by several people, once experimentation proves it correct, then and only then does it become a theory.

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.

Once it's a theory, it can still be disproved, but only with previously unknown facts.

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

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

There is no such thing as a "theory of creation."

Moreover, the existence or non existence of a creator does not affect the theory of evolution.

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.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Quite right. It's a fairy story about creation and not a theory.

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.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

I chose just one of your wonderful, wonderfully sensible posts just to get your attention.
"Into the Night" is kicking ass and taking names!
And "Angel" is enjoying the show.
Keep on keepin' on.

*humble bow*

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Fakes of a feather flock together.

What can did you open to drag that old cliche out of?

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

None of you have the slightest clue. None at all.

Another thought terminating cliche fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

You are wrong.

....and?:doh

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

And they couldn't win an ass kicking contest with a one-legged man.

Oooo. Another cliche!