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

[gfm7175]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Demonstrate it

I am sitting at my computer right now. I am thinking about how I barely got to work on time today due to bad traffic. I propose that, if I leave for work 5 minutes earlier than I currently do, I will arrive at work no less than 10 minutes earlier than I currently do because I will be beating most of the rush hour traffic in my area.

BAM! I have now demonstrated how a scientific theory (a falsifiable explanatory argument) can come from anywhere (well, at least from sitting in front of a computer)...

...deleted Argument of the Stone fallacy...

Yes it does and in many ways it's absolutely vital...deleted 'lack of intelligence' mantra

Argument of the Stone fallacy, but left it in for the sake of asking this follow up question... How specifically is supporting evidence "absolutely vital" to science? -- Keep in mind that science does not actually make use of supporting evidence...

Science is a method not a bookcase

Science is neither... science is a set of falsifiable theories.

But yes, the scientific method absolutely takes into account conflicting data...

Dismissed based on there being no definition nor description of what this "scientific method" is...

although Into The Night suggests you can never get conflicting data if you run the same test(s).

He suggests that because it's true... you can not get conflicting data if you run the same test(s).

In actual fact scientists are more interested in conflicting data...

They are ONLY interested in conflicting data...

scientists like to be proved wrong because it advances their/our knowledge

The green text is a paradox which you have made in the past and are still making... To argue rationally, you must clear this paradox.

Unlike religion of course - who refuse to be proved wrong. Indeed cannot be wrong.

Religion can not be proved wrong, nor can it be proved right.

A religion has evidence other than holy scripture ?

Yes, yes it does.

OK, go ahead and list a few evidences of the accuracy of Islam...or Hinduism...deleted snarky comment

This has been presented to you already.

How is that evidence that no god exists ?

If prayers aren't being answered, then it would seem that no god exists.

...deleted snarky comment...

In relation to what ?

A 'fact' is shorthand predicate; a predicate that is accepted by all parties. An argument consists of (a) predicate(s) and a conclusion.
If a 'fact' is not accepted by all parties, then that 'fact' returns to being an argument.

...deleted 'you're lying' mantra... deleted snarky comment...

Mostly they test hypotheses...some sometimes an accepted theory is called into doubt

They test falsifiable theories (against hypotheses)... and theories aren't "called into doubt"; they either remain in existence or they get utterly destroyed.

Not to those who believe

Religion can not be proved.

But for a rational man, there is such a need

False. A rational man recognizes the circular reasoning behind religion and believes in their religion based solely on faith. -- An irrational man tries to prove their religion or demands that someone else's religion be proven before they believe (they commit the circular reasoning fallacy).

Something you believe in the face of evidence ?

See above for the definition of a 'fact'...

Source ?

Philosophy.

Yes he is

No, he's not...

Correct dude

Here you attempt to clear your paradox, but the green text (as well as other places) have you holding onto both conflicting points... you need to clear this paradox.

Says who ?

Says yourself, in the green text and elsewhere. You need to clear your (at least three at this point) paradoxes before you can hold rational conversation.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

How so? How are they evidence, rather than a claim? Prove this statement.

See post #1995 that Into The Night made...


Edit: Also see his post #2000

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

See post #1995 that Into The Night made...


Edit: Also see his post #2000

I don't see how either of those posts makes sense at all.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

How so? How are they evidence, rather than a claim? Prove this statement.

Would he consider the Bhagavad Gita to be evidence?

 

[devildavid]

Re: Darwinism Descending

I am sitting at my computer right now. I am thinking about how I barely got to work on time today due to bad traffic. I propose that, if I leave for work 5 minutes earlier than I currently do, I will arrive at work no less than 10 minutes earlier than I currently do because I will be beating most of the rush hour traffic in my area.

BAM! I have now demonstrated how a scientific theory (a falsifiable explanatory argument) can come from anywhere (well, at least from sitting in front of a computer)...




Argument of the Stone fallacy, but left it in for the sake of asking this follow up question... How specifically is supporting evidence "absolutely vital" to science? -- Keep in mind that science does not actually make use of supporting evidence...


Science is neither... science is a set of falsifiable theories.


Dismissed based on there being no definition nor description of what this "scientific method" is...


He suggests that because it's true... you can not get conflicting data if you run the same test(s).


They are ONLY interested in conflicting data...


The green text is a paradox which you have made in the past and are still making... To argue rationally, you must clear this paradox.


Religion can not be proved wrong, nor can it be proved right.


Yes, yes it does.


This has been presented to you already.


If prayers aren't being answered, then it would seem that no god exists.




A 'fact' is shorthand predicate; a predicate that is accepted by all parties. An argument consists of (a) predicate(s) and a conclusion.
If a 'fact' is not accepted by all parties, then that 'fact' returns to being an argument.




They test falsifiable theories (against hypotheses)... and theories aren't "called into doubt"; they either remain in existence or they get utterly destroyed.


Religion can not be proved.


False. A rational man recognizes the circular reasoning behind religion and believes in their religion based solely on faith. -- An irrational man tries to prove their religion or demands that someone else's religion be proven before they believe (they commit the circular reasoning fallacy).


See above for the definition of a 'fact'...


Philosophy.


No, he's not...



Here you attempt to clear your paradox, but the green text (as well as other places) have you holding onto both conflicting points... you need to clear this paradox.


Says yourself, in the green text and elsewhere. You need to clear your (at least three at this point) paradoxes before you can hold rational conversation.

What is Philosophy?

 

[devildavid]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Those are evidence, not a claim. The biggest supporting evidence of creation is the Theory of Creation itself. That's all the supporting evidence you need.

Supporting evidence is not a proof.

The Theory of Creation states that life arrived here on Earth through the action of some kind of intelligence. Nothing specifies that intelligence has to be a god or gods, although many use that scenario for this theory.
The Theory of Abiogenesis states that life here on Earth originated from nonbiological materials as a result of a random series of unspecified events.

Neither theory is a theory of science. Both are nonscientific theories. Both are also religions. These two theories are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be True and they cannot both be False, given the predicate that the Earth had a beginning as fact.

A made up theory is not evidence of itself.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

I don't see how either of those posts makes sense at all.

Then your religion has blinded you from reason.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

A made up theory is not evidence of itself.

Yes it is.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

A religious book is only evidence that a human being wrote something. No book is evidence of anything other than that.

Nonsense. Once again, you haven't done your homework.

Science Speaks by Peter W. Stoner, Chapter 3, The Christ of Prophecy

 

[Quag]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Nonsense. Once again, you haven't done your homework.

Science Speaks by Peter W. Stoner, Chapter 3, The Christ of Prophecy

Well we know you havent

 

[devildavid]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Yes it is.

No it isn't.

 

[devildavid]

Re: Darwinism Descending

I am sitting at my computer right now. I am thinking about how I barely got to work on time today due to bad traffic. I propose that, if I leave for work 5 minutes earlier than I currently do, I will arrive at work no less than 10 minutes earlier than I currently do because I will be beating most of the rush hour traffic in my area.

BAM! I have now demonstrated how a scientific theory (a falsifiable explanatory argument) can come from anywhere (well, at least from sitting in front of a computer)...




Argument of the Stone fallacy, but left it in for the sake of asking this follow up question... How specifically is supporting evidence "absolutely vital" to science? -- Keep in mind that science does not actually make use of supporting evidence...


Science is neither... science is a set of falsifiable theories.


Dismissed based on there being no definition nor description of what this "scientific method" is...


He suggests that because it's true... you can not get conflicting data if you run the same test(s).


They are ONLY interested in conflicting data...


The green text is a paradox which you have made in the past and are still making... To argue rationally, you must clear this paradox.


Religion can not be proved wrong, nor can it be proved right.


Yes, yes it does.


This has been presented to you already.


If prayers aren't being answered, then it would seem that no god exists.




A 'fact' is shorthand predicate; a predicate that is accepted by all parties. An argument consists of (a) predicate(s) and a conclusion.
If a 'fact' is not accepted by all parties, then that 'fact' returns to being an argument.




They test falsifiable theories (against hypotheses)... and theories aren't "called into doubt"; they either remain in existence or they get utterly destroyed.


Religion can not be proved.


False. A rational man recognizes the circular reasoning behind religion and believes in their religion based solely on faith. -- An irrational man tries to prove their religion or demands that someone else's religion be proven before they believe (they commit the circular reasoning fallacy).


See above for the definition of a 'fact'...


Philosophy.


No, he's not...



Here you attempt to clear your paradox, but the green text (as well as other places) have you holding onto both conflicting points... you need to clear this paradox.


Says yourself, in the green text and elsewhere. You need to clear your (at least three at this point) paradoxes before you can hold rational conversation.

Your example of being late for work unwittingly demonstrates your use of the scientific method. You have a hypothesis that leaving 5 minutes earlier will cause you to avoid traffic. What you need to do is test that hypothesis by actually leaving 5 minutes earlier to see if it succeeds at getting you to work earlier. This is the part that you call falsifying but what it really is is testing the hypothesis for validity. Your data includes departure time and arrival time and amount of traffic. You measuring tool is a time piece. So you have not created a theory at all, what you have done is hypothesized based on observation and evidence. In fact , this will never really become a theory because its scope is much too narrow.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Well we know you havent

You know a lot that's not true.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Wrong. Into The Night knows the meanings of the words just fine. It is YOU (and unfortunately many many others, probably due to the fairly recent advances in technology (and the misguided acceptance of Wikipedia, the Google search bar, etc. as "the source of all knowledge" that has come with those advances)) who does not know the meanings...

A theory is an explanatory argument.
A hypothesis is a question that stems from existing theory....

Nope, scientific theory is not an explanatory argument.

A hypothesis does not come from established theory.


First you get an idea on how a natural mechanism works...then formulate a hypothesis.
After a lot of rigorous testing and global approval, it becomes theory.

This does not mean that it cannot be subsequently disproved.

...there needs to be an explanatory argument present BEFORE one can test the null hypothesis of said argument....

You absolutely have no idea what you're talking about - and just to show it, go ahead and give an example (scientific) hypothesis.

Why do you think there HAS to be a null hypothesis...do you even know what that means ?

 

[Quag]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

You know a lot that's not true.

The irony

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending

I'm really trying to keep your nonsense to a minimum.

....since you haven't defined 'collate'. I will assume you mean 'analyze' instead....

No, collate.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/collate

...yes it is. It describes why you will get to work 15 minutes earlier. It's an explanatory argument....

No it's not - it's just a wild idea with no basis in reality

It doesn't describe WHY, rather IF. It has no supporting evidence

It is not an argument at all...and it certainly explains nothing - because there is nothing to explain....because I have no data.
It is just a wild idea....now YOU might call that a theory, many people do as the word has come to mean that in everyday speak...but it's not scientific and not a use that a scientist would use when describing "theory"

...it's still a theory...

No it's not...it's an idea that you are calling a theory in a non-scientific context.
If you wish speak in a non-scientific terms - DON'T SPEAK ABOUT SCIENCE ABOUT WHICH YOU KNOW NOTHING.

...sounds like you are doing a lot of tests to see if your the theory is false. You are testing the null hypothesis with this research....

What anything "sounds like" to you is meaningless since you don't know what theory means.
Nor do you know what a hypothesis is - null or otherwise.

...you already HAD that theory. Nothing has changed. It is not a hypothesis. It is the SAME THEORY....

No I didn't. I never had a theory just an idea with nothing to base it on.
You call it a theory because in everyday speak people do, but it only shows you complete lack of understanding when it comes to science.

...you now have a theory of science....

Nope

...no theory is ever proven. I have never said any theory is proven. I have said quite the opposite. Pay attention.....

You said if you perform the same test, you will get the same result - did you not?

Pay attention to what you said.

If you guarantee to get the same result, isn't that proof you were right ?

Except you aren't guaranteed to get the same results - which is why scientists around the world repeat experiments to see if the results are CONSISTENT.

...you can't. You don't have control over the other cars, the roadway surface, the weather, etc....

EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!

...oh well. The theory has now been falsified. It is utterly destroyed....

There was NO theory just a wild idea I had...

That's not to say there isn't any truth in it. To you it's utterly destroyed and would that mean not worthy of further investigation ????

...the theory is utterly destroyed. You will have to create a new theory.....

There was no theory.

You do not understand the word when used in a scientific context.

You are using the word "theory" in the same way as you use the word "idea".

To you they're the same - to a scientist there are completely different.

...it was not possible to repeat the test....

Obviously it was...and is.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending

*****

NOTE: some random notion you get...like thinking you can hold on to 1,000 helium filled party balloons, jump of the top of a building a float is an idea: (and a wild one at that.

In popular use, people are prone to call this a "theory"

This is not the same use or meaning at all as a scientific THEORY such as the theory of gravity, evolution or relativity.
Scientific theory have gone through an exhaustive process of verification, evaluation, confirmation and ultimately acceptance.

*****

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Those are the claims. .. Evidence is not a claim.

They are evidence

They are historical documents and therefore evidence.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending

You haven't described what this 'method' is...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

...religion uses supporting evidence. Science does not. Science is not a 'method'....

Like what supporting evidence for religion ?
Like what evidence at all save for holy scripture ?

Science absolutely use evidence, both supporting and conflicting

...so you don't know. You are just claiming a vague 'minimum'...

Giving any number in this context is meaningless...you may as well ask how many pages must a book have

...because the conditions are exactly the same....

How do you know ?

...you have not demonstrated anything....

More correctly, you have not understood anything

...a theory is an explanatory argument...

See post 2017

...it can. So can theories....

See post 2017

...not an answer. What makes one of your 'hypothesis' a 'theory'? Who decides that? What elite voting bloc has this great power?

See post 2017

...a theory is an explanatory argument....

See post 2017

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

They are evidence

They are historical documents and therefore evidence.

They are religious documents , but not 'historical documents'. They are historical in so far as they are old and cultural,.. not that they are historically accurate.

And that IS the claim, not the evidence.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending

....science is a set of falsifiable theories....

It is much more than that

But you just don't understand

Science is a body of knowledge
Science has formulated theories and laws that are believed to be correct on the basis of out accumulated knowlledge
Science is above all, a method

...not according to you....

Absolutely it does

Conflicting and supporting data....you are not reading. Pay attention and at least try to understand. That's if you're actually interested in understanding this. Which I'd have to say you don't show any inclination to do so.

...that's right. You won't...

Yes you can get different results (data) running the same test.

EG: Leave for work 5 mins early get to work 15 mins early
Day two leave for work 5 mins early, get to work 7 mins early

Same test, different results.

...you have already made this paradox. Which is it, dude?

I'm only responsible for what I say, not what you understand or fail to understand.

...no religion can be proved wrong. No religion can be proved right...

OK...but wouldn't a second coming of Jesus tend to make people lean towards believing in him ?
IDK

Tell us your thoughts.

...yup....

Go ahead and reveal your evidence then

...I'll just reiterate a few of them. That there are believers. They have both built shrines and temples. They both bring their believers an inner peace. Both religions provide wisdom.

So you now admit to not understanding the meaning of the word "evidence".

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending

You obviously don't, since you are not defining them....

Collate:


https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/collate


It's in English, please advise which words you don't understand.

...a theory is an explanatory argument....

See post 2017

...you presented a theory. It was even a theory of science until you falsified it.

See post 2017

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending

There is no Quantum Theory of Gravity...

Not yet, no.

...Gravity is a fundamental force, not a theory.

Newton came up with a theory of Gravity, this has been superseded by Einstein's theory of Relativity.

https://www.space.com/41077-einstein-general-relativity-survives-test.html


The theory of Gravity...and Relativity didn't/don't seek to prove Gravity exists, they sought/seek to explain how it works.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Yes, it is... Yes, it does....

What ?

...what it is inspired by is irrelevant...

Possibly but erroneously calling an idea a "theory" in a scientific context is relevant

...irrelevant....

Part of the process...it's irrelevant if you don't believe/understand.

...you've already said this...

Then hopefully you might start getting it ?
See post 2017

...no, they simply haven't been falsified as of yet....theory holds if it hasn't yet been falsified....

See post 2017

...it doesn't matter what sense you are talking about... Science doesn't define words...

People define words

And the word "theory" has a specific meaning in a scientific contact that you and Into The Night do not/refuse to understand

See post 2017

...a theory is an explanatory argument....

See post 2017

 

[Somerville]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Present one shred of evidence for creationism.

The Bible

The Torah

The Koran.

They are evidence

They are historical documents and therefore evidence.

Those are the claims. .. Evidence is not a claim.

No, those books are all evidences.

They are evidence

They are historical documents and therefore evidence.

I will agree that the holy texts are "historical documents" and that they do provide "evidence"; however, they do not supply any evidence for the creation of the universe or to support the creationists claim that an intelligent being created the first plants and animals, including humans. They only provide evidence related to the historical events and societies in which the texts were created - nothing more. And, much of the 'history' found in the three books has been refuted by archaeological findings.