Evolution and the Scientific Method
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-10-2017, 10:39 AM
RE: Evolution and the Scientific Method
(15-10-2017 10:34 AM)jennybee Wrote:  
(15-10-2017 09:32 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  All what he presents is crap cause source of his "citations" is his ass I'm afraid.



Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

He'll bring in his Christian "scientists." The ones with a hidden agenda, no peer-reviewed articles, and a limited background in actual science.

Well then at least it will be a well researched position! Thumbsup

I don't know what kind of scholarly journals publish the work of Christian scientists, but I'd be interested to learn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2017, 10:41 AM
RE: Evolution and the Scientific Method
(15-10-2017 10:35 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(15-10-2017 10:24 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Lols Aliza, great posts but I'm afraid you will have to wait until Eagles gods hell freezes over before you get a response as I said before this troll wouldn't know science if it fucked him in the mouth.

But.... he's a real scientist.

Of course he is Drinking Beverage

[Image: tenor.gif]

Tongue

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like jennybee's post
15-10-2017, 11:35 AM (This post was last modified: 15-10-2017 11:39 AM by adey67.)
RE: Evolution and the Scientific Method
(15-10-2017 10:35 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(15-10-2017 10:24 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Lols Aliza, great posts but I'm afraid you will have to wait until Eagles gods hell freezes over before you get a response as I said before this troll wouldn't know science if it fucked him in the mouth.

But.... he's a real scientist. He said so. If he can prove what he's saying, then there may be a Noble prize in his future! It's our duty to help him whittle down his hypothesis so it can be presented to the science community and he can collect his Nobel.

Really, though the first step is for Eagle to present information that can be reviewed.

Nope, he's a lame assed kid in his moms basement mentally and probably physically jacking off to his troll posts. Drinking Beverage You want proof? Well look at our jenny she has the picture and normally she doesn't get involved in this shit. (I know you are kidding too..im just jiviing with you girl) Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2017, 11:40 AM
RE: Evolution and the Scientific Method
Quote:That's because evolution is a belief, it is NOT science.

It's SO hilarious ... a person of faith, disparaging faith over science.
Faith is one of the gifts of the Spirit, according to his cult.
According to them, it's a good thing to have.
And here we have titmouse talking as though faith is a bad thing.

Laugh out load

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
15-10-2017, 12:25 PM
Evolution and the Scientific Method
(15-10-2017 11:40 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's SO hilarious ... a person of faith, disparaging faith over science.
Faith is one of the gifts of the Spirit, according to his cult.
According to them, it's a good thing to have.
And here we have titmouse talking as though faith is a bad thing.

Laugh out load


I’ve noticed that too. Whenever they want to insult an atheist, they trot out the old canard “atheism is a religion.” A bit of self-loathing in action?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Rachel's post
15-10-2017, 02:49 PM (This post was last modified: 15-10-2017 02:53 PM by Rachel.)
Evolution and the Scientific Method
Since Eagle seems unable or unwilling to grasp exactly what a scientific theory is, maybe he would benefit from the explanation by Stephen Jay Gould, from a longer essay:

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Rachel's post
15-10-2017, 03:38 PM
RE: Evolution and the Scientific Method
He's a fucking moron who knows nothing about either science or the Word. Fucking poser.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
15-10-2017, 03:40 PM
RE: Evolution and the Scientific Method
(15-10-2017 03:38 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  He's a fucking moron who knows nothing about either science or the Word. Fucking poser.

He's sitting on a gold mine of knowledge. It's just a matter of time before you're eating crow and congratulating him on his Nobel prize.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
15-10-2017, 03:57 PM
RE: Evolution and the Scientific Method
(15-10-2017 03:45 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(14-10-2017 08:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  There are ring species which demonstrate the continuum between those species.
Not sure if this article is true or not, but there might not be any ring species.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...g-species/


and corroborated by
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larus#Ring_species
Quote:However, a recent genetic study has shown that this example is far more complicated than presented here, and probably does not constitute a true ring species

Thanks for the links.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2017, 04:08 PM
RE: Evolution and the Scientific Method
(15-10-2017 10:39 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Well then at least it will be a well researched position! Thumbsup

I don't know what kind of scholarly journals publish the work of Christian scientists, but I'd be interested to learn.

Aside from famous geneticists like Francis Collins (a Christian who thinks Creationism is bullshit)? Wink Personal guess on his Creationist scientific articles being published on something? One of their "scientific" journals.

Ken Ham has the Answers Research Journal. And then there's also the "Journal of Creation". Both claim to be peer reviewed, but I'm massively a bit skeptical...

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: