PDA

View Full Version : Christians are anti-science.



Pages : [1] 2

Grugore
09-20-2018, 01:56 PM
You see this a lot on the forums. Some ignorant, hateful atheist claiming that Christians don't believe in science or are scientifically illiterate.
Guess again.
In the last 100 years

Nobel prizes:

Chemistry: 72.5 percent were awarded to Christians
Physics: 62 percent were awarded to Christians.
Medicine/Physiology: 54 percent were awarded to Christians.

A very small percentage were awarded to non-Theists.

Any questions?

evince
09-20-2018, 01:59 PM
I don't see people say that


I see them say right wing republicans who claim Christianity are anti sceince

evince
09-20-2018, 01:59 PM
so you lied

lying is against your religion right?

Jade Dragon
09-20-2018, 02:00 PM
That's creationists that seem to be anti-science, not Christians as a whole.

evince
09-20-2018, 02:22 PM
its republicans who claim Christianity



my christian friends are fine with science

mak2
09-20-2018, 03:30 PM
I am a Christian and I believe God gave us science to understand our world. American far right wing conservobots are the problem.

Fentoine Lum
09-20-2018, 03:32 PM
I am a Christian and I believe God gave us science to understand our world. American far right wing conservobots are the problem.

Yup, some may be, certainly not all.

It's always the frenetic rabid frothy-mouthed fundamentalists of a given religous stripe; they utterly miss the concept of spirituality and the connectedness of everything.

domer76
09-20-2018, 05:19 PM
You see this a lot on the forums. Some ignorant, hateful atheist claiming that Christians don't believe in science or are scientifically illiterate.
Guess again.
In the last 100 years

Nobel prizes:

Chemistry: 72.5 percent were awarded to Christians
Physics: 62 percent were awarded to Christians.
Medicine/Physiology: 54 percent were awarded to Christians.

A very small percentage were awarded to non-Theists.

Any questions?

How many were evangelical, fundamentalist and/or creationists?

How many believed in the horseshit you offer on this forum? You know, red heifers and the other laughable children’s stories.

Jade Dragon
09-20-2018, 05:38 PM
It might help if he had a source. We don't accept clumps of claimed knowledge, pulled from anyone's ass.

Grugore
09-20-2018, 05:45 PM
It might help if he had a source. We don't accept clumps of claimed knowledge, pulled from anyone's ass.

The data is available. It's part of the public record. Look it up.

domer76
09-20-2018, 05:54 PM
The data is available. It's part of the public record. Look it up.

As of 2017, Nobel Prizes have been awarded to 892 individuals, of whom 201 or 22.5% were Jews, although the total Jewish population comprises less than 0.2% of the world's population. This means the percentage of Jewish Nobel laureates is at least 112.5 times or 11,250% above average.

Kicking Christian ass.

ThatOwlWoman
09-20-2018, 05:56 PM
The data is available. It's part of the public record. Look it up.

Nope. You made the claim; you supply the data to back it up.

BTW, most Xtians have no problems at all with science. As pointed out above, it's only the fervent fundies (Xtian, Islamic, etc.) who prefer to remain in the Dark Ages.

domer76
09-20-2018, 05:57 PM
The data is available. It's part of the public record. Look it up.

You asked for questions. I asked a couple. Why no answer?

How many were evangelical, fundamentalist and/or creationists?

How many believed in the horseshit you offer on this forum? You know, red heifers and the other laughable children’s stories.

domer76
09-20-2018, 06:01 PM
Nope. You made the claim; you supply the data to back it up.

BTW, most Xtians have no problems at all with science. As pointed out above, it's only the fervent fundies (Xtian, Islamic, etc.) who prefer to remain in the Dark Ages.

I Googled it and found it. What he fails to point out is the time period and nationality. Many, many Europeans, especially Germans, who were raised from birth as Christians. It also indicates that Christianity was their “religion of preference”. It says nothing about their depth of belief. Certainly, few would be off the charts like this idiot, Grugore.

Jade Dragon
09-20-2018, 06:16 PM
I Googled it and found it. What he fails to point out is the time period and nationality. Many, many Europeans, especially Germas, who were raised from birth as Christians. It also indicates that Christianity was their “religion of preference”. It says nothing about their depth of belief. Certainly, few would be off the charts like this idiot, Grugore.

Most Christians I know are baptized at birth, and dragged to church. I always hated Church, and find better connection in nature, then in a building full of irritating music. Now if they were to use metal versions like this one, it may have been different with me.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnJilmOK_HI

countryboy
09-20-2018, 06:19 PM
I don't see people say that


I see them say right wing republicans who claim Christianity are anti sceince

Of course you see that, because you're a fucking idiot who believes whatever propaganda nonsense is spoon-fed to you. In other words, you're a typical lib.

domer76
09-20-2018, 06:24 PM
Of course you see that, because you're a fucking idiot who believes whatever propaganda nonsense is spoon-fed to you. In other words, you're a typical lib.

:lolup::rofl2:

MAGA!

Mason Michaels
09-20-2018, 06:32 PM
Of course you see that, because you're a fucking idiot who believes whatever propaganda nonsense is spoon-fed to you. In other words, you're a typical lib.

This isn't a political thread

countryboy
09-20-2018, 06:49 PM
This isn't a political thread

Gee thanks, but if I need your help interpreting a thread I will just stab myself in the neck with a fillet knife.

Mason Michaels
09-20-2018, 06:57 PM
Gee thanks, but if I need your help interpreting a thread I will just stab myself in the neck with a fillet knife.

No butcher knives?

domer76
09-20-2018, 06:57 PM
Gee thanks, but if I need your help interpreting a thread I will just stab myself in the neck with a fillet knife.

You do and be our guest.

Nordberg
09-22-2018, 02:41 PM
Not just Christians who are anti science, but religions. The Arab nations were the most advanced a couple thousand years ago in science and math. That is why you use Arabic numerals. The Europeans adopted what they learned from them. Then Islam came along, dragging them backwards.
Christianity was a believer in burning down libraries and fighting scientific knowledge. The Dark Ages are a reminder oif what they did and are still doing when we let them get away with it. Remember the Inquisition? Those powers are stll alive and well in the church.
The Arabs. http://www.muslimheritage.com/article/arabic-roots-scientific-revolution

Cypress
09-24-2018, 10:35 PM
Nope. You made the claim; you supply the data to back it up.

BTW, most Xtians have no problems at all with science. As pointed out above, it's only the fervent fundies (Xtian, Islamic, etc.) who prefer to remain in the Dark Ages.

What she said.

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 09:08 AM
You see this a lot on the forums. Some ignorant, hateful atheist claiming that Christians don't believe in science or are scientifically illiterate.
Guess again.
In the last 100 years

Nobel prizes:

Chemistry: 72.5 percent were awarded to Christians
Physics: 62 percent were awarded to Christians.
Medicine/Physiology: 54 percent were awarded to Christians.

A very small percentage were awarded to non-Theists.

Any questions?

This comes from their misunderstanding of what 'science' is...

Science is defined by philosophy as 'a set of falsifiable theories'. That's literally all science is.

Atheists tend to think that science is some sort of "method" (they can never describe what it is) and they seem to think that science uses supporting evidence (it doesn't) and that science can prove things (it can't).

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 09:14 AM
That's creationists that seem to be anti-science, not Christians as a whole.

I think a decent amount of people who hold to the religion of Creationism become "anti-science" because they don't understand what religion and science even are, so they think that science is an "enemy" to their God.

I understand what both of them are, and I am a Creationist Christian who is not "anti-science".

Irish Exit
10-02-2018, 09:24 AM
You see this a lot on the forums. Some ignorant, hateful atheist claiming that Christians don't believe in science or are scientifically illiterate.
Guess again.
In the last 100 years

Nobel prizes:

Chemistry: 72.5 percent were awarded to Christians
Physics: 62 percent were awarded to Christians.
Medicine/Physiology: 54 percent were awarded to Christians.

A very small percentage were awarded to non-Theists.

Any questions?

Scientist are anti-science these days.

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 09:36 AM
Scientist are anti-science these days.

VERY true... Especially when it comes to the "global warming" buzzword...

Those scientists deny multiple scientific laws, such as the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan-boltzmann law.

Irish Exit
10-02-2018, 10:06 AM
VERY true... Especially when it comes to the "global warming" buzzword...

Those scientists deny multiple scientific laws, such as the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan-boltzmann law.

What I have noticed in climate stuff is that there a large disconnect between what the researchers say and what the "Climate scientists" say about the research. Researchers say we need more research generally. The Climate "Scientists" proclaim that the research done by the researchers who think we need more research conclusive "proves" things the researchers who did the research labeled a possibility but allowed for alternate explanations. One case I recall specifically encountering this with was a group of British researchers who were measuring water temps in the antarctic that found warmer than expected temps, but acknowledged they don't have a lot of real world data to compare it to, especially at depths, and that the reason could be the prevailing winds were pushing warmer waters toward the area. All the alternate explanations were tossed out the window when their study reached the hands of the "Climate Scientists".

Grugore
10-02-2018, 03:52 PM
Scientist are anti-science these days.

Not all of them. Just the ones who believe that the theory of evolution is based on real science.

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 04:01 PM
Not all of them. Just the ones who believe that the theory of evolution is based on real science.

The Theory of Evolution isn't even science, to be honest... It is a religion.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Religion is an initial circular argument with additional arguments extending from that initial circular argument.

The Theory of Evolution is non-falsifiable, so it is not science. It is religion.

domer76
10-04-2018, 02:02 PM
VERY true... Especially when it comes to the "global warming" buzzword...

Those scientists deny multiple scientific laws, such as the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan-boltzmann law.

You're, of course, referring to a law that "applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation."

I see creationists refer to laws of thermodynamic frequently. Their clams are debunked every time.

gfm7175
10-04-2018, 02:44 PM
You're, of course, referring to a law that "applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation."
Nope. My current understanding is that it applies to all bodies.



I see creationists refer to laws of thermodynamic frequently. Their clams are debunked every time.
Bulverism fallacy.

domer76
10-04-2018, 03:03 PM
Nope. My current understanding is that it applies to all bodies.


Bulverism fallacy.

It doesn't. Blackbodies. Earth is not one.

I'll repeat. Creationists frequently refer to the laws of thermodynamics in attempts to prove their religious case. Pseudo-science. Those claims are debunked every time.

You're the one who claims dictionaries don't contain definitions, aren't you? :rofl2:

gfm7175
10-04-2018, 04:57 PM
It doesn't. Blackbodies. Earth is not one.

I'll repeat. Creationists frequently refer to the laws of thermodynamics in attempts to prove their religious case. Pseudo-science. Those claims are debunked every time.

You're the one who claims dictionaries don't contain definitions, aren't you? :rofl2:

I never said that they don't contain definitions... I said that they don't define words. Address my actual argument next time...

domer76
10-04-2018, 05:13 PM
I never said that they don't contain definitions... I said that they don't define words. Address my actual argument next time...

Gonna split some hairs there, aren’t you, Jethro? They don’t define words, but they provide definitions. :rofl2:

Earth is not a blackbody, is it, Rufus?

gfm7175
10-04-2018, 05:19 PM
Gonna split some hairs there, aren’t you, Jethro? They don’t define words, but they provide definitions. :rofl2:

Earth is not a blackbody, is it, Rufus?

You do know that there is a difference between offering definitions and being the source of definitions, right?

domer76
10-04-2018, 05:26 PM
You do know that there is a difference between offering definitions and being the source of definitions, right?

Source? What is that? Your Creationist god?

Words evolve, pally boy. From various languages, various times or are even coined. Old meanings disappear, new meanings appear. Spellings, as well. Your little “source” mantra is manure.

Cypress
09-06-2020, 12:20 PM
Not just Christians who are anti science, but religions. The Arab nations were the most advanced a couple thousand years ago in science and math. That is why you use Arabic numerals. The Europeans adopted what they learned from them. Then Islam came along, dragging them backwards.
Christianity was a believer in burning down libraries and fighting scientific knowledge. The Dark Ages are a reminder oif what they did and are still doing when we let them get away with it. Remember the Inquisition? Those powers are stll alive and well in the church.
The Arabs. http://www.muslimheritage.com/article/arabic-roots-scientific-revolution

The premise that there is an inherent, long-standing, and irreconcilable conflict between science and religion is an artificial human construct of the 19th century.

The modern American presumption of relentless "conflict" between science and religion mainly originates from the Protestant Reformation, with it's emphasis on personal salvation and disregard for natural philosophy. The rise of American Protestant fundamentalism did not help matters, since that denomination of Christianity stresses biblical literalism and seems to gravitate to ignorance.

It is worth remembering that Arab advances in mathematics, astronomy, philosophy came as a result of the Golden Age of Islam. It is not attributable to Arab pagans. Though admittedly, Islamic scientific accomplishments declined after the Golden Age for reasons I am still not 100 percent sure about .

Christianity, natural philosophy, and science all synergistically contributed to our unique western emphasis on reason, logic, mathematics, scholarly skepticism.

That intellectual approach was a unique development of western civilization - and the Christianity of late antiquity and the middle ages played a fundamental role in laying the groundwork for the use of reason and scholarly inquiry in the west. Western science grew out of the Neoplatonism and Aristotelian logic of the Jesuit and Dominican orders, the scholarly theologies of Church fathers, and the Catholic universities of the middle ages.

Using reason and logic to study the natural world has historically been considered a form of religious devotion, from the Greeks to Isaac Newton. I always like to make the point that a seminal figure in the science of evolution, and widely considered to be the father of genetics, was the Catholic Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel.

In my opinion, bottom line is this:
The relationship between science and religion through history is complex, and for sure there were skirmishes. But western civilization and western science owes a deep and profound debt to western Christianity for blazing the trail in resurrecting Greek thought, elevating Platonic reason and Aristotelian logic to the pinnacle of western intellectual tradition, and establishing the principle of higher education by the development of universities. I doubt we would recognize western civilization and western science without its debt to the Christian theologians and scholars of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages

StoneByStone
09-06-2020, 01:10 PM
You see this a lot on the forums. Some ignorant, hateful atheist claiming that Christians don't believe in science or are scientifically illiterate.
Guess again.
In the last 100 years

Nobel prizes:

Chemistry: 72.5 percent were awarded to Christians
Physics: 62 percent were awarded to Christians.
Medicine/Physiology: 54 percent were awarded to Christians.

A very small percentage were awarded to non-Theists.

Any questions?

Very few Christians are anti-science in every aspect of their lives, but religious people are more likely to deny certain scientific facts that call religion into question. Atheists don't because they're not emotionally invested in maintaining religious ideas.

gfm7175
09-09-2020, 08:41 AM
That's creationists that seem to be anti-science, not Christians as a whole.

Creationism is not anti-science.

gfm7175
09-09-2020, 08:42 AM
its republicans who claim Christianity



my christian friends are fine with science

Bigotry. Plenty of Democrats claim Christianity as well.

gfm7175
09-09-2020, 08:43 AM
I am a Christian and I believe God gave us science to understand our world. American far right wing conservobots are the problem.

What's "the problem"?

gfm7175
09-09-2020, 08:50 AM
Very few Christians are anti-science in every aspect of their lives, but religious people are more likely to deny certain scientific facts that call religion into question. Atheists don't because they're not emotionally invested in maintaining religious ideas.

Most self-proclaimed "Atheists" ARE religious... They believe that there are no god/s, a theistic belief in and of itself.

IBDaMann
09-09-2020, 10:41 AM
It doesn't. Blackbodies. Earth is not one.
This is the cry of the scientifically illiterate warmizombie, i.e. "physics doesn't apply to earth."


I'll repeat. Creationists frequently refer to the laws of thermodynamics in attempts to prove their religious case.
I'll repeat, warmizombies frequently skirt the laws of thermodynamics in attempts to rationalize their Global Warming faith.

Pseudo-science. Those claims are debunked every time.


You're the one who claims dictionaries don't contain definitions, aren't you?
I'm the one that claims that no dictionary owns the English language. Which dictionary do you claim owns English?

IBDaMann
09-09-2020, 10:48 AM
Creationism is not anti-science.
Correct. I will add, however, the caveot that certain young-earth Creationism presents certain challenges to scientific consistency, e.g. How are we able to see stars that are millions of light years away if the light hasn't had millions of years to travel?

Otherwise Creationism is entirely consistent with the laws of physics.

IBDaMann
09-09-2020, 10:51 AM
Most self-proclaimed "Atheists" ARE religious... They believe that there are no god/s, a theistic belief in and of itself.
Except that most are lying even about that. Their belief in Global Warming, for example, is profound, as is their belief in the Climate deity, the Greenhouse Effect miracle, etc...

IBDaMann
09-09-2020, 10:52 AM
Very few Christians are anti-science in every aspect of their lives, but religious people are more likely to deny certain scientific facts that call religion into question. Atheists don't because they're not emotionally invested in maintaining religious ideas.
Can you give me an example of a "scientific fact" that Christians are apt to deny?

StoneByStone
09-09-2020, 11:05 AM
Can you give me an example of a "scientific fact" that Christians are apt to deny?

Evolution.

StoneByStone
09-09-2020, 11:09 AM
Most self-proclaimed "Atheists" ARE religious... They believe that there are no god/s, a theistic belief in and of itself.

No, Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. It's not the belief that there are no gods.

IBDaMann
09-09-2020, 11:10 AM
Evolution.
Darwin's Theory (https://politiplex.freeforums.net/board/14/origin-species-charles-darwin-full) is not science. It is an unfalsifiable theory. It is speculation about the past. If you'd like to discuss it I'm a huge fan.

Genetics is science, it is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature. I don't know of any Christians that deny these models.

IBDaMann
09-09-2020, 11:23 AM
No, Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. It's not the belief that there are no gods.

https://image.shutterstock.com/image-vector/we-have-winner-vector-sign-260nw-628994537.jpg

Exactly spot on!

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16978&d=1599671788

StoneByStone
09-09-2020, 11:25 AM
Darwin's Theory (https://politiplex.freeforums.net/board/14/origin-species-charles-darwin-full) is not science. It is an unfalsifiable theory. It is speculation about the past. If you'd like to discuss it I'm a huge fan.

Genetics is science, it is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature. I don't know of any Christians that deny these models.

First of all, it is falsifiable. If you mean that it can't 100% be proven true or false, that's all scientific theories. You could make the same argument about gravity.
Secondly, it's not just speculation about the past because evolution still occurs today. Some species evolve fast enough that we're able to observe the changes happening.

StoneByStone
09-09-2020, 11:26 AM
https://image.shutterstock.com/image-vector/we-have-winner-vector-sign-260nw-628994537.jpg

Exactly spot on!

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16978&d=1599671788

I do my best.

IBDaMann
09-09-2020, 11:39 AM
First of all, it is falsifiable.
You should listen to me on this. No it is not. You should learn what falsifiable means. Darwin's Evolution is a great theory; I put a lot of stock into it. It's not falsifiable. It's not science.


If you mean that it can't 100% be proven true or false, that's all scientific theories.
No. To be science a model must first be falsifiable. Then it must survive the scientific method with a direct test on the null hypothesis. We do not have time machines. We cannot directly verify the null hypothesis. It cannot be science.

For this reason, no speculation about the past is science. Science predicts nature. It is inherently future tense.


Secondly, it's not just speculation about the past
This is why you need to be clear when you speak/write.

If you are talking about Darwin's Theory on the Origin of Species then it is entirely speculation.

If you are talking about genetics and evolution occurring today then yes, some of that is science (randomness of mutations is merely statistical mathematics) and Christians have no problem accepting that.



Some species evolve fast enough that we're able to observe the changes happening.
Yes. The theory is brilliant. Fundamentalist Christians will tell you that they don't believe that these small changes we observe will ever amount to big changes such as new organs, new limbs, etc... That belief runs counter to Darwin's Theory (which is not science) but is entirely accepting of all science and observations.

StoneByStone
09-09-2020, 12:06 PM
You should listen to me on this. No it is not. You should learn what falsifiable means. Darwin's Evolution is a great theory; I put a lot of stock into it. It's not falsifiable. It's not science.


No. To be science a model must first be falsifiable. Then it must survive the scientific method with a direct test on the null hypothesis. We do not have time machines. We cannot directly verify the null hypothesis. It cannot be science.

For this reason, no speculation about the past is science. Science predicts nature. It is inherently future tense.


This is why you need to be clear when you speak/write.

If you are talking about Darwin's Theory on the Origin of Species then it is entirely speculation.

If you are talking about genetics and evolution occurring today then yes, some of that is science (randomness of mutations is merely statistical mathematics) and Christians have no problem accepting that.



Yes. The theory is brilliant. Fundamentalist Christians will tell you that they don't believe that these small changes we observe will ever amount to big changes such as new organs, new limbs, etc... That belief runs counter to Darwin's Theory (which is not science) but is entirely accepting of all science and observations.


You can say any theory isn't science using this logic. You could say the Big Bang theory isn't science. You could say it's not science to assume that gravity was around before humans were alive.
The reason evolution, or any theory, is considered a fact is because there is enough evidence and repeatable experiments to prove that evolution is most likely true.

As for it being falsifiable, in what context? Is it possible to prove 100% that evolution didn't happen? No, but the same can be said for any theory. But is it possible to present evidence debunking the evidence that humans and apes share a common ancestor? If that evidence existed, sure.

Cypress
09-09-2020, 12:10 PM
You should listen to me on this. No it is not. You should learn what falsifiable means. Darwin's Evolution is a great theory; I put a lot of stock into it. It's not falsifiable. It's not science.


No. To be science a model must first be falsifiable. Then it must survive the scientific method with a direct test on the null hypothesis. We do not have time machines. We cannot directly verify the null hypothesis. It cannot be science.

For this reason, no speculation about the past is science. Science predicts nature. It is inherently future tense.


This is why you need to be clear when you speak/write.

If you are talking about Darwin's Theory on the Origin of Species then it is entirely speculation.

If you are talking about genetics and evolution occurring today then yes, some of that is science (randomness of mutations is merely statistical mathematics) and Christians have no problem accepting that.



Yes. The theory is brilliant. Fundamentalist Christians will tell you that they don't believe that these small changes we observe will ever amount to big changes such as new organs, new limbs, etc... That belief runs counter to Darwin's Theory (which is not science) but is entirely accepting of all science and observations.

The very nanosecond someone finds chimpanzee fossils in Cambrian rocks, the theory of evolution will be immediately falsified.

gfm7175
09-09-2020, 12:12 PM
No, Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. It's not the belief that there are no gods.
Correct.

My point was that many people who call themselves "atheists" are not actually atheists (as atheism is being defined here). Instead, they spout off that they believe that there are no god/s. IBD then correctly chimed in that many of those "atheists" even lie about THAT.

Jerome
09-09-2020, 12:14 PM
Correct.

My point was that many people who call themselves "atheists" are not actually atheists (as atheism is being defined here). Instead, they spout off that they believe that there are no god/s. IBD then correctly chimed in that many of those "atheists" even lie about THAT.


Do you and your church friends fall down and throw up with all this circular reasoning?

gfm7175
09-09-2020, 12:22 PM
Can you give me an example of a "scientific fact" that Christians are apt to deny?

As a Christian, I'm interested to hear his answer to this, since such "scientific facts" are typically just religious beliefs being falsely sold as "science".

gfm7175
09-09-2020, 12:24 PM
Evolution.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

:palm:

Darwin's theory is not science...


Evolution itself, however, is science and does occur.

IBDaMann
09-09-2020, 12:30 PM
The very nanosecond someone finds chimpanzee fossils in Cambrian rocks, the theory of evolution will be immediately falsified.
Nope. An unfalsifiable theory cannot be shown to be false.

Darwin's theory merely states that life began at some point and immediately began evolving. What the original common species was is not stated. What the intermediate species were and when the occurred is not specified.

gfm7175
09-09-2020, 12:43 PM
First of all, it is falsifiable. If you mean that it can't 100% be proven true or false, that's all scientific theories.
Darwin's theory is not falsifiable. It is not possible to falsify speculation about past events.



You could make the same argument about gravity.
Gravity is not a theory; it is a force.



Secondly, it's not just speculation about the past because evolution still occurs today. Some species evolve fast enough that we're able to observe the changes happening.
Here you are conflating Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" with evolution itself. Darwin's theory IS indeed speculation about the past (positing that present day life forms are the result of mutations of more primitive life forms). Evolution itself, on the other hand, has been observed in nature. We just don't know whether Darwin's theory is true or not, as his theory is merely speculation about past events, and we don't have a time machine to see if those past events actually happened or not.

IBDaMann
09-09-2020, 12:45 PM
You can say any theory isn't science using this logic.
No. You should learn what falsifiable means. That is the root of all your confusion.

Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature. Darwin's Evolutions is not falsifiable and does not predict nature.


You could say the Big Bang theory isn't science.
The Big Bang theory is not science. It is speculation about the past. It is not a falsifiable model. It does not predict nature.


You could say it's not science to assume that gravity was around before humans were alive.
Correct. Science does not speculate about the past. Humans speculate about the past. Science does not.


The reason evolution, or any theory, is considered a fact
It's only considered a "fact" when all parties agree to it. If you and I were discussing Darwin's theory then yes, between us, it's a fact-Jack. The moment you let someone else into the conversation who does not accept Darwin's speculation then it ceases to be a fact and becomes an argument. I'm happy to make that argument all day, all week, but at that point it is an argument, not a fact.


... is because there is enough evidence and repeatable experiments to prove that evolution is most likely true.
There is no such thing as a "sufficient quantity" of evidence that requires people to believe a theory. There have been no experiments on Darwin's speculation about the past because we don't have time machines. There have been plenty of observations and tests on genetics and that is science.


As for it being falsifiable, in what context?
You really need to learn what that word means. There is no "context." It's what makes science totally objective and removes it from the subjective world of opinion. Falsifiability is why no one owns science. No one's permission or approval is required to create science. Falsifiability is an absolute requirement for science. No unfalsifiable model can even enter the scientific method.

Don't worry, I won't leave you hanging.

Falsifiability is the inherent quality of a model to specify what will show the model to be false if it is, in fact, false. For example, E = m*c^2 is falsifiable. All anyone has to do to show it to be false is to find just one example in nature whereby that relationship does not hold. It's not a matter of anyone's opinion. If someone were to find such a falsifying example then the model is false. Period. No one gets to say "Awww, you're just cherry-picking" or "That doesn't prove anything."

Nobody gets a say. The model itself must be falsifiable.


Is it possible to prove 100% that evolution didn't happen?
Nope. That's the nature of unfalsifiable theories. They can't be shown to be true and they cannot be shown to be false.


... but the same can be said for any theory.
Nope. Science is that set of falsifiable models that no one has been able to show are false.

My favorite example is the Stefan-Boltzmann law (bear with me): Radiance = Temperature^4 * SB_Constant * Emissivity

It blows Greenhouse Effect out of the water and turns warmizombies into science deniers as they argue in desperation that this particular law doesn't apply to earth. Their problem is that is a falsifiable model that they cannot prove false ... to their chagrin.

Phantasmal
09-09-2020, 12:46 PM
Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915), which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/image/png;base64,iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAABAAAAAQCAMAAAA oLQ9TAAAAM1BMVEUAAAD /v7MzMw7OzsAAACVlZVJSUnm5uampqYXFxfZ2dkBAQGzs7MnJye GhoZpaWl5eXkOJSOoAAAAAXRSTlMAQObYZgAAAGpJREFUeAFtz 7UBxEAQBMHtgwXpKP9kn/k13pTXIsLH5OfD74d/SLlUtFTL2Tx0E2xvWL gQQYBzeDRBni9QSoJegeUG6AKMyCtB7R9Q8OZ9gD6anV0mzzBd 8X2nF5AVJjKGzYAO4yRv/wzhDIC9UYsU1MAAAAASUVORK5CYII=Wikipedia › wiki › Gravity

Gravity - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity)

Cypress
09-09-2020, 12:48 PM
Nope. An unfalsifiable theory cannot be shown to be false.

Darwin's theory merely states that life began at some point and immediately began evolving. What the original common species was is not stated. What the intermediate species were and when the occurred is not specified.

Elements of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection have already been falsified. As I recall, by Gregor Medel's work in genetics.

The Lamarkian theory of evolution has been falsified for more than a century.

If you do not think evolutionary ideas can falsified, I have my doubts you have ever stepped foot on a college campus.

Darwin lived a 150 years ago. His idea of speciation by natural selection was brilliant, but he was also wrong about certain elements of the theory. 20th century Genetics and modem discoveries in the fossil record have been filling in the holes and correcting Darwin's misconceptions.

We are still working on the details of gravitational theory 500 years after Newton. We are still working on the details of evolutionary theory. But the broad outlines of evolution by natural selection is one of the most firmly confirmed theories in the history of science

IBDaMann
09-09-2020, 12:49 PM
Gravity is not a theory; it is a force.
Correct, and the theory of gravity is a theory.


Here you are conflating Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" with evolution itself.
This is correctly specifying Darwin's theory of evolution as opposed to other theories of evolution.

gfm7175
09-09-2020, 12:56 PM
Do you and your church friends fall down and throw up with all this circular reasoning?

What "circular reasoning" are you referring to? What is your point about whatever "circular reasoning" you are referring to?

Phantasmal
09-09-2020, 01:00 PM
Correct, and the theory of gravity is a theory.


This is correctly specifying Darwin's theory of evolution as opposed to other theories of evolution.
I deleted that post because it incorrectly attributed those quotes to me, they are not mine.

IBDaMann
09-09-2020, 01:02 PM
Elements of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection have already been falsified.
Incorrect.

Has anyone successfully travelled back in time and verified the existence of a species that didn't evolve from a parent species?
Has anyone successfully travelled back in time and verified that life never began at any point?

If not, Darwin's very simple and straightforward theory has not been falsified. You'll probably notice that the time travel requirement renders the theory unfalsifiable. You'll probably notice that the word "unfalsifiable" means that it cannot be falsified. When you think about it, it all kind of comes together.



The Lamarkian theory of evolution has been falsified for more than a century.
Nope. The Lamarckian theory of inheritance has been falsified and replaced by genetics models.


If you do not think evolutionary ideas can falsified, I have my doubts you have ever stepped foot on a college campus.
... says the guy who thinks unfalsifiable theories are nonetheless falsifiable.


Darwin lived a 150 years ago. His idea of speciation by natural selection was brilliant, but he was also wrong about certain elements of the theory.
Don't stop there. Tell everyone what those certain elements are.


20th century Genetics and modem discoveries in the fossil record have been filling in the holes and correcting Darwin's misconceptions.
Again, what specific elements of Darwin's theory do you believe have been shown to be false?

Phantasmal
09-09-2020, 01:04 PM
Incorrect.

Has anyone successfully travelled back in time and verified the existence of a species that didn't evolve from a parent species?
Has anyone successfully travelled back in time and verified that life never began at any point?

If not, Darwin's very simple and straightforward theory has not been falsified. You'll probably notice that the time travel requirement renders the theory unfalsifiable. You'll probably notice that the word "unfalsifiable" means that it cannot be falsified. When you think about it, it all kind of comes together.



Nope. The Lamarckian theory of inheritance has been falsified and replaced by genetics models.


... says the guy who thinks unfalsifiable theories are nonetheless falsifiable.


Don't stop there. Tell everyone what those certain elements are.


Again, what specific elements of Darwin's theory do you believe have been shown to be false?
Again, those quotes are not mine, I deleted the post because the quote feature went haywire and attributed quotes to me that were not mine!

StoneByStone
09-09-2020, 01:04 PM
Darwin's theory is not falsifiable. It is not possible to falsify speculation about past events.

It's falsifiable in that you could potentially disprove the evidence which shows humans most likely share a common ancestor with apes.


Gravity is not a theory; it is a force.

Holy shit.

StoneByStone
09-09-2020, 01:05 PM
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

:palm:

Darwin's theory is not science...


Evolution itself, however, is science and does occur.

Are you Christian?

IBDaMann
09-09-2020, 01:08 PM
[FONT=Roboto]Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915), which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass.

... but gravity is far more usefully described as a force calculated as: [COLOR="#006400"]Grav_Const * [mass1 * mass2] / Distance^2

gfm7175
09-09-2020, 01:08 PM
It's falsifiable in that you could potentially disprove the evidence which shows humans most likely share a common ancestor with apes.
You cannot falsify speculation about past unobserved events, dude. This is cut and dry straight forward plain and simple stuff that we're talking about here... I don't know how else to say it.



Holy shit.
What? Did you see something?

Cypress
09-09-2020, 01:10 PM
Incorrect.

Has anyone successfully travelled back in time and verified the existence of a species that didn't evolve from a parent species?
Has anyone successfully travelled back in time and verified that life never began at any point?

If not, Darwin's very simple and straightforward theory has not been falsified. You'll probably notice that the time travel requirement renders the theory unfalsifiable. You'll probably notice that the word "unfalsifiable" means that it cannot be falsified. When you think about it, it all kind of comes together.



Nope. The Lamarckian theory of inheritance has been falsified and replaced by genetics models.


... says the guy who thinks unfalsifiable theories are nonetheless falsifiable.


Don't stop there. Tell everyone what those certain elements are.


Again, what specific elements of Darwin's theory do you believe have been shown to be false?
Good boy, you can frantically google for Lamarkian ideas of evolution two nanoseconds after I mentioned it

Those are not Phantasmal quotes, you screwed up.

Darwin's theory of pangenesis in his evolutionary scheme was falsified by work in genetics. I think Gregor Mendel's pea plants played a role.

gfm7175
09-09-2020, 01:10 PM
Are you Christian?
Yes.

IBDaMann
09-09-2020, 01:20 PM
We are still working on the details of evolutionary theory.
No. We are working on biology and genetics. We document observations and speculate about the past. These are two separate things. All of that speculation about the past is not scince.


But the broad outlines of evolution by natural selection is one of the most firmly confirmed theories in the history of science
You need to go back to school. You don't even know what science is.

Nothing in science is ever confirmed. The scientific method doesn't verify any theory as TRUE but it can show a theory to be FALSE. All science is the collection of falsifiable models that predict nature that have not yet been shown to be false.

Once again: No science model is TRUE and no science model is ever confirmed.

IBDaMann
09-09-2020, 01:29 PM
Darwin's theory of pangenesis in his evolutionary scheme was falsified by work in genetics.
You are pulling this out of your azz. Darwin's theory of evolution contains no "pangenesis" component.

Cypress
09-09-2020, 01:45 PM
You are pulling this out of your azz. Darwin's theory of evolution contains no "pangenesis" component.

The fact you have not heard of Darwin's theory of pangenesis indicates to me you have never had a class on Darwin or evolutionary biology.

Time for you to start frantically googling. While your at it, Google Gregor Mendel, genetics, pea plants. Seemingly you have not thread of that either.

I am not a biologist myself, but I took two classes on the Darwinian Revolution, and I remember enough to know that elements of Darwin's evolutionary scheme was debunked and falsified by genetics.

But the broad outlines of the theory of evolution by natural selection had stood the test of time, and is arguably the most tested and confirmed theory in modern science - though IMO quantum mechanics gives it a run for the money on that account.

StoneByStone
09-09-2020, 01:55 PM
Yes.

Ah, that explains it.

gfm7175
09-09-2020, 01:59 PM
Ah, that explains it.

Explains what?

domer76
09-09-2020, 02:06 PM
This is the cry of the scientifically illiterate warmizombie, i.e. "physics doesn't apply to earth."


I'll repeat, warmizombies frequently skirt the laws of thermodynamics in attempts to rationalize their Global Warming faith.

Pseudo-science. Those claims are debunked every time.


I'm the one that claims that no dictionary owns the English language. Which dictionary do you claim owns English?

Blackbodies, ignorant cunt. Earth isn’t one.

I said nothing about any ownership, prick licker. No wonder you’re so fucking stupid. You can’t read.

IBDaMann
09-09-2020, 02:45 PM
The fact you have not heard of Darwin's theory of pangenesis indicates to me you have never had a class on Darwin or evolutionary biology.
You would be correct that I have never had a class on evolutionary biology, but you would be mistaken to believe that I have never heard of Darwin's pangenesis theory. It's just that you are guilty of shifting goalposts, quite dramatically in fact.

The topic is Origin of Species and Darwin's theory of evolution and I had provided a link. Darwin made no mention of "pangenesis" until almost a decade later.

So, getting back to Origin of Species, what part of Darwin's theory do you believe has been falsified, or have you not read it?


I am not a biologist myself,
I am aware of that. Science is not your strong suit.


But the broad outlines of the theory of evolution by natural selection had stood the test of time, and is arguably the most tested and confirmed theory in modern science - though IMO quantum mechanics gives it a run for the money on that account.
So you are apparently going to insist that an unfalsifiable theory is somehow "confirmed." At this point, just go ahead and ... you know ... babble gibberish.

Quantum mechanics is not science; it is math, specifically statistical and probability mathematics.

IBDaMann
09-09-2020, 02:49 PM
Blackbodies, ignorant cunt. Earth isn’t one.
Were you trying to establish some sort of point or do you normally prattle while you rave?


I said nothing about any ownership,
You said nothing of any consequence. You continue to be a waste of bandwidth. Starving children in Venezuela could have used those bits.

Into the Night
09-09-2020, 05:25 PM
That's creationists that seem to be anti-science, not Christians as a whole.

The Theory of Creation is not incompatible with any theory of science.

Neither the Theory of Creation nor the Theory of Abiogenesis no the Theory of Evolution no the Theory of the the Big Bang nor the Theory of the Continuum is any part of science.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. They cannot be tested. Science does not use any supporting evidence. Only religions do that.

Cypress
09-09-2020, 06:55 PM
You would be correct that I have never had a class on evolutionary biology, but you would be mistaken to believe that I have never heard of Darwin's pangenesis theory. It's just that you are guilty of shifting goalposts, quite dramatically in fact.

The topic is Origin of Species and Darwin's theory of evolution and I had provided a link. Darwin made no mention of "pangenesis" until almost a decade later.

So, getting back to Origin of Species, what part of Darwin's theory do you believe has been falsified, or have you not read it?


I am aware of that. Science is not your strong suit.


So you are apparently going to insist that an unfalsifiable theory is somehow "confirmed." At this point, just go ahead and ... you know ... babble gibberish.

Quantum mechanics is not science; it is math, specifically statistical and probability mathematics.

Good work on frantically googling pangenesis. I am 100 percent certain you had not heard of it two nanoseconds before you read my post. Pangenesis was Darwins attempt to plug holes and weaknesses in his theory of evolution by natural selection. Accordingly pangenesis was part and parcel of Darwin's evolutionary scheme.

The result was that Mendel and the early geneticists showed that some elements of Darwin's work could be falsified.

To my mind, the fossil record, genetics, DNA all provide ample opportunities to employ Karl Popper's tenets of scientific falsification concerning Darwin.

As for quantumm mechanics, it is a field of physics. Almost all scientific disciplines employ statistics and probability. You claim that quantumm mechanics is a field of statistics is utterly laughable. At any University on the planet where one desires to study quantum mechanics, one would apply to work in the physics department, not that statistics department.

Into the Night
09-09-2020, 07:38 PM
I am a Christian and I believe God gave us science to understand our world. American far right wing conservobots are the problem.

They don't deny science.

Into the Night
09-09-2020, 07:39 PM
How many were evangelical, fundamentalist and/or creationists?

How many believed in the horseshit you offer on this forum? You know, red heifers and the other laughable children’s stories.

The Theory of Creation is not incompatible with any theory of science.

Into the Night
09-09-2020, 07:40 PM
It might help if he had a source. We don't accept clumps of claimed knowledge, pulled from anyone's ass.

Sure you do. You use it all the time.

Into the Night
09-09-2020, 07:40 PM
Nope. You made the claim; you supply the data to back it up.

BTW, most Xtians have no problems at all with science. As pointed out above, it's only the fervent fundies (Xtian, Islamic, etc.) who prefer to remain in the Dark Ages.

He already did. RQAA.

Into the Night
09-09-2020, 07:41 PM
I Googled it and found it. What he fails to point out is the time period and nationality. Many, many Europeans, especially Germans, who were raised from birth as Christians. It also indicates that Christianity was their “religion of preference”. It says nothing about their depth of belief. Certainly, few would be off the charts like this idiot, Grugore.

Define 'depth of belief'.

Into the Night
09-09-2020, 07:49 PM
The fact you have not heard of Darwin's theory of pangenesis
Darwin never made any such theory.


indicates to me you have never had a class on Darwin or evolutionary biology.
Darwinism isn't biology.


Time for you to start frantically googling. While your at it, Google Gregor Mendel, genetics, pea plants. Seemingly you have not thread of that either.
A pea plant is simply a pea plant. No one knows where a pea plant came from.


I am not a biologist myself,
Obviously.


but I took two classes on the Darwinian Revolution,
Did you enjoy Church?


and I remember enough to know that elements of Darwin's evolutionary scheme was debunked and falsified by genetics.
Nope. But it was falsified.


But the broad outlines of the theory of evolution by natural selection had stood the test of time,
Nope. It's been falsified.


and is arguably the most tested and confirmed theory in modern science
Nope. Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that.


- though IMO quantum mechanics gives it a run for the money on that account.

You have no idea what that is either.

Into the Night
09-09-2020, 07:49 PM
Ah, that explains it.

Explains what?

Into the Night
09-09-2020, 07:50 PM
Blackbodies, ignorant cunt. Earth isn’t one.

I said nothing about any ownership, prick licker. No wonder you’re so fucking stupid. You can’t read.

Earth emits blackbody radiance just like any body above absolute zero.

ThatOwlWoman
09-09-2020, 08:05 PM
Well, isn't this so sad? Not. :laugh:

This message is hidden because Into the Night is on your ignore list.

Into the Night
09-09-2020, 08:07 PM
Good work on frantically googling pangenesis. I am 100 percent certain you had not heard of it two nanoseconds before you read my post.
Irrelevant.


Pangenesis was Darwins attempt to plug holes and weaknesses in his theory of evolution by natural selection.
That theory has been falsified.


Accordingly pangenesis was part and parcel of Darwin's evolutionary scheme.
Irrelevant.


The result was that Mendel and the early geneticists showed that some elements of Darwin's work could be falsified.
Nope. They didn't falsify that theory.


To my mind, the fossil record, genetics, DNA all provide ample opportunities to employ Karl Popper's tenets of scientific falsification concerning Darwin.
While it has been falsified, none of these were any factor.


As for quantumm mechanics, it is a field of physics.
There is no such thing as quantumm physics.


Almost all scientific disciplines employ statistics and probability.
None. Science isn't a casino.


You claim that quantumm mechanics is a field of statistics is utterly laughable.
There is no such thing as quantumm mechanics.


At any University on the planet where one desires to study quantum mechanics, one would apply to work in the physics department, not that statistics department.
There is no 'statistics' department at a university. Quantum mechanics is typically taught as part of science, but it is actually math. The reason, you see, is that you cannot see an atom. You can only see the effect of it.

Cypress
09-09-2020, 08:09 PM
The fact you have not heard of Darwin's theory of pangenesis.

Darwin never made any such theory!



"Charles Darwin's Theory of Pangenesis"

Source: Arizona State University
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/charles-darwins-theory-pangenesis

There is no point me even wasting my time on the rest of what you wrote. You have a habit of blurting out monosyllabic grunts which happen to be 100 percent ass-backwards wrong.

Into the Night
09-09-2020, 08:27 PM
There is no point me even wasting my time on the rest of what you wrote. You have a habit of blurting out monosyllabic grunts which happen to be 100 percent ass-backwards wrong.

False authority fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

IBDaMann
09-09-2020, 10:40 PM
Good work on frantically googling pangenesis. I am 100 percent certain you had not heard of it two nanoseconds [blah, blah, blah]
So you are tipping your king. You can't think of any part of The Origen of Species that has been falsified and you acknowledge that Darwin's pangenesis is not part of that volume.

Shall we move on?


To my mind, the fossil record, genetics, DNA all provide ample opportunities to employ Karl Popper's tenets of scientific falsification concerning Darwin.
... and your mind is mistaken. Now, let's turn the tables a bit. You rushed to absorb the misinformation Wikipedia offers about "falsifiability" without checking any authoritative sources and thus didn't learn anything about "falsifiability." You give yourself away by referencing Karl Popper. He is dead and is not relevant to the topic. Karl popper initiated the idea of falsification but others took over and now the concept is embedded throughout industry. Nobody is going to spend big dollars on any development project that is not based on falsifiable specifications. No test plans can be generated for the unfalsifiable. No test plans means no project plan which means no funding.

So, going back to your speculation about the past. I don't care how much evidence you have that convinces you of whatever, nothing you believe can be verified without a time machine. None of your beliefs about the past are falsifiable. None.


As for quantumm mechanics, it is a field of physics.
Au contraire, mon frère, it is a branch of mathematics word problems and nothing more. Quantum mechanics is standard statistical and probability mathematics word problems. Find me a mathematician who is an expert in statistical and probability mathematics and I'll show you an expert solver of quantum mechanics word problems.

Are you under the impression that if a math word problem involves "photons" instead of "dice" that it magically transforms from math to physics?



Almost all scientific disciplines employ statistics and probability.
Au contraire, mon frère, physics predicts nature ... it does not provide probabilities. Math is needed for probabilities.

This is the Stefan-Boltzmann law: Radiance = Temperature^4 * SB_Const * Emissivity

Where are the statistics? Where are the probabilities?


You claim that quantumm mechanics is a field of statistics is utterly laughable.
Of course, while you are laughing you are going to provide examples of quantum mechanics problems whose solutions are not statistical mathematics, yes? I'm standing by ... and I assure you, I am laughing with you, not at you.

IBDaMann
09-09-2020, 10:46 PM
The Theory of Creation is not incompatible with any theory of science. Neither the Theory of Creation nor the Theory of Abiogenesis no the Theory of Evolution no the Theory of the the Big Bang nor the Theory of the Continuum is any part of science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. They cannot be tested. Science does not use any supporting evidence. Only religions do that.
Absolutely correct on all counts.

IBDaMann
09-09-2020, 10:58 PM
This message is hidden because Into the Night is on your ignore list.
Instead of onesies-twosies, why don't you just publish your entire Ignore List. Tell us whose ideas drive you back into your snowflake safe-space.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16633&d=1597620513

Cypress
09-10-2020, 07:34 AM
So you are tipping your king. You can't think of any part of The Origen of Species that has been falsified and you acknowledge that Darwin's pangenesis is not part of that volume.

Shall we move on?


... and your mind is mistaken. Now, let's turn the tables a bit. You rushed to absorb the misinformation Wikipedia offers about "falsifiability" without checking any authoritative sources and thus didn't learn anything about "falsifiability." You give yourself away by referencing Karl Popper. He is dead and is not relevant to the topic. Karl popper initiated the idea of falsification but others took over and now the concept is embedded throughout industry. Nobody is going to spend big dollars on any development project that is not based on falsifiable specifications. No test plans can be generated for the unfalsifiable. No test plans means no project plan which means no funding.

So, going back to your speculation about the past. I don't care how much evidence you have that convinces you of whatever, nothing you believe can be verified without a time machine. None of your beliefs about the past are falsifiable. None.


Au contraire, mon frère, it is a branch of mathematics word problems and nothing more. Quantum mechanics is standard statistical and probability mathematics word problems. Find me a mathematician who is an expert in statistical and probability mathematics and I'll show you an expert solver of quantum mechanics word problems.

Are you under the impression that if a math word problem involves "photons" instead of "dice" that it magically transforms from math to physics?



Au contraire, mon frère, physics predicts nature ... it does not provide probabilities. Math is needed for probabilities.

This is the Stefan-Boltzmann law: Radiance = Temperature^4 * SB_Const * Emissivity

Where are the statistics? Where are the probabilities?


Of course, while you are laughing you are going to provide examples of quantum mechanics problems whose solutions are not statistical mathematics, yes? I'm standing by ... and I assure you, I am laughing with you, not at you.

Darwinian evolution included more than Origin of Species. Descent of Man, pangenesis, et al were all part and parcell of Darwin's evolutionary scheme. Work subsequent to Darwin demonstrated some flaws and mistakes in his evolutionary program.

It took decades, and only through repeated testing for falsifiability that evolution by natural selection was widely acknowledged as a verified and robust scientific theory. Information came to light only after Darwin's death that allowed scientists to test his hypothesis.

Prime examples:
-Transitional fossils in the fossil record
-Observations of descent with modification, rather than intelligent design
-Observations of modifications by natural selection in real time
-Discovery of a universal genetic code, strongly indicating all life has a common genetic origin.

Evolution by natural selection has been repeatedly tested for falsifiability, and has passed with flying colors.


Sidebar: If you walk into a university statistics department and say you want to do a PhD in quantum mechanics, they are going to laugh in your face and tell you to go over to the physics department and talk to the physics researchers

IBDaMann
09-10-2020, 09:22 AM
Darwinian evolution included more than Origin of Species.
Nope. Darwin defined his theory and published it in Origin of Species. You are free to read it. All other people who aren't Charles Darwin who attempt to redefine Darwin's theory are in error.

Ergo, you are in error.


Descent of Man,
Nope. Darwin specifically avoided this explosive topic. He didn't want to get drawn and quartered. Anyone claiming that he covered this in his theory is lying.


pangenesis, et al
Nope. Darwin mused about many things, especially about topics pertaining to Christianity, and none of them were incorporated by Charles Darwin into his theory. Darwin did not publish any later editions to "update" his theory to be anything other than what he had published previously. Nobody gets to claim that he did.


It took decades, and only through repeated testing for falsifiability that evolution by natural selection was widely acknowledged as a verified and robust scientific theory.
It was never "acknowledged" as a scientific theory because it isn't a scientific theory. You should demand a refund.


Prime examples: -Transitional fossils in the fossil record
There is no such thing as a "transitional fossil." I think you are referring to indications of different species possibly forming an evolutionary chain over time. No fossil indicates into what its species was evolving and no species (or fossil) magically transforms. All perceived evolutionary chains are speculative and despite your unwillingness to accept the idea, we actually do not have time machines and not a single evolutionary speculation has ever been verified.

Your claims of science being involved are absurd.


-Discovery of a universal genetic code, strongly indicating all life has a common genetic origin.
Genetics has given us great insights and has spawned much speculation. We still don't have any time machines. Those UFOs that keep visiting our planet refuse to lend us one.

Evolution by natural selection has been repeatedly tested for falsifiability, and has passed with flying colors.


Sidebar: If you walk into a university statistics department and say you want to do a PhD in quantum mechanics, they are going to laugh in your face and tell you to go over to the physics department and talk to the physics researchers
Au contraire, mon frère, you aren't familiar with university math departments. Ask me how I know. Allow me to mock you for your absolutely absurd assertion.

The next time your highschool has a "college fair" ask an actual member of a math department about graduate options in applied mathematics. Tell him you want to do a thesis in quantum mechanics or in cryptography. Tell him that you just love statistical math. See what he tells you. He won't refer you to another department.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9f/3c/83/9f3c83d678603fe0c4e96475dc92b2bd.jpg
https://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/img4461.png

gfm7175
09-10-2020, 09:32 AM
Explains what?

I'm still waiting for him to answer that very same question for me. He seems to think that my being a Christian explains something, but he hasn't said what it supposedly explains.

Whatever it is, I bet that it will be another error in logic...

gfm7175
09-10-2020, 09:36 AM
Instead of onesies-twosies, why don't you just publish your entire Ignore List. Tell us whose ideas drive you back into your snowflake safe-space.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16633&d=1597620513

I'm part of it as well... Many intelligent minds on this forum are part of it.

gfm7175
09-10-2020, 09:37 AM
Well, isn't this so sad? Not. :laugh:

This message is hidden because Into the Night is on your ignore list.

Am I on it too? ;)

IBDaMann
09-10-2020, 10:05 AM
I'm part of it as well... Many intelligent minds on this forum are part of it.
I'm certain ThatOwlCoward's list will reveal JPP's cognitive achievers ... an "honor roll" if you will. Essentially there is prestige involved in making that list.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16633&d=1597620513

Into the Night
09-10-2020, 02:32 PM
Darwinian evolution included more than Origin of Species. Descent of Man, pangenesis, et al were all part and parcell of Darwin's evolutionary scheme. Work subsequent to Darwin demonstrated some flaws and mistakes in his evolutionary program.
Darwin didn't have an evolutionary program. He had a theory, which was falsified. Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution. He only created the Theory of Natural Selection. That was falsified.


It took decades, and only through repeated testing for falsifiability that evolution by natural selection was widely acknowledged as a verified and robust scientific theory.
Nope. It was falsified.


Information came to light only after Darwin's death that allowed scientists to test his hypothesis.
Nope. It happened while he was still alive.


Prime examples:
-Transitional fossils in the fossil record
Define 'transitional fossil'. The lineage of fossils is unknown.


-Observations of descent with modification, rather than intelligent design
A conclusion is not an observation. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not a proof. Science does not use supporting evidence.


-Observations of modifications by natural selection in real time
A conclusion is not an observation. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not a proof. Science does not use supporting evidence.


-Discovery of a universal genetic code, strongly indicating all life has a common genetic origin.
A conclusion, not an indication. It could simply mean that life as common processes that require the same encoding in genes to exist. No universal genetic code has been found.


Evolution by natural selection has been repeatedly tested for falsifiability, and has passed with flying colors.
Nope. It was falsifed.


Sidebar: If you walk into a university statistics department and say you want to do a PhD in quantum mechanics, they are going to laugh in your face and tell you to go over to the physics department and talk to the physics researchers

There is no such thing as a 'statistics department' at a university. When you study quantum physics, you will be studying math, primarily probability math, but also some in statistics. It is not science. It is math.

Into the Night
09-10-2020, 02:34 PM
I'm still waiting for him to answer that very same question for me. He seems to think that my being a Christian explains something, but he hasn't said what it supposedly explains.

Whatever it is, I bet that it will be another error in logic...

That's not really much of a bet. It's only a matter of time.

Into the Night
09-10-2020, 02:36 PM
I'm certain ThatOwlCoward's list will reveal JPP's cognitive achievers ... an "honor roll" if you will. Essentially there is prestige involved in making that list.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16633&d=1597620513

If you're not, I beat you to it! Another first for Into the Night! :D

IBDaMann
09-10-2020, 03:14 PM
If you're not, I beat you to it! Another first for Into the Night! :D
Yeah, that's why I'm pressing for the list like it Trump's Tax returns or Obama's birth certificate. It's my shot at redemption.

Into the Night
09-10-2020, 04:27 PM
Yeah, that's why I'm pressing for the list like it Trump's Tax returns or Obama's birth certificate. It's my shot at redemption.

Go for it!

Cypress
09-10-2020, 06:18 PM
The fact you have not heard of Darwin's theory of pangenesis...

Darwin never made any such theory!



"Charles Darwin's Theory of Pangenesis"

Source: Arizona State University
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/charles-darwins-theory-pangenesis



Sidebar: If you walk into a university statistics department and say you want to do a PhD in quantum mechanics, they are going to laugh in your face and tell you to go over to the physics department and talk to the physics researchers


There is no such thing as a 'statistics department' at a university!


Stanford University Department of Statistics

"Welcome to the Department of Statistics at Stanford University Webpage"

https://statistics.stanford.edu/about/welcome



Jesus Christ, it is pointless to read anything you write. You do not know jack shit about what you are talking about.

Cypress
09-11-2020, 07:46 AM
So you are tipping your king. You can't think of any part of The Origen of Species that has been falsified and you acknowledge that Darwin's pangenesis is not part of that volume.

Shall we move on?


... and your mind is mistaken. Now, let's turn the tables a bit. You rushed to absorb the misinformation Wikipedia offers about "falsifiability" without checking any authoritative sources and thus didn't learn anything about "falsifiability." You give yourself away by referencing Karl Popper. He is dead and is not relevant to the topic. Karl popper initiated the idea of falsification but others took over and now the concept is embedded throughout industry. Nobody is going to spend big dollars on any development project that is not based on falsifiable specifications. No test plans can be generated for the unfalsifiable. No test plans means no project plan which means no funding.

So, going back to your speculation about the past. I don't care how much evidence you have that convinces you of whatever, nothing you believe can be verified without a time machine. None of your beliefs about the past are falsifiable. None.


Au contraire, mon frère, it is a branch of mathematics word problems and nothing more. Quantum mechanics is standard statistical and probability mathematics word problems. Find me a mathematician who is an expert in statistical and probability mathematics and I'll show you an expert solver of quantum mechanics word problems.

Are you under the impression that if a math word problem involves "photons" instead of "dice" that it magically transforms from math to physics?



Au contraire, mon frère, physics predicts nature ... it does not provide probabilities. Math is needed for probabilities.

This is the Stefan-Boltzmann law: Radiance = Temperature^4 * SB_Const * Emissivity

Where are the statistics? Where are the probabilities?


Of course, while you are laughing you are going to provide examples of quantum mechanics problems whose solutions are not statistical mathematics, yes? I'm standing by ... and I assure you, I am laughing with you, not at you.
Good boy, you know how to use Google and spend time reading obscure rightwing science denier blogs.

Lot's of word salad, and yet not one single solitary link to a body of reputable, peer reviewed scientific literature showing the theory of evolution by natural selection has been falsified and debunked.



"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin."

- Statement by U.S. National Academies of Science, and the national science academies of 65 member countries
https://www.interacademies.org/statement/iap-statement-teaching-evolution#:~:text=More%20recently%20in%20June%2020 06,of%20the%20science%20of%20nature.

IBDaMann
09-11-2020, 08:49 AM
Good boy, you know how to use Google and spend time reading obscure rightwing science denier blogs.
I think we can agree that it takes a special class of moron to refer to The Origen of Species as a "right-wing denier blog."

The good news is that you are in a "special class."


Lot's of word salad,
I think we can agree that it takes a special class of moron to refer to The Origen of Species as a "word salad."

The good news is that you are in a "special class."


... and yet not one single solitary link to a body of reputable, peer reviewed scientific literature
Aaaahhh, the scientifically illiterate moron strikes again!

There is no such thing as "scientific" literature. There is only literature. Publishing a document does not make science. There is no topic that, in and of itself, converts literature into "scientific" literature.
You need to get a refund on your education.


... showing the theory of evolution by natural selection has been falsified and debunked.
Darwin's theory is unfalsifiable and thus has never been falsified. Whatever the current theory is on evolutionary lineages is DEBUNKED every time we find a new fossil that adds new information.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17008&d=1599835420

Cypress
09-11-2020, 08:54 AM
I think we can agree that it takes a special class of moron to refer to The Origen of Species as a "right-wing denier blog."

The good news is that you are in a "special class."


I think we can agree that it takes a special class of moron to refer to The Origen of Species as a "word salad."

The good news is that you are in a "special class."


Aaaahhh, the scientifically illiterate moron strikes again!

There is no such thing as "scientific" literature. There is only literature. Publishing a document does not make science. There is no topic that, in and of itself, converts literature into "scientific" literature.
You need to get a refund on your education.


Darwin's theory is unfalsifiable and thus has never been falsified. Whatever the current theory is on evolutionary lineages is DEBUNKED every time we find a new fossil that adds new information.
]

^ Still no links to any reputable body of peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrating the theory of evolution by natural selection has been debunked and falsified.

IBDaMann
09-11-2020, 09:22 AM
^ Still no links to any reputable body of peer reviewed scientific literature
Don't expect any links. Nobody has any more insight into Charles Darwin's theory than Charles Darwin's words in The Origin of Species. Nonetheless, I see you prefer your scientifically illiterate prattle so why don't you go read up on some misinformation? There's plenty of it out there and I don't have any.

When the day comes you want to learn something, ... actually read my posts.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17008&d=1599835420

Cypress
09-11-2020, 09:31 AM
Don't expect any links. Nobody has any more insight into Charles Darwin's theory than Charles Darwin's words in The Origin of Species. Nonetheless, I see you prefer your scientifically illiterate prattle so why don't you go read up on some misinformation? There's plenty of it out there and I don't have any.

When the day comes you want to learn something, ... actually read my posts.
]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You claim the theory of evolution by natural selection is easily debunked.

Still waiting on you to provide links to any reputable body of peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrating the theory has been debunked.

Simply parroting what you read on an obscure, rightwing science denier blogs does not cut the mustard.

IBDaMann
09-11-2020, 09:34 AM
Jesus Christ, it is pointless to read anything you write. You do not know jack shit about what you are talking about.

Yes, you are an idiot. You picked Stanford who decided to take Statistics out of the Math department and to make it a separate Department owing to its applicability to virtually every other field of study. Standford could have called it the Department of Applied Mathematics but I guess they just wanted to focus on Statistics. Good for them. When one gets an undergrad degree from that department, the degree received is Mathematical and Computational Science, not Physics or Chemistry.


The Statistics Department's goal is research and student training in statistics, both theory and applications, and in probability. Throughout its history, the department has been very active in the development of these subjects to advance other fields in the sciences, medicine, engineering and education.

IBDaMann
09-11-2020, 10:06 AM
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Charles Darwin came through in spades with evidence/observations from the Galapagos. They're all in The Origin of Species. Try reading it.


You claim the theory of evolution by natural selection is easily debunked.
No. Read my posts for comprehension.

1. Darwin's theory is unfalsifiable and has thus never been falsified. I'm not going to repeat this for you.
2. Every time a fossil is discovered that adds new information, the species lineage models change, thus creating a new model that debunks the old model. Let me know if you don't grasp how that works.


Still waiting on you to provide links
Please hold your breath while you wait.

[by the way, the easy way to identify totally scientifically illiterate morons who thinks they are supergeniuses is the shout "Show me peer reviewed documents!" They/you are blissfully unaware that "peer review" has nothing to do with science ... and instead believe that it is science. It really is way too funny. It is pathetically funny.

This is a reputably peer-reviewed document:

https://prodimage.images-bn.com/pimages/9781250160898_p0_v1_s1200x630.jpg

Let me guess ... you are confused, right? You just don't understand, right? ... because you don't know what "peer reviewing" is or what it is for.

Don't you think you should first learn what you plan to talk about?

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17008&d=1599835420

Into the Night
09-11-2020, 12:06 PM
Jesus Christ, it is pointless to read anything you write. You do not know jack shit about what you are talking about.

Bulverism fallacy.

Into the Night
09-11-2020, 12:18 PM
Good boy, you know how to use Google and spend time reading obscure rightwing science denier blogs.
Google is not God. Science isn't Google, or any blog. It is not 'left' wing or 'right' wing. It is simply a set of falsifiable theories.


Lot's of word salad,
Inversion fallacy.


and yet not one single solitary link to a body of reputable, peer reviewed scientific literature
Science does not use consensus. It is not a book, paper, magazine, web site, university, government institution, license, degree, or even a scientist. It is not even people at all. It is a set of falsifiable theories.


showing the theory of evolution by natural selection has been falsified and debunked.
The falsification is as follows...there are two of them:
1) The existence of animals that have characteristics that do not help the animal, and in fact make it harder for them to survive.
2) If natural selection were true, it must be true at all times. That would tend to a single species or sub species. How then do you get variety to naturally select from? The Theory of Natural Selection builds a paradox. Arguing both sides of a paradox is irrational. This is a fallacy. It therefore cannot be a theory at all, much less a theory of science.


...deleted Holy Link...

Your link does not define science, nor can it overcome these falsifications. The quote you take from this Holy Link is a religious statement. The Theory of Evolution was not created by Darwin. It was created by the ancient Greeks. It first appeared in an argument made by Anaximander of Miletus some 500 years before Christ.

Darwin created the Theory of Natural Selection, which has been falsified. It is no longer a theory. It is a fallacy.

Into the Night
09-11-2020, 12:20 PM
^ Still no links to any reputable body of peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrating the theory of evolution by natural selection has been debunked and falsified.

None. Science doesn't use consensus. Attempted proof by negative.

Cypress
09-11-2020, 01:50 PM
Yes, you are an idiot. You picked Stanford who decided to take Statistics out of the Math department and to make it a separate Department owing to its applicability to virtually every other field of study. Standford could have called it the Department of Applied Mathematics but I guess they just wanted to focus on Statistics. Good for them. When one gets an undergrad degree from that department, the degree received is Mathematical and Computational Science, not Physics or Chemistry.

You do not like Stanford?

UC Berkley has a Department of Statistics too.
https://statistics.berkeley.edu/

Statistics is used in every scientific and medical discipline..

Anyone who wants a PhD in quantuum physics applies to a university Physics department, not a statistics department.

You never went to college, did you?

Wrapping up,
As an antidote to your ignorance: evolution by natural selection has been confirmed in real time in controlled laboratory conditions with fruit flies and bacterium; morphological evolutionary changes are observed in transitional fossils, and genetics have demonstrated all life evolved from a common primitive microbial origin.


I have repeatedly asked you to provide links to any reputable body of peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrating the theory of evolution by natural selection has been debunked.

You have repeatedly shot blanks, and have been unable to comply with an extremely simple request.

IBDaMann
09-11-2020, 02:06 PM
You do not like Stanford?
Actually, not much. It's a communist institution. Students graduating from Stanford have zero understanding of economics. Actually, that's a bit of an exaggeration; they know to count their change.


UC Berkley has a Department of Statistics too.
Irrelevant. You are the one who thinks it's somehow not math.


Statistics is used in every scientific and medical discipline.
Math is used in virtually everything.


Anyone who wants a PhD in quantuum physics applies to a university Physics department, not a statistics department.
They can. You're still not correct referring to statistics and probability math as "not math."

You never learned math, did you?


... evolution by natural selection has been confirmed in real time
I see that now you are taking a stab at using other words you don't understand. I'm not going to bother explaining it to you a third time. Let's just chalk it up as a success that you have found just the right delusion to take you to your happy place.

I'm happy if you're happy.

Cypress
09-11-2020, 02:07 PM
Actually, not much. It's a communist institution. Students graduating from Stanford have zero understanding of economics. Actually, that's a bit of an exaggeration; they know to count their change.


Irrelevant. You are the one who thinks it's somehow not math.


Math is used in virtually everything.


They can. You're still not correct referring to statistics and probability math as "not math."

You never learned math, did you?


I see that now you are taking a stab at using other words you don't understand. I'm not going to bother explaining it to you a third time. Let's just chalk it up as a success that you have found just the right delusion to take you to your happy place.

I'm happy if you're happy.
Unlike you, I have actually taken college level statistics and calculus classes

I have repeatedly asked you to provide links to any reputable body of peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrating the theory of evolution by natural selection has been debunked.

You have repeatedly shot blanks, and have been unable to comply with an extremely simple request.

IBDaMann
09-11-2020, 02:17 PM
I have repeatedly asked you to provide links to blah, blah, blah
I have repeatedly asked you to read my posts but apparently the person who reads posts for you is not available and we should wait until either he returns or your mother brings a fresh batch of cookies to you down in the basement, whichever comes first.

You still don't know what "peer reviewed" means and you don't understand what you are asking. I'm guessing that someone used that line on you and you were left struggling to respond ... and now you think that by repeating that "demand" that it somehow wins you the argument.

Too funny.

Here's a link (https://politiplex.freeforums.net/board/14/origin-species-charles-darwin-full) for you: https://politiplex.freeforums.net/board/14/origin-species-charles-darwin-full

Tell me what part of the theory (not observations) is falsifiable and what part of it has been falsified. The ball is in your court. Enjoy!

NiftyNiblick
09-11-2020, 02:36 PM
I'm Catholic by virtue of my ethnicity, but that's been the only way since I was in my early teens.
Some people are simply too logical to suspend their disbelief, to embrace concepts that make no sense at all, and I'm one of them.

Being religious is no different than believing that pro wrestling is real.
You can't have a fully developed normal brain.

Perhaps it once served a purpose in the way people behaved. Certainly not anymore.
The most moral and decent people I know are secular humanists.

Evangelical Christians, even more so than Catholics, voted for the orange pigfucker.
This makes them very, very lucky that their belief in Hell is total bullshit.
Voting for Trump in 2016 would have been like making one's reservations in Hell for eternity.
Just leave your credit card number with the desk.
I almost wish it were real, because Trumpanzees certainly deserve it for what they did to humankind.

Cypress
09-11-2020, 02:47 PM
I have repeatedly asked you to read my posts but apparently the person who reads posts for you is not available and we should wait until either he returns or your mother brings a fresh batch of cookies to you down in the basement, whichever comes first.

You still don't know what "peer reviewed" means and you don't understand what you are asking. I'm guessing that someone used that line on you and you were left struggling to respond ... and now you think that by repeating that "demand" that it somehow wins you the argument.

Too funny.

Here's a link (https://politiplex.freeforums.net/board/14/origin-species-charles-darwin-full) for you: https://politiplex.freeforums.net/board/14/origin-species-charles-darwin-full

Tell me what part of the theory (not observations) is falsifiable and what part of it has been falsified. The ball is in your court. Enjoy!

I will accept your tacit admission that some major research universities actually do have Statistics Departments. That was the point - the other dummy in this thread yelled at me that universities do not have departments of Statistics

Who gives a shit what your opinion is? You do not have a PhD in biological sciences, you do not do research in evolution, and I doubt you even went to college.

Your tap dancing, dodging, and excuse making does not alter the fact all you have done is write some word salad you acquired from obscure rightwing blogs, and have been utterly unable to back your assertions up with reputable peer reviewed science.

IBDaMann
09-11-2020, 03:33 PM
I will accept your tacit admission that some major research universities actually do have Statistics Departments. That was the point - the other dummy in this thread yelled at me that universities do not have departments of Statistics

Who gives a shit what your opinion is? You do not have a PhD in biological sciences, you do not do research in evolution, and I doubt you even went to college.

Your tap dancing, dodging, and excuse making does not alter the fact all you have done is write some word salad you acquired from obscure rightwing blogs, and have been utterly unable to back your assertions up with reputable peer reviewed science.

I'm beginning to see what passes as logic in your happy place. Do you have a point for those of us in the real world?

IBDaMann
09-11-2020, 03:36 PM
Being religious is no different than believing that pro wrestling is real. You can't have a fully developed normal brain.
Do you believe in Global Warming? I may have some bad news for you that you just walked right into, or a corner into which you backed yourself.

Cypress
09-11-2020, 05:17 PM
I'm beginning to see what passes as logic in your happy place. Do you have a point for those of us in the real world?

You might consider in enrolling in some community college classes in introductory biology and genetics. The information you acquired from obscure, science-denying rightwing blogs is actually making you stupider.

IBDaMann
09-11-2020, 07:09 PM
I'm beginning to see what passes as logic in your happy place. Do you have a point for those of us in the real world?

You might consider in enrolling in some community college classes in introductory biology and genetics. The information you acquired from obscure, science-denying rightwing blogs is actually making you stupider.
I'll take that as a "No."

Cypress
09-12-2020, 07:44 AM
The fact you have not heard of Darwin's theory of pangenesis...

Darwin never made any such theory!

"Charles Darwin's Theory of Pangenesis"
Source: Arizona State University
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/charles-darwins-theory-pangenesis


Into the Night: "There is no such thing as a 'statistics department' at a university!"
Stanford University Department of Statistics
https://statistics.stanford.edu/about/welcome

University of California Berkley Department of Statistics
https://statistics.berkeley.edu/


Into the Night: When you study quantum physics, you will be studying math, primarily probability math, but also some in statistics. It is not science!! It is math.
All branches of science, especially physics, make use of mathematics, statistics, probability.

Quantum mechanics is recognized as a field of science, specifically physics >>

"Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics relating to the very small."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/33816-quantum-mechanics-explanation.html

Cypress
09-12-2020, 04:08 PM
Darwin's theory is not falsifiable. It is not possible to falsify speculation about past events.
No. Falsifying past events is standard practice in inductive science. The big bang could have been falsifiable by a number empirical observations. Presence or lack of red shift in distant galaxy clusters would have supported or falsified the hypothesis of an expanding universe. Presence or absence of a cosmic background radiation would support or rule out a big bang event.

The big bang still has problems with it. Until we figure out dark energy, I think the big bang still has to be considered a provisional theory.


Gravity is not a theory; it is a force.
Not exactly. Gravity is called a force colloquially because that is the way it was thought of before general relativity.

In the general relativity scheme, gravity is not a force. It is a geometry - a curvature of space-time.


Here you are conflating Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" with evolution itself. Darwin's theory IS indeed speculation about the past (positing that present day life forms are the result of mutations of more primitive life forms). Evolution itself, on the other hand, has been observed in nature. We just don't know whether Darwin's theory is true or not, as his theory is merely speculation about past events, and we don't have a time machine to see if those past events actually happened or not.

Stone by stone was correct, you are in no position to lecture her. Multiple lines of substantial evidence supports the theory of evolution by natural selection, including real time observations of evolution by natural selection in laboratory controlled conditions: observations of evolutionary morphological changes in transitional fossils; genetic evidence that all life on earth evolved from a common primitive microbial origin

Into the Night
09-13-2020, 02:03 AM
[
"Charles Darwin's Theory of Pangenesis"
Source: Arizona State University
...deleted Holy Link...
False authority fallacy. Arizona State University is not Charles Darwin.

[
Stanford University Department of Statistics
...deleted Holy Links...
Irrelevance fallacy.

[
All branches of science, especially physics, make use of mathematics, statistics, probability.
WRONG. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not a casino. It does not use statistical math. Theories ARE translated into mathematical form (called 'laws') to give them the power of prediction.

[
Quantum mechanics is recognized as a field of science, specifically physics >>
Nope. Mathematics.

[
"Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics relating to the very small."
...deleted Holy Link...

Nope. It is about anything that can be expressed in quanta. Size makes no difference.

Into the Night
09-13-2020, 02:14 AM
No. Falsifying past events is standard practice in inductive science.
You cannot test any unobserved past event. Science has no theories about unobserved past events.


The big bang could have been falsifiable
It is not falsifiable. It is an unobserved past event.


by a number empirical observations.
None. No one has seen the Big Bang. A conclusion is not an observation.


Presence or lack of red shift in distant galaxy clusters would have supported or falsified the hypothesis of an expanding universe.
All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. The data they produce is evidence only. Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).


Presence or absence of a cosmic background radiation would support or rule out a big bang event.
Science does not use supporting evidence.


The big bang still has problems with it. Until we figure out dark energy, I think the big bang still has to be considered a provisional theory.
There is no such thing as a 'provisional theory'. There is a theory, or there is not. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A theory may be scientific or nonscientific. Theories of science must be falsifiable.


Not exactly. Gravity is called a force colloquially because that is the way it was thought of before general relativity.
It is still a force.


In the general relativity scheme, gravity is not a force. It is a geometry - a curvature of space-time.
Nope. It is still a force.


Stone by stone was correct,
Nope. He denies science.


you are in no position to lecture her.
Actually, he is.


Multiple lines of substantial evidence supports the theory of evolution
Science does not use supporting evidence. The Theory of Evolution is about an unobserved past event. There is no theory of science possible for that. It is not falsifiable. You can't go back in time to see what actually happened.


by natural selection,
Falsified. Not a theory. A paradox.


including real time observations of evolution by natural selection in laboratory controlled conditions: observations of evolutionary morphological changes in transitional fossils; genetic evidence that all life on earth evolved from a common primitive microbial origin

You can't go back in time to see what actually happened. No one has seen present life evolve from a common microbial origin. Not a theory of science. A religion.

Cypress
09-13-2020, 05:19 AM
False authority fallacy. Arizona State University is not Charles Darwin.

Irrelevance fallacy.

WRONG. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not a casino. It does not use statistical math. Theories ARE translated into mathematical form (called 'laws') to give them the power of prediction.

Nope. Mathematics.

Nope. It is about anything that can be expressed in quanta. Size makes no difference.

You literally cannot admit when you are wrong, can you?


Into the Night: "There is no such thing as a 'statistics department' at a university!"
Stanford University Department of Statistics
https://statistics.stanford.edu/about/welcome

University of California Berkley Department of Statistics
https://statistics.berkeley.edu/

PostmodernProphet
09-13-2020, 05:34 AM
The very nanosecond someone finds chimpanzee fossils in Cambrian rocks, the theory of evolution will be immediately falsified.

so you concur that it is unfalsifiable......

PostmodernProphet
09-13-2020, 05:37 AM
Quote Originally Posted by StoneByStone View Post
No, Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. It's not the belief that there are no gods.Correct.

My point was that many people who call themselves "atheists" are not actually atheists (as atheism is being defined here). Instead, they spout off that they believe that there are no god/s. IBD then correctly chimed in that many of those "atheists" even lie about THAT.

not correct......that is the definition of atheism put forward over the last twenty years by atheists who are tired of being alone........one who lacks a belief in gods is an agnostic or perhaps merely apathetic.....atheists believe there are no gods and deny their existence.....

PostmodernProphet
09-13-2020, 05:41 AM
Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915), which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/image/png;base64,iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAABAAAAAQCAMAAAA oLQ9TAAAAM1BMVEUAAAD /v7MzMw7OzsAAACVlZVJSUnm5uampqYXFxfZ2dkBAQGzs7MnJye GhoZpaWl5eXkOJSOoAAAAAXRSTlMAQObYZgAAAGpJREFUeAFtz 7UBxEAQBMHtgwXpKP9kn/k13pTXIsLH5OfD74d/SLlUtFTL2Tx0E2xvWL gQQYBzeDRBni9QSoJegeUG6AKMyCtB7R9Q8OZ9gD6anV0mzzBd 8X2nF5AVJjKGzYAO4yRv/wzhDIC9UYsU1MAAAAASUVORK5CYII=Wikipedia › wiki › Gravity

Gravity - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity)





if you are proposing this as science Christians deny, you overlooked the fact we don't deny it.......

PostmodernProphet
09-13-2020, 05:57 AM
some here seem not to understand that "falsifiable" is an element of the scientific method......it does not simply mean that something may eventually be discovered to be wrong........it means that it is capable of experimentation to identify if it is true or false......

Cypress
09-13-2020, 06:40 AM
You cannot test any unobserved past event. Science has no theories about unobserved past events.

It is not falsifiable. It is an unobserved past event.

None. No one has seen the Big Bang. A conclusion is not an observation.

All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. The data they produce is evidence only. Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Science does not use supporting evidence.

There is no such thing as a 'provisional theory'. There is a theory, or there is not. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A theory may be scientific or nonscientific. Theories of science must be falsifiable.

It is still a force.

Nope. It is still a force.

Nope. He denies science.

Actually, he is.

Science does not use supporting evidence. The Theory of Evolution is about an unobserved past event. There is no theory of science possible for that. It is not falsifiable. You can't go back in time to see what actually happened.

Falsified. Not a theory. A paradox.

You can't go back in time to see what actually happened. No one has seen present life evolve from a common microbial origin. Not a theory of science. A religion.

You obviously have never set foot on a college campus, or taken a university level science course.

There is no point debating you, when you cannot even admit you are wrong on simple, easily verified facts >>
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?103256-Christians-are-anti-science&p=3897686#post3897686

Cypress
09-13-2020, 08:46 AM
so you concur that it is unfalsifiable......

Incorrect.

Predictions, can be tested to support or refute the hypothesis.

Evolutionary theory predicts we should be able to observe evolution by natural selection in controlled, laboratory conditions.

We have. In fruit flies and bacterium, species which can evolve quickly enough to observe.

We have even observed evolution by natural selection in real time in natural conditions - peppered moths in England.

If we had not made these observations, it would have offered a refutation of Darwin's theory.

Evolutionary theory predicts we should be able to find and observe transitional fossils, demonstrating evolutionary morphological changes between species over geologic time scales.

We have found transitional fossils.

If we had not, the lack of transitional fossils would have required us to rethink our ideas the mechanisms of evolution

Cypress
09-13-2020, 08:55 AM
There is no such thing as a 'provisional theory'! Are you always wrong?

"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory."

- Professor Steven J. Hawking
https://www.brainpickings.org/2018/08/20/stephen-hawking-a-brief-history-of-time-theory/

Some theories are more provisional than others.

Quantum theory and evolutionary theory have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed over such a long period of time, they are essentially tenets of modern science. Even if there is still more to learn about them

In my opinion, the big bang is a relatively more provisional theory because we are still essentially clueless about the nature of dark energy.


"Into the Night" - literally always wrong>>
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?103256-Christians-are-anti-science&p=3897686#post3897686

Into the Night
09-13-2020, 10:54 AM
You literally cannot admit when you are wrong, can you?


Stanford University Department of Statistics
https://statistics.stanford.edu/about/welcome

University of California Berkley Department of Statistics
https://statistics.berkeley.edu/

You literally have an irrelevant fixation, don't you? Both schools regularly deny math and science.

Into the Night
09-13-2020, 11:00 AM
some here seem not to understand that "falsifiable" is an element of the scientific method......it does not simply mean that something may eventually be discovered to be wrong........it means that it is capable of experimentation to identify if it is true or false......

Only to identify if the theory itself is False. Nothing proves a theory True...ever.

Into the Night
09-13-2020, 11:03 AM
You obviously have never set foot on a college campus, or taken a university level science course.
Wrong on both counts. Indeed, I have taught them. Science is not a university, degree, or license. You are just denying science.


There is no point debating you, when you cannot even admit you are wrong on simple, easily verified facts >>

There are no debates here. Just conversations. Learn what 'fact' means. Void argument fallacy. Redefinition fallacies.

No argument presented. Try English. It works better.

Into the Night
09-13-2020, 11:17 AM
Incorrect.

Predictions, can be tested to support or refute the hypothesis.
A hypothesis is not a theory. You test theories, not a hypothesis associated with a theory. There is no way to test the Theory of Evolution. You can't go back in time to see what actually happened.


Evolutionary theory predicts we should be able to observe evolution by natural selection in controlled, laboratory conditions.
Theories do not predict. They explain. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. Nothing about evolution occurring today says that present day life is the result of life evolved from more primitive forms.


We have. In fruit flies and bacterium, species which can evolve quickly enough to observe.
That is not natural selection. That is unnatural selection. We are imposing conditions. We do the same thing when we raise dogs, pigeons, cats, horses, pigs, tulips, roses, fruit, cattle, etc.


We have even observed evolution by natural selection in real time in natural conditions - peppered moths in England.
Nope. Same moth. Just different coloring. No different from many other animals that change their color according to conditions surrounding them. Some even do it seasonally.


If we had not made these observations, it would have offered a refutation of Darwin's theory.
Argument of ignorance fallacy. Compositional error fallacy. One example does not mean all cases.


Evolutionary theory predicts
Theories do not predict. They are incapable of prediction. Prediction can only occur in a closed functional system such as mathematics or logic. It comes with the power of the proof. Science is an open functional system.


we should be able to find and observe transitional fossils,
Define 'transitional fossil'. You are using this buzzword again.


demonstrating evolutionary morphological changes between species over geologic time scales.
Define 'geologic time scale'. Another favorite buzzword of yours.


We have found transitional fossils.
Define 'transitional fossil'.


If we had not, the lack of transitional fossils would have required us to rethink our ideas the mechanisms of evolution

Argument of ignorance fallacy. It would have required no such thing.

The Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable. It cannot be tested. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened. It is a religion. Like all religions, it is based on some initial circular argument with arguments extending from that. Like any religion, there are those that try to prove their religion. This forms the circular argument fallacy (what you are doing). It is what a fundamentalist does.

Into the Night
09-13-2020, 11:26 AM
Are you always wrong?

Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis:
A theory is not a hypothesis.


you can never prove it.
This is correct. You can never prove any theory True.


No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory."
Also correct. You can never prove a theory True.


Professor Steven J. Hawking
He is correct, except for the use of 'hypothesis' as 'theory'. They are two separate things.


Some theories are more provisional than others.
Nope. There is no scale here.


Quantum theory
There is no such thing as 'quantum theory'. Quantum physics is made up of many theories, and is essentially mathematical in form, primarily making use of probability math and statistical math.


and evolutionary theory have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed over such a long period of time,
No theory is ever proven True. No theory is ever 'confirmed'. It is not possible to test the Theory of Evolution. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened.


they are essentially tenets of modern science.
The Theory of Evolution is not science. It is religion. It is not falsifiable. It therefore remains a circular argument.


Even if there is still more to learn about them
Science isn't 'learning'. It is a set of falsifiable theories.


In my opinion, the big bang is a relatively more provisional theory because we are still essentially clueless about the nature of dark energy.
No more or less 'provisional'. It too is not falsifiable. It cannot be tested. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened.


"Into the Night" - literally always wrong>>

Bulverism fallacy.

Cypress
09-13-2020, 11:41 AM
"Into the Night": literally wrong all the bloody time >>


A hypothesis is not a theory. You test theories, not a hypothesis associated with a theory!.
Encyclopedia Britannica: "Scientific method, mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis."


Into the Night: "There is no such thing as a 'statistics department' at a university!"
Stanford University Department of Statistics
https://statistics.stanford.edu/about/welcome

University of California* Berkley Department of Statistics
https://statistics.berkeley.edu/


(Theory of pangenesis?) Darwin NEVER made any such theory!

"Charles Darwin's Theory of Pangenesis"
Source: Arizona State University
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/charles-darwins-theory-pangenesis


Into the Night: When you study quantum physics, you will be studying math, primarily probability math, but also some in statistics. It is NOT science!!* It is math.

"Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics relating to the very small."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/33816-quantum-mechanics-explanation.html



There is no such thing as a 'provisional theory'!

"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory."

- Professor Steven J. Hawking
https://www.brainpickings.org/2018/08/20/stephen-hawking-a-brief-history-of-time-theory/

Into the Night
09-13-2020, 02:34 PM
"Into the Night": literally wrong all the bloody time >>
Bulverism fallacy.


Encyclopedia Britannica: "Scientific method,
Science is not a method or procedure. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. The Britannica is not a dictionary. Dictionaries do not define words anyway. Science is defined by philosophy.


mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences.
Science is not mathematics. Science is not technique. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis."
No such thing as a 'scientific' hypothesis. Science isn't a hypothesis. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


...deleted spam...


No arguments presented. False authorities. Repetitious arguments. Denial of science. Redefinitions.

PostmodernProphet
09-13-2020, 02:46 PM
Incorrect.

Predictions, can be tested to support or refute the hypothesis.

Evolutionary theory predicts we should be able to observe evolution by natural selection in controlled, laboratory conditions.

We have. In fruit flies and bacterium, species which can evolve quickly enough to observe.

We have even observed evolution by natural selection in real time in natural conditions - peppered moths in England.

If we had not made these observations, it would have offered a refutation of Darwin's theory.

Evolutionary theory predicts we should be able to find and observe transitional fossils, demonstrating evolutionary morphological changes between species over geologic time scales.

We have found transitional fossils.

If we had not, the lack of transitional fossils would have required us to rethink our ideas the mechanisms of evolution

what lib'ruls would have us believe about evolution is that some other single celled creature should turn into a sentient competitor for human beings......as to "transitional" fossils, we have fossils and a tremendously active imagination on the part of a handful of idiots........"oh, you found a fossil with flippers?........obviously it turned into a creature that walked around.....except the ones who got flippers because they used to be creatures that walked around"..........

PostmodernProphet
09-13-2020, 02:48 PM
Only to identify if the theory itself is False. Nothing proves a theory True...ever.

not true to lib'ruls........to them the evolution of single celled amoebas to humans is immutable fact......

PostmodernProphet
09-13-2020, 02:50 PM
Quantum theory and evolutionary theory have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed over such a long period of time, they are essentially tenets of modern science.

given the fact that neither has EVER been experimentally tested it is rather sad you would say something that wrong......

Cypress
09-13-2020, 03:14 PM
Cypress: "Quantum theory and evolutionary theory have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed over such a long period of time, they are essentially tenets of modern science. Even if there is still more to learn about them."

given the fact that neither has EVER been experimentally tested it is rather sad you would say something that wrong......

"Evolution is an on-going process, and it can be studied experimentally in organisms with rapid generations."

Source: The preeminent scientific journal "Nature"
https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej201769

Into the Night
09-13-2020, 04:29 PM
"Evolution is an on-going process, and it can be studied experimentally in organisms with rapid generations."

Source: The preeminent scientific journal "Nature"
https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej201769

No one is saying evolution doesn't occur. You are trying to change the subject.

Cypress
09-13-2020, 05:57 PM
No one is saying evolution doesn't occur. You are trying to change the subject.

Philosopher of science Karl Popper, who is the founding figure in the falsification criterion of science, originally thought Darwin's theory was not falsifiable. But later, after he thought about it more, he decided is was testable and falsifiable.

That's right. The founder of the falsification criterion of science himself thought evolution by natural selection is falsifiable.

Evolution by natural selection has been tested and confirmed by laboratory-controlled experimentation, field observation, fossil record, and genetics. The rightwing blogs you are reading are actually making you stupider.


"Into the Night": literally wrong about everything >>

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?103256-Christians-are-anti-science&p=3898394#post3898394

PostmodernProphet
09-13-2020, 07:10 PM
"Evolution is an on-going process, and it can be studied experimentally in organisms with rapid generations."

Source: The preeminent scientific journal "Nature"
https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej201769

cite an experiment in which a single celled organism became a sentient being or concede the argument.....

PostmodernProphet
09-13-2020, 07:13 PM
. The founder of the falsification criterion of science himself thought evolution by natural selection is falsifiable.

/shrugs......so he and you are both wrong.....the lib'rul fantasy that human beings evolved from single celled organisms is not falsifiable.......

Cypress
09-14-2020, 06:01 AM
cite an experiment in which a single celled organism became a sentient being or concede the argument.....

The only evidence of evolution you will accept is when a microbe evolves into a sentient life form in a Petri dish?

I advice you to never set foot on a legitimate college campus due to the risk of being laughed off it.

PostmodernProphet
09-14-2020, 06:40 AM
The only evidence of evolution you will accept is when a microbe evolves into a sentient life form in a Petri dish?

I advice you to never set foot on a legitimate college campus due to the risk of being laughed off it.

if you want to pretend that what you believe is falsifiable you need to accept the responsibility for demonstrating the experiment by which it can be tested.......now if you are willing to admit that the thought that a single celled organism evolving into a human being is NOT the "evolution" that is falsifiable (and is not in fact a scientific theory), there is no reason for us to have this argument.....

Cypress
09-14-2020, 06:42 AM
/shrugs......so he and you are both wrong.....the lib'rul fantasy that human beings evolved from single celled organisms is not falsifiable.......

So just so we have this for the record:

Anonymous message board poster with no training in science, Pmp, assumes Darwin's theory is not falsifiable.

In contrast, Karl Popper, the preeminent philosopher of science and the seminal founding figure in the falsification criterion of good science, ultimately concluded that Darwin's theory is testable and falsifiable

PostmodernProphet
09-14-2020, 06:45 AM
So just so we have this for the record:

Anonymous message board poster with no training in science, Pmp, assumes Darwin's theory is not falsifiable.

In contrast, Karl Popper, the preeminent philosopher of science and the seminal founding figure in the falsification criterion of good science, concluded that Darwin's theory is testable and falsifiable

regardless of my training in science, it is patently obvious that the alleged scientific "theory" that human beings evolved from a single celled organism is not falsifiable.........anyone who pretends it is (you, popper, or any random mindless fuckwit) either is lying or doesn't actually understand what falsifiable actually means.....

perhaps in the interest of proving you aren't a liar, you could tell us what you believe "falsifiable" means in the context of the scientific method........

Cypress
09-14-2020, 06:52 AM
regardless of my training in science, it is patently obvious that the alleged scientific "theory" that human beings evolved from a single celled organism is not falsifiable.........anyone who pretends it is (you, popper, or any random mindless fuckwit) either is lying or doesn't actually understand what falsifiable actually means.....

perhaps in the interest of proving you aren't a liar, you could tell us what you believe "falsifiable" means in the context of the scientific method........

The take-away here is that evolution deniers who cling to the word falsification, should really keep their mouths shut if they have not heard of Karl Popper. It is crystal clear you never heard of Karl Popper until I mentioned him.

You cannot run your mouth about the falsification criteria of science without even having a rudimentary knowledge of Karl Popper and philosophy of science.

My advice: if you are going to rely on obscure, rightwing science denying blogs as your souce of science knowlege, you are actually only going to get stupider about the state of evolutionary science.

PostmodernProphet
09-14-2020, 06:52 AM
“It would be completely non-scientific to ignore that possibility just because it doesn’t conform with some preexisting philosophical prejudices,” says Sean Carroll, a physicist at Caltech, who called for the “retirement” of the falsifiability principle in a controversial essay for Edge last year. Falsifiability is “just a simple motto that non-philosophically-trained scientists have latched onto,” argues Carroll. He also bristles at the notion that this viewpoint can be summed up as “elegance will suffice,” as Ellis put it in a stinging Nature comment written with cosmologist Joe Silk.

“Elegance can help us invent new theories, but does not count as empirical evidence in their favor,” says Carroll. “The criteria we use for judging theories are how good they are at accounting for the data, not how pretty or seductive or intuitive they are.”

But Ellis and Silk worry that if physicists abandon falsifiability, they could damage the public’s trust in science and scientists at a time when that trust is critical to policymaking. “This battle for the heart and soul of physics is opening up at a time when scientific results—in topics from climate change to the theory of evolution—are being questioned by some politicians and religious fundamentalists,” Ellis and Silk wrote in Nature.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/falsifiability/

PostmodernProphet
09-14-2020, 06:58 AM
The take-away here is that evolution deniers who cling to the word falsification, should really keep their mouths shut if they have not heard of Karl Popper. It is crystal clear you never heard of Karl Popper until I mentioned him.

You cannot run your mouth about the falsification criteria of science without even having a rudimentary knowledge of Karl Popper and philosophy of science.

My advice: if you are going to rely on obscure, rightwing science denying blogs as your souce of science knowlege, you are actually only going to get stupider about the state of evolutionary science.

/shrugs........hadn't heard of Popper.......had no need to hear of Popper........now that I have heard of him, (and I only have your word of what he says which by the way seems to contradict what others report he says) all I know is that he is as obviously wrong as you are........

I don't need any help identifying what "falsification" means.....particularly when you seem to have no intent to state what it is you believe it means.......as I have said before, I focus on the philosophy of science.......I seek the understanding of that which we say, means.......

in the sense of science, falsification as it has been known for hundreds of years, is the test of whether your argument is science or not.......what you want to pretend is science is nothing more than your untestable fantasy.......

PostmodernProphet
09-14-2020, 07:00 AM
My advice: if you are going to rely on obscure, rightwing science denying blogs as your souce of science knowlege, you are actually only going to get stupider about the state of evolutionary science.

so you don't like Nova?.....

Cypress
09-14-2020, 08:18 AM
/shrugs........hadn't heard of Popper.......had no need to hear of Popper........now that I have heard of him, (and I only have your word of what he says which by the way seems to contradict what others report he says) all I know is that he is as obviously wrong as you are........

I don't need any help identifying what "falsification" means.....particularly when you seem to have no intent to state what it is you believe it means.......as I have said before, I focus on the philosophy of science.......I seek the understanding of that which we say, means.......

in the sense of science, falsification as it has been known for hundreds of years, is the test of whether your argument is science or not.......what you want to pretend is science is nothing more than your untestable fantasy.......

No, before Karl Popper, it was widely assumed that lots of observational evidence was the mark of a good scientific theory. The criterion of falsification has not been around for centuries, in the manner articulated by Popper. Popper pointed to general relativity and the Eddington experiment as an example of a scientific theory being willing to subject itself to outright falsification.

Popper ultimately came to believe Darwin's theory was an example of a scientific theory which was testable and falsifiable.

Cypress
09-14-2020, 08:20 AM
so you don't like Nova?.....

The science program Nova has never run a series denying evolution.

There is no doubt that many questions remain about evolution.

500 years after Issac Newton we are still researching gravity, because we do not have it all figured out. It has only been 150 years since Darwin.

PostmodernProphet
09-14-2020, 12:00 PM
No, before Karl Popper, it was widely assumed that lots of observational evidence was the mark of a good scientific theory

observation of what?........are you claiming the scientific method didn't demand controlled experimentation........if you are, stop wasting my time......



Popper ultimately came to believe Darwin's theory was an example of a scientific theory which was testable and falsifiable.

so, is it your claim that Darwin's theory is not the one we are discussing (that humans evolved from single celled organisms) or are you claiming that human evolution from single celled organisms is falsifiable?......

PostmodernProphet
09-14-2020, 12:04 PM
The science program Nova has never run a series denying evolution.

There is no doubt that many questions remain about evolution.

500 years after Issac Newton we are still researching gravity, because we do not have it all figured out. It has only been 150 years since Darwin.
stop being a cunt......no one has claimed Nova ran a series denying evolution......I linked a comment from Nova on the topic we are discussing and you claimed my only source was a right wing blog.....respond honestly or stfu......

Into the Night
09-14-2020, 01:14 PM
Philosopher of science
There is no such thing as a 'philosopher of science'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not philosophy.


Karl Popper, who is the founding figure in the falsification criterion of science, originally thought Darwin's theory was not falsifiable. But later, after he thought about it more, he decided is was testable and falsifiable.
So? It's been falsified.


That's right. The founder of the falsification criterion of science himself thought evolution by natural selection is falsifiable.
So? It's been falsified.


Evolution by natural selection has been tested and confirmed by laboratory-controlled experimentation, field observation, fossil record, and genetics.
Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that.

Into the Night
09-14-2020, 01:17 PM
/shrugs......so he and you are both wrong.....the lib'rul fantasy that human beings evolved from single celled organisms is not falsifiable.......

You are correct. There are two theories in discussion here, which Cypress is conflating as the same theory:

The Theory of Evolution, created by the ancient Greeks, which is not falsifiable. It states that present day life evolved from more primitive life.
The Theory of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution proposed by Darwin. It has been falsified. It states that present day life is the result of a 'natural selection' of a wider variety of life. Unfortunately for Darwin, this theory is a paradox.

Into the Night
09-14-2020, 01:18 PM
The only evidence of evolution you will accept is when a microbe evolves into a sentient life form in a Petri dish?

I advice you to never set foot on a legitimate college campus due to the risk of being laughed off it.

Define 'legitimate college campus'. You don't get to speak for any college or university. You only get to speak for you.

Into the Night
09-14-2020, 01:19 PM
So just so we have this for the record:

Anonymous message board poster with no training in science, Pmp, assumes Darwin's theory is not falsifiable.

In contrast, Karl Popper, the preeminent philosopher of science and the seminal founding figure in the falsification criterion of good science, ultimately concluded that Darwin's theory is testable and falsifiable

It has been falsified.

Into the Night
09-14-2020, 01:20 PM
The take-away here is that evolution deniers who cling to the word falsification, should really keep their mouths shut if they have not heard of Karl Popper. It is crystal clear you never heard of Karl Popper until I mentioned him.

You cannot run your mouth about the falsification criteria of science without even having a rudimentary knowledge of Karl Popper and philosophy of science.

My advice: if you are going to rely on obscure, rightwing science denying blogs as your souce of science knowlege, you are actually only going to get stupider about the state of evolutionary science.

Denial of philosophy. Denial of Karl Popper. Science isn't 'knowledge'. Science isn't 'evolution'. Science isn't a blog. Science has no politics. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Into the Night
09-14-2020, 01:23 PM
The science program Nova has never run a series denying evolution.

There is no doubt that many questions remain about evolution.

500 years after Issac Newton we are still researching gravity, because we do not have it all figured out. It has only been 150 years since Darwin.

Science isn't a TV show. No theory is ever proven True. Newton never made a theory of gravity, only about it's effects. Gravity is not a theory. It is a force. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified.

Into the Night
09-14-2020, 01:26 PM
observation of what?........are you claiming the scientific method didn't demand controlled experimentation........if you are, stop wasting my time......



so, is it your claim that Darwin's theory is not the one we are discussing (that humans evolved from single celled organisms) or are you claiming that human evolution from single celled organisms is falsifiable?......

Actually, science isn't observation at all, nor any experiment.

All observations (and the data they produce) are subject to the problems of phenomenology. The simplest example of this is the optical illusion or a magic show. We each interpret what we see according to our own personal model of the universe and the way we figure it works.

Science is not observations. Observations are evidence only. Science is just the falsifiable theories themselves. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Into the Night
09-14-2020, 01:35 PM
/shrugs........hadn't heard of Popper.......had no need to hear of Popper........now that I have heard of him, (and I only have your word of what he says which by the way seems to contradict what others report he says) all I know is that he is as obviously wrong as you are........

I don't need any help identifying what "falsification" means.....particularly when you seem to have no intent to state what it is you believe it means.......as I have said before, I focus on the philosophy of science.......I seek the understanding of that which we say, means.......

in the sense of science, falsification as it has been known for hundreds of years, is the test of whether your argument is science or not.......what you want to pretend is science is nothing more than your untestable fantasy.......

Karl Popper first argued that difference between science and religion is that science is about falsifiability. Since then, this argument has been distilled down to its essence. His works contain many well argued philosophies. You might enjoy reading them.

Science itself isn't philosophy. It is, however, defined by philosophy. So are words like 'religion' and 'real'. Philosophy itself is very simple. You must present your own arguments, free of fallacies. You cannot use the arguments of another as your own argument. The branch of philosophy that concerns the definition of 'real' is called phenomenology. That branch of philosophy is all about observations and how we perceive them.

A theory is just an explanatory argument. An argument is just a set of predicates and a conclusion. A theory of science, in addition to being a theory, must also be falsifiable. All theories begin initially as circular arguments. This is not in and of itself a fallacy. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. Attempting to prove a circular argument as True is the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist (like Cypress) does. He is trying to prove the circular argument of the Theory of Evolution True.

PostmodernProphet
09-14-2020, 01:48 PM
sorry ItN, but I don't read amazonerd's posts....

Jerome
09-14-2020, 01:51 PM
You see this a lot on the forums. Some ignorant, hateful atheist claiming that Christians don't believe in science or are scientifically illiterate.
Guess again.
In the last 100 years

Nobel prizes:

Chemistry: 72.5 percent were awarded to Christians
Physics: 62 percent were awarded to Christians.
Medicine/Physiology: 54 percent were awarded to Christians.

A very small percentage were awarded to non-Theists.

Any questions?

I don't believe that Christians are necessarily anti-science, but your example of Nobel prize winners is zero evidence to rebut that. It's been virtually mandatory for all people -- including scientists -- to claim a religious faith of some sort until VERY recently. Being openly atheist is a death sentence in many countries to this day.

Jerome
09-14-2020, 01:53 PM
You are correct. There are two theories in discussion here, which Cypress is conflating as the same theory:

The Theory of Evolution, created by the ancient Greeks, which is not falsifiable. It states that present day life evolved from more primitive life.
The Theory of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution proposed by Darwin. It has been falsified. It states that present day life is the result of a 'natural selection' of a wider variety of life. Unfortunately for Darwin, this theory is a paradox.

If you prove this, you'll be the most famous scientist in history, and you'll be one of those Nobel laureates in the OP.

PostmodernProphet
09-14-2020, 01:54 PM
Being openly atheist is a death sentence in many countries to this day.

good times.....

Into the Night
09-14-2020, 02:46 PM
sorry ItN, but I don't read amazonerd's posts....

What have I posted about Amazon? I don't even work for Amazon.

Into the Night
09-14-2020, 02:48 PM
I don't believe that Christians are necessarily anti-science, but your example of Nobel prize winners is zero evidence to rebut that. It's been virtually mandatory for all people -- including scientists -- to claim a religious faith of some sort until VERY recently. Being openly atheist is a death sentence in many countries to this day.

Nope. Never was mandatory to claim a religious faith in science. Science is not religion nor politics. It is just a set of falsifiable theories. Anyone can be inspired to a new theory of science. People of all faiths have been so inspired.

Into the Night
09-14-2020, 02:51 PM
If you prove this, you'll be the most famous scientist in history, and you'll be one of those Nobel laureates in the OP.

Prove what? The the Theory of Evolution is a religion, or that Darwins's theory of Natural Selection has been falsified? Why would that involve a Nobel prize at all? You don't get to speak for Alfred Nobel nor his estate. You only get to speak for you.

Jerome
09-14-2020, 04:32 PM
Nope. Never was mandatory to claim a religious faith in science. Science is not religion nor politics. It is just a set of falsifiable theories. Anyone can be inspired to a new theory of science. People of all faiths have been so inspired.

So how the fuck do you have a survey of the religious preferences of all Nobel winners, dumbass?

Jerome
09-14-2020, 04:33 PM
Prove what? The the Theory of Evolution is a religion, or that Darwins's theory of Natural Selection has been falsified? Why would that involve a Nobel prize at all? You don't get to speak for Alfred Nobel nor his estate. You only get to speak for you.

I'm speaking for the entire scientific community. Evolution is fact, dipshit. It's an organizing principle of biology (like gravity is to astrophysics), and it's never been falsified.

Into the Night
09-14-2020, 04:43 PM
So how the fuck do you have a survey of the religious preferences of all Nobel winners, dumbass?

Science is not a Nobel prize.

Into the Night
09-14-2020, 04:45 PM
I'm speaking for the entire scientific community.
You don't get to speak for the entire scientific community. Science is not a community. You only get to speak for you.


Evolution is fact, dipshit.
Evolution exists.


It's an organizing principle of biology
Nope. It doesn't organize anything. That would presuppose intelligence.


(like gravity is to astrophysics),
Gravity doesn't organize anything either.


and it's never been falsified.

The Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. The Theory of Evolution remains a circular argument...and a religion. The Theory of Natural Selection results in a paradox.

Cypress
09-15-2020, 03:57 AM
I had to stop reading at your first sentence, because as per usual you made a statement that is demonstrably false:


There is no such thing as a 'philosopher of science'!
"Philosophy of science, the study, from a philosophical perspective, of the elements of scientific inquiry."

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-science


A hypothesis is not a theory. You test theories, not a hypothesis associated with a theory!.
Encyclopedia Britannica: "Scientific method, mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis."


Into the Night: "There is no such thing as a 'statistics department' at a university!"
Stanford University Department of Statistics
https://statistics.stanford.edu/about/welcome

University of California* Berkley Department of Statistics
https://statistics.berkeley.edu/


(Theory of pangenesis?) Darwin NEVER made any such theory!

"Charles Darwin's Theory of Pangenesis"
Source: Arizona State University
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/charles-darwins-theory-pangenesis


Into the Night: When you study quantum physics, you will be studying math, primarily probability math, but also some in statistics. It is NOT science!!* It is math.

"Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics relating to the very small."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/33816-quantum-mechanics-explanation.html



There is no such thing as a 'provisional theory'!

"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory."

- Professor Steven J. Hawking
https://www.brainpickings.org/2018/08/20/stephen-hawking-a-brief-history-of-time-theory/

Cypress
09-15-2020, 07:57 AM
“It would be completely non-scientific to ignore that possibility just because it doesn’t conform with some preexisting philosophical prejudices,” says Sean Carroll, a physicist at Caltech, who called for the “retirement” of the falsifiability principle in a controversial essay for Edge last year. Falsifiability is “just a simple motto that non-philosophically-trained scientists have latched onto,” argues Carroll. He also bristles at the notion that this viewpoint can be summed up as “elegance will suffice,” as Ellis put it in a stinging Nature comment written with cosmologist Joe Silk.

“Elegance can help us invent new theories, but does not count as empirical evidence in their favor,” says Carroll. “The criteria we use for judging theories are how good they are at accounting for the data, not how pretty or seductive or intuitive they are.”

But Ellis and Silk worry that if physicists abandon falsifiability, they could damage the public’s trust in science and scientists at a time when that trust is critical to policymaking. “This battle for the heart and soul of physics is opening up at a time when scientific results—in topics from climate change to the theory of evolution—are being questioned by some politicians and religious fundamentalists,” Ellis and Silk wrote in Nature.https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/falsifiability/

I have taken courses from Professor Sean Carol, and respect his insights because he is trained as both a physicist and as a philosopher. Albert Einstein was once asked why his mind was so much more creative than garden variety physicists, and he responded it was because he studied not only physics, but also philosophy, history, theology, and a broad range of intellectual traditions. This obviously trained his mind to think more creatively and outside the box which constrained most physicists.

As for the criteria of falsifiability, I do not obsess about it. I only brought it up because an evolution denier on this thread obviously latched onto the word like a leech, after reading something about it on a rightwing blog.

I simply highlighted the fact that Karl Popper, the seminal founding figure in the criteria of falsifiability approach, ultimately came to believe that Darwin's theory is testable and falsifiable -- marking it as good science.

gfm7175
09-15-2020, 09:21 AM
I'm speaking for the entire scientific community. Evolution is fact, dipshit. It's an organizing principle of biology (like gravity is to astrophysics), and it's never been falsified.

Science is not a community, and you do not get to speak for it. You only get to speak for yourself.

The Theory of Evolution is religion, not a fact. You don't even know what a fact is, obviously...

The Theory of Evolution CAN'T be falsified; it is a theory about a past unobserved event. It is a religion.

Evolution, however, exists in nature.

Jerome
09-15-2020, 09:34 AM
Science is not a Nobel prize.

Seriously, are you touched in the head?

gfm7175
09-15-2020, 09:35 AM
I had to stop reading at your first sentence, because as per usual you made a statement that is demonstrably false:
No, he was correct.


... deleted Encyclopedia Britannica, Stanford University Department of Statistics, University of California Berkley Department of Statistics, Arizona State University, livescience.com, brainpickings.org...

False Sources summarily dismissed. Start thinking for yourself for a change...

PostmodernProphet
09-15-2020, 09:55 AM
I simply highlighted the fact that Karl Popper, the seminal founding figure in the criteria of falsifiability approach, ultimately came to believe that Darwin's theory is testable and falsifiable -- marking it as good science.

can't help the fact he and you have fucked up.......but as long as we both agree that the belief that human beings evolved from single celled organisms is NOT science or falsifiable I see nothing else to argue about.....

Cypress
09-15-2020, 10:00 AM
can't help the fact he and you have fucked up.......but as long as we both agree that the belief that human beings evolved from single celled organisms is NOT science or falsifiable I see nothing else to argue about.....

I am not surprised you attempt to claim victory by putting words in other people's mouths. Are you not infamous for altering other people's posts?

Into the Night
09-15-2020, 10:50 AM
I had to stop reading at your first sentence, because as per usual you made a statement that is demonstrably false:
...deleted spam, misquotes, and Holy Links...

You are just repeating your inanity now.

No argument presetned. False authorities. Contextomy fallacies. Spamming. Repetition fallacies. RQAA.

Into the Night
09-15-2020, 10:55 AM
I have taken courses from Professor Sean Carol, and respect his insights because he is trained as both a physicist and as a philosopher. Albert Einstein was once asked why his mind was so much more creative than garden variety physicists, and he responded it was because he studied not only physics, but also philosophy, history, theology, and a broad range of intellectual traditions. This obviously trained his mind to think more creatively and outside the box which constrained most physicists.

As for the criteria of falsifiability, I do not obsess about it. I only brought it up because an evolution denier on this thread obviously latched onto the word like a leech, after reading something about it on a rightwing blog.

I simply highlighted the fact that Karl Popper, the seminal founding figure in the criteria of falsifiability approach, ultimately came to believe that Darwin's theory is testable and falsifiable -- marking it as good science.

The Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable. It is not known whether that theory if True or False. It cannot be tested. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened. It remains a circular argument...and a religion.
The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. It creates a paradox.

Into the Night
09-15-2020, 10:57 AM
can't help the fact he and you have fucked up.......but as long as we both agree that the belief that human beings evolved from single celled organisms is NOT science or falsifiable I see nothing else to argue about.....

Then we agree. It is not science or falsifiable.

Hawkeye10
09-15-2020, 03:12 PM
https://twitter.com/GadSaad/status/1305931438618017793

Jerome
09-17-2020, 06:27 PM
https://apple.news/A5ABUKVGbRXuOL48rX0d_og

In May, a poll by the University of Chicago Divinity School and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed 43% of evangelical Protestants, a group I’d identified as when both a Southern Baptist and charismatic believer, say they think COVID-19 is a message from God (https://apnorc.org/poll-us-believers-see-message-of-change-from-god-in-virus/). Not that God caused it, but that he is using it to tell the world to change.
More than that, 55% of all believers feel God will protect them from the virus.

Cypress
09-17-2020, 06:48 PM
The Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable. It is not known whether that theory if True or False. It cannot be tested. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened. It remains a circular argument...and a religion.
The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. It creates a paradox.

We cannot go back in time to see the big bang, the formation of the solar system, the asteroid strike that took out the dinosaurs, or the rise of homo sapiens in East Africa.

People who are smarter than you, and have years of training in scientific inquiry are able to develop hypotheses, lines of evidences, and predictions which they can test.

IBDaMann
09-17-2020, 08:49 PM
We cannot go back in time to see the big bang, the formation of the solar system, the asteroid strike that took out the dinosaurs, or the rise of homo sapiens in East Africa.
Correction: We cannot go back in time to VERIFY any "Big Bang," how the solar system formed, what caused the any dinosaur species to become extinct, or where homo sapiens first came into existence.


People who are smarter than you,
You are not aware of anyone smarter than he his ... except for me since I'm the smartest poster on this board ... and you are hardly cognizant of the time of day.


... and have years of training in scientific inquiry are able to develop hypotheses, lines of evidences, and predictions which they can test.
Without a time machine, how do you suppose any speculation of the past be verified?

Cypress
09-18-2020, 06:54 AM
We cannot go back in time to see the big bang, the formation of the solar system, the asteroid strike that took out the dinosaurs, or the rise of homo sapiens in East Africa.

People who are smarter than you, and have years of training in scientific inquiry are able to develop hypotheses, lines of evidences, and predictions which they can test.

Correction: We cannot go back in time to VERIFY any "Big Bang," how the solar system formed, what caused the any dinosaur species to become extinct, or where homo sapiens first came into existence.

You are not aware of anyone smarter than he his ... except for me since I'm the smartest poster on this board ... and you are hardly cognizant of the time of day.

Without a time machine, how do you suppose any speculation of the past be verified?
A tepid attempt to rescue "Into the Night" and to try to explain what she really meant.

In your flaccid attempt to elevate Christian biblical literalism over science, you demand science live up to an impossible standard: to time travel back to observe the Big Bang, the asteroid strike at the end of the Curvaceous et al.

Neither you nor any scientist has ever actually directly observed quarks, electrons, Higgs bosons. But the standard model of particle physics has been tested and confirmed so bloody often, we have extremely high scientific confidence these particles exist.

Science is probabilistic in nature. Most of what we are ever going to know about physical reality and the natural world is going to come from inductive reasoning, experimentation, testing predictions.


"Into the Night": literally wrong all the bloody time>

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?103256-Christians-are-anti-science&p=3901887#post3901887

IBDaMann
09-18-2020, 07:53 AM
In your flaccid attempt to elevate Christian biblical literalism over science,
I'm an atheist. When did you misinterpret that for Christian biblical literalism?


... you demand science live up to an impossible standard:
Nope. I demand only that a model be a falsifiable predictor of nature and to have survived the test of its null hypothesis per the scientific method in order to be called "science."


... to time travel back to observe the Big Bang,
The Big Bang is speculation. It might not be able to be "verified" because it might not have happened.


... the asteroid strike at the end of the Curvaceous et al.
There might not have been any such asteroid strike. It's occurrence is merely speculated.


Neither you nor any scientist has ever actually directly observed quarks, electrons, Higgs bosons.
Immaterial. You should really learn what science is. We don't need to observe quarks and electrons directly. We have our falsifiable models that predict nature. They seem to work.


But the standard model of particle physics has been tested and confirmed so bloody often,
You really should learn what science is. Science doesn't confirm anything. Nothing in science is TRUE. Everything in science is that which has not yet been shown to be FALSE. Hence the falsifiability requirement.


... we have extremely high scientific confidence these particles exist.
Science doesn't care about your widdow feewings. Science doesn't care how confident you are in anything.


Science is probabilistic in nature.
Nope. Science is predictive in nature. Probability and Statistics both fall under mathematics.

I see that you're a Brit and that would explain your difficulties in English:


... the asteroid strike at the end of the Curvaceous et al.
Where you wrote "et. al" you needed to write "etc." "Et. al" is for listing people.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16671&d=1597838897

Doc Dutch
09-18-2020, 08:04 AM
I'm an atheist. When did you misinterpret that for Christian biblical literalism?

Nope. I demand only that a model be a falsifiable predictor of nature and to have survived the test of its null hypothesis per the scientific method in order to be called "science."

The Big Bang is speculation. It might not be able to be "verified" because it might not have happened.

There might not have been any such asteroid strike. It's occurrence is merely speculated.

Immaterial. You should really learn what science is. We don't need to observe quarks and electrons directly. We have our falsifiable models that predict nature. They seem to work.

You really should learn what science is. Science doesn't confirm anything. Nothing in science is TRUE. Everything in science is that which has not yet been shown to be FALSE. Hence the falsifiability requirement.

Science doesn't care about your widdow feewings. Science doesn't care how confident you are in anything.

Nope. Science is predictive in nature. Probability and Statistics both fall under mathematics.

I see that you're a Brit and that would explain your difficulties in English:

Where you wrote "et. al" you needed to write "etc." "Et. al" is for listing people.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16671&d=1597838897

A science-denying atheist? Fascinating. Are you a Solipsist? You have many of the indicators.

What's the science behind people who overcompensate for their inadequacies?

https://i.imgflip.com/4fdthk.jpg LOL.

Cypress
09-18-2020, 08:07 AM
I'm an atheist. When did you misinterpret that for Christian biblical literalism?


Nope. I demand only that a model be a falsifiable predictor of nature and to have survived the test of its null hypothesis per the scientific method in order to be called "science."


The Big Bang is speculation. It might not be able to be "verified" because it might not have happened.


There might not have been any such asteroid strike. It's occurrence is merely speculated.


Immaterial. You should really learn what science is. We don't need to observe quarks and electrons directly. We have our falsifiable models that predict nature. They seem to work.


You really should learn what science is. Science doesn't confirm anything. Nothing in science is TRUE. Everything in science is that which has not yet been shown to be FALSE. Hence the falsifiability requirement.


Science doesn't care about your widdow feewings. Science doesn't care how confident you are in anything.


Nope. Science is predictive in nature. Probability and Statistics both fall under mathematics.

I see that you're a Brit and that would explain your difficulties in English:


Where you wrote "et. al" you needed to write "etc." "Et. al" is for listing people.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16671&d=1597838897

Since science cannot give us truth, all scientific knowlege is probabilistic and provisional.

I know how et al is used. Unlike you, I have published peer reviewed scientific reports. Et al is Latin for "and others". Other examples of knowlege through scientific inductive reasoning being the rise of homo sapiens in Africa, the Permo-Triassic extinction event, et al. Since I am writing colloquially and informally on an obscure message board I can use the Latin et al however I see fit.

You are obviously an ally of Christian biblical literalists, young earthers, intelligent designers" becasuse you wear your science denial and scientific ignorance like a badge of honor

Doc Dutch
09-18-2020, 08:08 AM
Creationism is not anti-science.

It's religious pseudoscience akin to locking up Galileo for claiming the Earth revolves around the Sun.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-accused-of-heresy
Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.

IBDaMann
09-18-2020, 08:31 AM
Since science cannot give us truth, all scientific knowlege is probabilistic and provisional.
You apparently can't get it right even when I expressly state it for you. Science predicts nature. Math covers probabilities. Science won't help you at the crap tables.


I know how et al is used.
You do not. "Et. al." is for people. "Etc." is for things. The good news is that you're a Brit so you have an excuse. No one expects you to fully master the nuances of the English language.


Unlike you, I have published peer reviewed scientific reports.
In the future, get a non-Brit to "peer review" your documents.

What makes your reports "scientific"? Attach a copy to your response so I can take a look at it.


I can use the Latin et al however I see fit.
Of course you are free to butcher the English language all you want. It is well known how much you Brits all wish you would just switch to French.


You are obviously an ally of Christian biblical literalists
Is that what being an atheist means? What do you Brits mean by "ally"? There aren't any Christians that really think of me as, you know, ... being a Christian. I try to lull Christians into thinking I'm one of them but my atheism gets in the way virtually every time.

Learn science, ... and learn English while you're at it.

Cypress
09-18-2020, 08:43 AM
You apparently can't get it right even when I expressly state it for you. Science predicts nature. Math covers probabilities. Science won't help you at the crap tables.


You do not. "Et. al." is for people. "Etc." is for things. The good news is that you're a Brit so you have an excuse. No one expects you to fully master the nuances of the English language.


In the future, get a non-Brit to "peer review" your documents.

What makes your reports "scientific"? Attach a copy to your response so I can take a look at it.


Of course you are free to butcher the English language all you want. It is well known how much you Brits all wish you would just switch to French.


Is that what being an atheist means? What do you Brits mean by "ally"? There aren't any Christians that really think of me as, you know, ... being a Christian. I try to lull Christians into thinking I'm one of them but my atheism gets in the way virtually every time.

Learn science, ... and learn English while you're at it.

You are shooting blanks in your flaccid attempt to compose a "gotcha!" post.


Google Translate:

Latin: et alia (et al.)

English translation: "and other"
The fact you knew exactly what I meant when I used et al colloquially as a placeholder for other examples of scientific knowlege demonstrates the effectiveness with which it was used.

I leave you to your relentless bible thumping, and science denying

gfm7175
09-18-2020, 08:44 AM
It's religious pseudoscience akin to locking up Galileo for claiming the Earth revolves around the Sun.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-accused-of-heresy
Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.
Creationism is not even pseudoscience... It is quite simply not science at all. It is a religious belief. While I believe the theory to be true, I don't go around pretending that it is a theory of science... I don't go around attempting to prove the theory either... It's just one of many theories, but one that I happen to accept on a faith basis as true. Others reject the theory, and others quite simply don't hold any opinion about the theory.

IBDaMann
09-18-2020, 09:02 AM
Creationism is not even pseudoscience... It is quite simply not science at all. It is a religious belief. While I believe the theory to be true, I don't go around pretending that it is a theory of science... I don't go around attempting to prove the theory either... It's just one of many theories, but one that I happen to accept on a faith basis as true. Others reject the theory, and others quite simply don't hold any opinion about the theory.

Well said. The Christian-bashers on this site don't know how to respond to reason. They envy you because you enjoy all of the benefits and privileges of having a religion that is consistent with science, whereas their religious indoctrination reamed into them the belief that their religion is thettled thieth and is somehow not a religion. This totally ffukks them up to no end, and then to add insult to injury, they see you perfectly able to be happy and spiritual while they are forced to wallow in apprehensive misery. They ask themselves "What does gfm7175 have that we don't?" Sigh ...

IBDaMann
09-18-2020, 09:31 AM
You are shooting blanks in your flaccid attempt to compose a "gotcha!" post.
I was helping you out. You are being extremely defensive over a minor grammatical error. Just write "etc." when it's a list of things and "et. al." when it's a list of people ... or just be a Brit and get it wrong, I don't care.


I leave you to your relentless bible thumping, and science denying
Don't I have to first start at some point in order to be "relentless"? ... or is "relentless" another one of those words with which you aren't familiar?

Cypress
09-18-2020, 09:39 AM
I was helping you out. You are being extremely defensive over a minor grammatical error. Just write "etc." when it's a list of things and "et. al." when it's a list of people ... or just be a Brit and get it wrong, I don't care.


Don't I have to first start at some point in order to be "relentless"? ... or is "relentless" another one of those words with which you aren't familiar?

I accept your tacit admission that the English translation of et al simply means "and other".

Period. End of story.

The fact it is used by convention in scientific publications does not prevent its use in other contexts.

Your education level is clearly lower than mine...high school graduate I presume? You can save any advice you attempt to give to your intellectual superiors. I am not going to post anything I published, but one of my friends here has seen my peer reviewed publucations and can confirm if he runs across this thread.

Your problem is that any knowlege of science you have acquired comes from parroting what you read on obscure rightwing blogs. That is no substitute for investing four, six, or eight years earning a degree in a scientific discipline at a reputable university

gfm7175
09-18-2020, 09:45 AM
Want some good old fashioned Wisconsin cheese with your whine, Cypress??

Doc Dutch
09-18-2020, 10:01 AM
Creationism is not even pseudoscience... It is quite simply not science at all. It is a religious belief. While I believe the theory to be true, I don't go around pretending that it is a theory of science... I don't go around attempting to prove the theory either... It's just one of many theories, but one that I happen to accept on a faith basis as true. Others reject the theory, and others quite simply don't hold any opinion about the theory.

Well said. The Christian-bashers on this site don't know how to respond to reason. They envy you because you enjoy all of the benefits and privileges of having a religion that is consistent with science, whereas their religious indoctrination reamed into them the belief that their religion is thettled thieth and is somehow not a religion. This totally ffukks them up to no end, and then to add insult to injury, they see you perfectly able to be happy and spiritual while they are forced to wallow in apprehensive misery. They ask themselves "What does gfm7175 have that we don't?" Sigh ...

How sweet of you two to have each other's backs about teaching pseudoscience and myth in public schools. Sad, but still sweet.

Into the Night
09-18-2020, 10:05 AM
https://apple.news/A5ABUKVGbRXuOL48rX0d_og

In May, a poll by the University of Chicago Divinity School and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed 43% of evangelical Protestants, a group I’d identified as when both a Southern Baptist and charismatic believer, say they think COVID-19 is a message from God (https://apnorc.org/poll-us-believers-see-message-of-change-from-god-in-virus/). Not that God caused it, but that he is using it to tell the world to change.
More than that, 55% of all believers feel God will protect them from the virus.

So...you are assigning your fear mongering to God now?

Into the Night
09-18-2020, 10:06 AM
We cannot go back in time to see the big bang, the formation of the solar system, the asteroid strike that took out the dinosaurs, or the rise of homo sapiens in East Africa.

People who are smarter than you, and have years of training in scientific inquiry are able to develop hypotheses, lines of evidences, and predictions which they can test.

Science isn't a casino. It does not use any supporting evidence. It does not use proxies for data. Only religions do that. Void proof fallacy.

Into the Night
09-18-2020, 10:15 AM
A tepid attempt to rescue "Into the Night" and to try to explain what she really meant.
Wrong gender, dude. Argument of the stone fallacy.


In your flaccid attempt to elevate Christian biblical literalism over science,
He is not trying to elevate Christian anything. You are hallucinating again. Put down the bong, dude.


you demand science live up to an impossible standard: to time travel back to observe the Big Bang, the asteroid strike at the end of the Curvaceous et al.
Not at all. The Theory of the Big Bang is not science. It is a religion.


Neither you nor any scientist has ever actually directly observed quarks, electrons, Higgs bosons.
Correct. However, we have observed their effects. Theories of science explain these effects. They are theories. They are not a proof. They are not a Universal Truth.


But the standard model of particle physics has been tested and confirmed so bloody often, we have extremely high scientific confidence these particles exist.
Science is not a 'confidence'. Science uses no supporting evidence. There is no such thing as a 'standard model' in science. There is no elite group deciding any standards at all.


Science is probabilistic in nature.
Science isn't a casino. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


Most of what we are ever going to know about physical reality
Define 'reality'.


and the natural world is going to come from inductive reasoning, experimentation, testing predictions.

No. The natural world is already here. It didn't come from anywhere. Science didn't create the natural world.

Redefinition fallacy. Denial of science. Denial of philosophy. Denial of mathematics (probability, random number math).

Cypress
09-18-2020, 10:16 AM
Science isn't a casino. It does not use any supporting evidence. It does not use proxies for data. Only religions do that. Void proof fallacy.

The obscure rightwing blogs you have bookmarked to support your anti-evolution claims do not cut the mustard.

As an antidote to your ignorance, I am linking you to a reputable science article on evolution from a reputable and unimpeachable source:


How Scientists Discovered the Staggering Complexity of Human Evolution

Darwin would be delighted by the story his successors have revealed

Scientific American

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-scientists-discovered-the-staggering-complexity-of-human-evolution/

Into the Night
09-18-2020, 10:21 AM
Since science cannot give us truth, all scientific knowlege is probabilistic and provisional.
Science isn't a proof. Science is not knowledge. Science is not a casino. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. No theory is ever proven True.


I know how et al is used.
Semantics fallacy. Irrelevance fallacy.


Unlike you, I have published peer reviewed scientific reports.
Science is not a peer group. There are no elite voting bodies in science. Science is not a report, paper, book, magazine, or web site.


Et al is Latin for "and others". Other examples of knowlege through scientific inductive reasoning being the rise of homo sapiens in Africa, the Permo-Triassic extinction event, et al. Since I am writing colloquially and informally on an obscure message board I can use the Latin et al however I see fit.
Irrelevance fallacy. Semantics fallacy.


You are obviously an ally of Christian biblical literalists, young earthers, intelligent designers" becasuse you wear your science denial and scientific ignorance like a badge of honor

Non-sequitur fallacy. Inversion fallacy.


No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of philosophy. Semantics fallacy. Redefinition fallacies. Conflation of science with religion.

Nordberg
09-18-2020, 10:22 AM
You see this a lot on the forums. Some ignorant, hateful atheist claiming that Christians don't believe in science or are scientifically illiterate.
Guess again.
In the last 100 years

Nobel prizes:

Chemistry: 72.5 percent were awarded to Christians
Physics: 62 percent were awarded to Christians.
Medicine/Physiology: 54 percent were awarded to Christians.

A very small percentage were awarded to non-Theists.

Any questions?

Fundamentally, believing in an invisible sky fairy who impacts your life is illogical and shows susceptibility to religious propaganda. These fantastic stories have been honed to psychological near perfection over 2000 years. The fear of hell was a brilliant idea that was made up as time went along. Once they found the power it had, they had contests among the church elite think up scarier and scarier hells. My fav was the fires of hell do not furnish light. All that pain and suffering and you will suffer in the dark.

Into the Night
09-18-2020, 10:22 AM
You are shooting blanks in your flaccid attempt to compose a "gotcha!" post.


The fact you knew exactly what I meant when I used et al colloquially as a placeholder for other examples of scientific knowlege demonstrates the effectiveness with which it was used.

I leave you to your relentless bible thumping, and science denying

What bible is he thumping?? He knows science far better than you do.

Into the Night
09-18-2020, 10:25 AM
I accept your tacit admission that the English translation of et al simply means "and other".

Period. End of story.

The fact it is used by convention in scientific publications does not prevent its use in other contexts.

Your education level is clearly lower than mine...high school graduate I presume? You can save any advice you attempt to give to your intellectual superiors. I am not going to post anything I published, but one of my friends here has seen my peer reviewed publucations and can confirm if he runs across this thread.

Your problem is that any knowlege of science you have acquired comes from parroting what you read on obscure rightwing blogs. That is no substitute for investing four, six, or eight years earning a degree in a scientific discipline at a reputable university

Science is not a degree, license, or credential. It is not a government agency or university.

No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of philosophy. Parroting.

Cypress
09-18-2020, 10:27 AM
Science isn't a proof. Science is not knowledge. Science is not a casino. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. No theory is ever proven True.

Semantics fallacy. Irrelevance fallacy.

Science is not a peer group. There are no elite voting bodies in science. Science is not a report, paper, book, magazine, or web site.

Irrelevance fallacy. Semantics fallacy.

Non-sequitur fallacy. Inversion fallacy.


No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of philosophy. Semantics fallacy. Redefinition fallacies. Conflation of science with religion.
"Into the Night": literally wrong all the bloody time >

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?103256-Christians-are-anti-science&p=3901887#post3901887

Into the Night
09-18-2020, 10:28 AM
The obscure rightwing blogs you have bookmarked to support your anti-evolution claims do not cut the mustard.

As an antidote to your ignorance, I am linking you to a reputable science article on evolution from a reputable and unimpeachable source:

Buzzword fallacy. Define 'obscure rightwing blog'. I am not trying to prove the Theory of Evolution false. It simply is not a theory of science.
Science isn't a magazine. It is not 'Scientific American'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

gfm7175
09-18-2020, 10:34 AM
How sweet of you two to have each other's backs about teaching pseudoscience and myth in public schools. Sad, but still sweet.
Don't worry... I have your back against the wall too, buddy! :)

Into the Night
09-18-2020, 10:38 AM
Fundamentally, believing in an invisible sky fairy who impacts your life is illogical
Prove that invisible sky fairies do not exist. Please show your work.


and shows susceptibility to religious propaganda.
Religion isn't propaganda. Propaganda is propaganda. Religion is not a proof. I does not deny logic. You, however, do.

All religions are based on some fundamental circular argument. That is not a fallacy. That is simply what religions are. The other name for the circular argument is 'faith'.
You are trying to prove a circular argument. You are trying to prove your religion that there is no god or gods. That is the circular argument fallacy. It is what a fundamentalist does.


These fantastic stories have been honed to psychological near perfection over 2000 years.
The Church of the Invisible Sky Fairy has been around for 2000 years? Tell me, since you seem to know so much about the Invisible Sky Fairy, where do they meet? How do you know she even exists?


The fear of hell was a brilliant idea that was made up as time went along.
You are making shit up again. The fear of hell existed as long as anything like a hell has been described. You don't have to manufacture a fear of hell.


Once they found the power it had, they had contests among the church elite think up scarier and scarier hells.
Please describe these contests that took place in the Church of the Invisible Sky Fairy. You seem to know a lot about this religion. I've never heard of it.


My fav was the fires of hell do not furnish light. All that pain and suffering and you will suffer in the dark.

Fires that do not furnish light? What feeds these fires? Wood? Some magick fuel?

Into the Night
09-18-2020, 10:39 AM
"Into the Night": literally wrong all the bloody time >



Bulverism fallacy.

Into the Night
09-18-2020, 10:44 AM
The obscure rightwing blogs
Buzzword fallacy. Define 'obscure rightwing blog'.


you have bookmarked to support your anti-evolution claims do not cut the mustard.
I am not arguing against the Theory of Evolution. It is simply not a theory of science.


As an antidote to your ignorance, I am linking you to a reputable science article on evolution from a reputable and unimpeachable source:

Science isn't a magazine or a Holy Link.

Doc Dutch
09-18-2020, 11:00 AM
Don't worry... I have your back against the wall too, buddy! :)

I have no doubt you fantasize about that late at night when you are alone in your bed.

IBDaMann
09-18-2020, 11:28 AM
Your education level is clearly lower than mine.
Too funny.


You can save any advice you attempt to give to your intellectual superiors.
I was just giving advice to you.


... but one of my friends here has seen my peer reviewed publucations and can confirm if he runs across this thread.
i.e. You haven't written any papers of which you aren't ashamed.


Your problem is that any knowlege of science you have acquired comes from parroting what you read on obscure rightwing blogs.
For example?


That is no substitute for investing four, six, or eight years earning a degree in a scientific discipline at a reputable university
It would appear then that you have no valid excuse for being the scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent moron that you are. You need to be corrected by Christians.

IBDaMann
09-18-2020, 11:57 AM
Fundamentally, believing in an invisible sky fairy who impacts your life is illogical and shows susceptibility to religious propaganda.
I couldn't agree more, and now I understand what happened to you. You allowed yourself to become manipulated by Marxists and indoctrinated into the cult of Global Warming. You were then instructed to believe in the invisible Climate goddess in the sky who centrally plans the weather. You believe that She punishes humanity for carbon sins.

Your religion is pretty WACKY and, as you point out, illogical. I thought you and I were going to butt heads over this but I'm glad we see eye-to-eye.


These fantastic stories have been honed to psychological near perfection over 2000 years.
Tell me about it. When Climate is angry, so the story goes, she reduces precipitation where it would be very bad, like in California so they will have droughts, ... and she increases precipitation where that would be very bad, like Asia so they will have floods, because it always has to be a punishment. I get it. W A C K Y !


The fear of hell was a brilliant idea that was made up as time went along.
The fear of catastrophic climate change was a brilliant idea that was made up and constantly revised for political expediency, made possible by the susceptibility to religious propaganda of the indoctrinated warmizombies.


Once they found the power it had, they had contests among the church elite think up scarier and scarier hells.
Once they found the power it had, they began to hold annual Climate conferences to establish new "Climate Ground Zeroes" and to hold contests among the Marxist elite to think up scarier and scarier reasons to tax the shit out of the peasantry ... you know ... the gullible and now paranoid warmizombies who truly believe that all the world's problems will just go away if only the government has enough of their money.


My fav was the fires of hell do not furnish light. All that pain and suffering and you will suffer in the dark.
My absolute fav is telling warmizombies every single month for years that the previous month was the warmest month the earth has experienced E-VAHH ... and the warmizombies never picking up on the pattern. Too funny.

IBDaMann
09-18-2020, 11:59 AM
How sweet of you two to have each other's backs about teaching pseudoscience and myth in public schools. Sad, but still sweet.
Like I said, it ffukks with the likes of you to no end, and yes, that is sweet.

Doc Dutch
09-18-2020, 01:09 PM
Like I said, it ffukks with the likes of you to no end, and yes, that is sweet.

It's spelled "fucks", son. Disagreed. It proves you are "off" even on a good day.

IBDaMann
09-18-2020, 08:09 PM
It's spelled "fucks", son.
That's just a test verifying that it is still effectively ffukking with you to no end.


Disagreed.
Too late. You just agreed above. Wait two weeks and resubmit your grievance for final disapproval.

Cypress
09-19-2020, 04:40 AM
Too funny.


I was just giving advice to you.


i.e. You haven't written any papers of which you aren't ashamed.


For example?


It would appear then that you have no valid excuse for being the scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent moron that you are. You need to be corrected by Christians.

No, you weren't 'just giving advice'

You ASSumed you caught me in a "gotcha" blunder, until it blew up in your face.

You were the one to attempt to nit pick grammar, not me.


The burden is on you to provide links to any reputable body of peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrating the theory of evolution by natural selection has been debunked.

Into the Night
09-19-2020, 09:11 AM
No, you weren't 'just giving advice'

You ASSumed you caught me in a "gotcha" blunder, until it blew up in your face.

You were the one to attempt to nit pick grammar, not me.
Assumption of victory fallacy. He actually did an excellent job of showing off your poor education.


The burden is on you to provide links to any reputable body of peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrating the theory of evolution by natural selection has been debunked.

RQAA. The Theory of Natural Selection is not a theory. It's a paradox.

Cypress
09-19-2020, 09:18 AM
Assumption of victory fallacy. He actually did an excellent job of showing off your poor education.

RQAA. The Theory of Natural Selection is not a theory. It's a paradox.

Defending your boyfriend relentlessly? I feel like love is in the air.

IBDaMann
09-19-2020, 11:29 AM
No, you weren't 'just giving advice'
Yes, I was. You can verify this by noticing the advice I gave you. You Brits aren't all too quick on the uptake I see.


You ASSumed you caught me in a "gotcha" blunder,
I noticed a minor grammatical error on your part to which I directed your attention. You immediately became irrational and defensive. That initial defensiveness has taken on a life of its own. Regardless of the extent you wish to convince this board that you are perfect and inerrant you nonetheless made a minor grammatical error and I simply brought it to your attention.


The burden is on you to provide links to any reputable body of peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrating the theory of evolution by natural selection has been debunked.
Owing to the fact that you aren't too quick on the uptake, I will outline several necessary tasks you must accomplish if you are to be coherent:

1. Keep your conversations straight. I am not the one claiming that Natural Selection has been falsified. I claim that Natural Selection is unfalsifiable and has thus never been falsified.

2. Learn what "peer review" means. You haven't the vaguest clue and you sound really stupid, even for a Brit. Hint: "Peer Review" has nothing to do with science; it has to do with publishing only.

3. Only he who makes an affirmative claim bears any burden of support. You need to specify what affirmative claim you assert that I am making.

4. Following from #3 above, you bear the full burden to support your affirmative claim that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is somehow falsifiable science. It is no one else's responsibility to prove it false.

At the moment you are gibbering nonsense. You are writing Jabberwocky II.

Into the Night
09-19-2020, 11:41 AM
Defending your boyfriend relentlessly? I feel like love is in the air.

WTF are YOU talking about?

TexanManWithPlans
09-19-2020, 07:03 PM
The Theory of Creation is not incompatible with any theory of science.

Lol. Keep telling yourself that.

TexanManWithPlans
09-19-2020, 07:05 PM
Yes, I was. You can verify this by noticing the advice I gave you. You Brits aren't all too quick on the uptake I see.


I noticed a minor grammatical error on your part to which I directed your attention. You immediately became irrational and defensive. That initial defensiveness has taken on a life of its own. Regardless of the extent you wish to convince this board that you are perfect and inerrant you nonetheless made a minor grammatical error and I simply brought it to your attention.


Owing to the fact that you aren't too quick on the uptake, I will outline several necessary tasks you must accomplish if you are to be coherent:

1. Keep your conversations straight. I am not the one claiming that Natural Selection has been falsified. I claim that Natural Selection is unfalsifiable and has thus never been falsified.

2. Learn what "peer review" means. You haven't the vaguest clue and you sound really stupid, even for a Brit. Hint: "Peer Review" has nothing to do with science; it has to do with publishing only.

3. Only he who makes an affirmative claim bears any burden of support. You need to specify what affirmative claim you assert that I am making.

4. Following from #3 above, you bear the full burden to support your affirmative claim that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is somehow falsifiable science. It is no one else's responsibility to prove it false.

At the moment you are gibbering nonsense. You are writing Jabberwocky II.

So you deny evolutionary biology and climate science.

The funny thing is I knew you idiots would deny COVID-19 as soon as it made news.

IBDaMann
09-19-2020, 07:10 PM
So you deny evolutionary biology and climate science.

The funny thing is I knew you idiots would deny COVID-19 as soon as it made news.

In addition to being gullible and uneducated, are there any more things at which you excel?

TexanManWithPlans
09-19-2020, 07:11 PM
In addition to being gullible and uneducated, are there any more things at which you excel?

You have so much stupidity in your signature.

IBDaMann
09-19-2020, 07:12 PM
Lol. Keep telling yourself that.
Too funny. Keep telling yourself that you know what science is.

Even funnier: when a Christian has to correct you!

You know I'm going to stay tuned in to this one.

IBDaMann
09-19-2020, 07:15 PM
You have so much stupidity in your signature.
All people who can't read say that.

Tell me how exactly Global Warming causes the earth to spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. Way too funny.

TexanManWithPlans
09-20-2020, 05:27 AM
All people who can't read say that.

Tell me how exactly Global Warming causes the earth to spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. Way too funny.

Do you know why Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system? Because the thick atmosphere captures a lot of heat.

I don't know how much more this can simplified for you people. When you're cold, you get under a blanket because it heats you up. Correct? Well, as the we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, heat escapes at an increasingly slower rate.