Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[Grokmaster]

You don't get to speak for every biologist in the world. You only get to speak for yourself. You are not God.

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.

Science is not a 'practice', 'method', or 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

WELL...PROVEN "SCIENTIFIC FACTS" DO EXIST (EG.: WATER, IN ITS PURE FORM, IS ALWAYS H2O). MACRO EVOLUTION IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

JUST BECAUSE SCIENCE CAN'T PROVE EVERYTHING, DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING.

MACRO EVOLUTION BECOMES LESS and LESS LIKELY AS WE LEARN MORE ABOUT GENETICS.

 

[BidenPresident]

Science is not a 'practice', 'method', or 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

You are extremely ignorant.

 

[Into the Night]

You also once wrote that quantum mechanics is not a branch of physics,

It isn't. Quantum mechanics is it's own independent branch of science. It is based on mathematical modeling.

so you are consistently and laughably wrong.

Bulverism fallacy.

 

[Nordberg]

Science doesn't use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science isn't a 'study' or a 'research'. Science doesn't need a 'reputation'. Science isn't 'experts'. Science isn't 'facts'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

Learn what 'fact' means. Fact does not mean 'proof' nor 'Universal Truth'.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Science is a set of fallible theories. That makes sense to you? Theories have to meet all the data and observations. They do. They are subject to rigorous standards, unlike your jejune posts.

 

[AProudLefty]

Explain then how a sextant works to find latitude.

Magic.

 

[BidenPresident]

Science is a set of fallible theories. That makes sense to you? Theories have to meet all the data and observations. They do. They are subject to rigorous standards, unlike your jejune posts.

"intothenight" is referring to Karl Popper, who argued for it in 1934. No philosopher of science uses this principle anymore. Nearly a century old, and "intothenight" thinks it is contemporary theory.

 

[Into the Night]

MICRO EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT;

There is no such thing as a 'scientific' fact. There is either a fact, or there is not. There is nothing 'scientific' about any fact. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

MACRO EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, OR PROVEN ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYPLACE.

So far has been published observations, true.

OVER 100 MILLION GENERATIONS OF FRUIT FLIES..WITH AMAZING DIVERSITY OF FEATURES , (ALMOST ALL ARTIFICIALLY INDUCED), BUT THEY ARE STILL "FRUIT FLIES".

They are still fruit flies. Once unnatural selection forces have been removed, they evolve into the natural fruit fly again over time. This is also true of dogs, cats, and as far as anyone has observed, anything.

ANYONE TEACHING MACRO EVOLUTION AS FACT IS NOT A REAL SCIENTIST...JUST LIKE THE WARMISTS, WHO CANNOT CHEMICALLY PROVE THEIR CLAIMS.

A believer must define 'global warming' first. From when to when? How is the temperature of the Earth being measured? What is the margin of error (since such a value is obviously a statistics summary)? Where is the unbiased raw data published?
The Church of Global Warming also ignores the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Into the Night]

Tired of your bullshit.

Inversion fallacy. The bullshit is YOURS.

 

[BidenPresident]

Inversion fallacy. The bullshit is YOURS.

And tired of you making up stupid words and fallacies. If you want to be taken seriously, stop acting like a jackass.

 

[AProudLefty]

you don't need to travel farther than post #960......

Do you have the habit of telling people they asked stupid questions every time you cannot answer their questions?

 

[AProudLefty]

Science is a set of fallible theories. That makes sense to you? Theories have to meet all the data and observations. They do. They are subject to rigorous standards, unlike your jejune posts.

Falsifiable, not fallible.

 

[Cypress]

It isn't. Quantum mechanics is it's own independent branch of science. It is based on mathematical modeling.

Bulverism fallacy.

Wrong as per usual.

All physicists are trained in, and make use of higher mathematics. Mathematics is the very foundation of physics.

The fathers of quantum mechanics, Bohrs, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, were all theoretical physicists.

 

[Into the Night]

WELL...PROVEN "SCIENTIFIC FACTS" DO EXIST

There is nothing 'scientific' about any fact. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A fact is either just a fact, or it is not.

(EG.: WATER, IN ITS PURE FORM, IS ALWAYS H2O).

Not a proof. Not a 'scientific' fact. Simply a definition.

MACRO EVOLUTION IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science. It is not falsifiable. One cannot go back in time to see what actually happened. There is no theory of science about what you call 'macro evolution', since no new species has come about as a result of natural evolution, that has been observed as of yet. Man has created new species, but none have appeared naturally, as far as has been observed and published.

JUST BECAUSE SCIENCE CAN'T PROVE EVERYTHING, DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING.

Yes it does. Science is an open functional system. A proof is not possible in an open functional system. Proofs are only possible in closed functional systems like mathematics or logic. It is not possible to prove any theory (scientific or otherwise) as True.

MACRO EVOLUTION BECOMES LESS and LESS LIKELY AS WE LEARN MORE ABOUT GENETICS.

Here I agree. Once unnatural selection forces are removed, the base critter evolves again over time.

Fruit flies in all the variations that survived in the lab environment return to your basic fruit fly.
Dogs with all the species that we have created return to the wolf, given unplanned dog sex over time.
Cats with all the species that we have created return to your basic cat, similar to something like a cougar, given unplanned cat sex over time, or the smaller South American cat (also found in Africa), that all house cats stem from.

This has been observed time and time again, this direction of evolution.

Apparently, evolution tends to favor returning to the naturally occurring form, rather than continuing a deviation.

So the Theory of Evolution, which states that present day life evolved from more primitive life forms, seems to have problems. Of course, it's still not possible to prove it False. It is and remains a circular argument...and a religion.

 

[Into the Night]

Science is a set of fallible theories. That makes sense to you? Theories have to meet all the data and observations. They do. They are subject to rigorous standards, unlike your jejune posts.

A theory is an explanatory argument. Nothing more. It explains an observation. Data is the result of an observation. All observations, however, are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Observations themselves are not science. Neither is data.

 

[Into the Night]

And tired of you making up stupid words and fallacies. If you want to be taken seriously, stop acting like a jackass.

Denial of logic. Insult fallacies. No argument presented.

 

[Into the Night]

"intothenight" is referring to Karl Popper, who argued for it in 1934. No philosopher of science uses this principle anymore. Nearly a century old, and "intothenight" thinks it is contemporary theory.

Presentism fallacy. Karl Popper argued a very solid basis for today's definition of science (which is defined by philosophy, just as 'religion' is). You don't get to speak for all philosophers. You are not God. Bigotry.

 

[BidenPresident]

Denial of logic. Insult fallacies. No argument presented.

Be ignored then. You'd rather say stupid stuff than debate.

 

[BidenPresident]

Presentism fallacy. Karl Popper argued a very solid basis for today's definition of science (which is defined by philosophy, just as 'religion' is). You don't get to speak for all philosophers. You are not God. Bigotry.

A century old philosophy of science. How old are you?!

 

[Into the Night]

Wrong as per usual.

Bulverism fallacy.

All physicists are trained in, and make use of higher mathematics. Mathematics is the very foundation of physics.

Many physicists actually rather suck at mathematics. Mathematics is not the foundation of physics. Falsifiable theories are.

Having said this, most theories in physics have been transcribed into mathematical form. The resulting equation is called a 'law'.

Example: Newton's 'three' laws of motion are actually one, described as a single equation: F=mA. You don't need 'higher' mathematics to make use of this equation.
Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2, is a simplification from the full equation, which is just an application of the Pythagorean Theorem that applies to any right triangle. Don't need 'advanced' mathematics for that!
The Stefan-Boltzmann law, which relates thermal energy converted into electromagnetic energy, is: r=C*e*t^4. A pretty simple equation.
The ideal gas law: Pv=NrT, is also a pretty simple equation.
ALL of these are 'laws' of physics, or transcriptions of a theory of science into mathematical form.

Theories themselves can only explain. They do not predict. The power of prediction can only be found in a closed functional system like mathematics or logic. Most theories in physics are transcribed into mathematics to gain the power of prediction. The power comes along with the proof, which only exists in closed functional systems.

The fathers of quantum mechanics, Bohrs, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, were all theoretical physicists.

Yes. Their models are mathematical in nature. These too are fairly simply equations. Quantum mechanics uses mathematics to model it's theories, which are in turn transcribed back into mathematics to gain the power of prediction. Some of that crosses mathematical Domains.

 

[Into the Night]

Be ignored then. You'd rather say stupid stuff than debate.

Argument of the stick fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. No argument presented.