Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

Why does PIMP think anyone should remember his name correctly?

I'd pay 10 grand to see the look on his face when Jesus' eternal life check bounces.
Fuck, after all that begging and dollars I put in the plate?!? Can I sue someone?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
which remains the philosophy of science and always will......
Click to expand...

I’m not sure there’s a universally accepted philosophy of science.

No offense to INT. But it explains why there’s a sort of hierarchy in science with physics at the top. To pick on evolution again lol, the physical sciences have a much higher standard of what’s accepted as theory or even evidence. For example, something like a ‘nested hierarchy’ would never make it through peer review in a chemistry journal.

Consequently, nested hierarchies are considerable less ‘fact’ than Boyles Law or whatever. It seems such an obvious thing but some people are resistant to it.

Maybe because it’s terrible news for evolutionists and democrats lol.
 
Darth Omar said:
I’m not sure there’s a universally accepted philosophy of science.

No offense to INT. But it explains why there’s a sort of hierarchy in science with physics at the top. To pick on evolution again lol, the physical sciences have a much higher standard of what’s accepted as theory or even evidence. For example, something like a ‘nested hierarchy’ would never make it through peer review in a chemistry journal.

Consequently, nested hierarchies are considerable less ‘fact’ than Boyles Law or whatever. It seems such an obvious thing but some people are resistant to it.

Maybe because it’s terrible news for evolutionists and democrats lol.
Click to expand...

I missed your point. The joining of physics and chemistry to biology was a major breakthrough in the 20th century.
 
Darth Omar said:
Claiming that all present life owes its existence via common ancestry going back 100’s of millions years is an *historical* claim and there’s no way around it.
Click to expand...

There is a theory that life doesn't have a single origin, but multiple origins. DNA is an inherent part of the universe.
 
Darth Omar said:
It’s exceedingly difficult to find intact DNA fragments in fossils. In fact, I was always told that DNA is notoriously unstable outside of the cell. How they manage to get even fragments of DNA from fossils is beyond me but supposedly it happens.

But they use our old friend the PCR tests to amplify fragments of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA and conclude this or that. Not saying they’re wrong or right but how many assumptions are entailed *just in that*? How do they know the PCR results weren’t contaminated with human DNA? How do they know the fragment hasn’t been degraded to such an extent it could lead to a faulty conclusion?

We actually all know how unreliable PCR results can be, right?

This is kind of my point: when someone says ‘it’s a fact that man is descended from a less evolved ancestor’ they are seemingly unaware that their ‘fact’ is actually a provisional claim that was arrived at using a few assumptions.
Click to expand...

I do not think anyone ever claimed we could recover DNA from Paleozoic trilobites

Evolutionary theory rests on a foundation of multiple lines of evidence, including fossil record, comparative anatomy, biogegraphic distribution, genetics, laboratory experiments.

Genetics pointing to evolutionary divergence is best suited to modern and geologically recent genera.

Other lines of evidence come into play for the remote past. At least that is my understanding, I am not formally trained in the life sciences

As with any theory, there are uncertainties, and things we do not know.

The mere existence of uncertainties however does not constitute evidence of the hand of divine providence
 
Cypress said:
I do not think anyone ever claimed we could recover DNA from Paleozoic trilobites

Evolutionary theory rests on a foundation of multiple lines of evidence, including fossil record, comparative anatomy, biogegraphic distribution, genetics, laboratory experiments.

Genetics pointing to evolutionary divergence is best suited to modern and geologically recent genera.

Other lines of evidence come into play for the remote past. At least that is my understanding, I am not formally trained in the life sciences

As with any theory, there are uncertainties, and things we do not know.

The mere existence of uncertainties however does not constitute evidence of the hand of divine providence
Click to expand...

Since science is committed to philosophic naturalism [only purely natural explanations may be invoked for any phenomena] evidence of a divine Providence is impossible for science to discover, since such evidence is disqualified at the outset.
 
These prejudiced morons need to start by reading the definitions of branches of scientific inquiry, then attempt to
understand their interrelations, and then the questions presented in each discipline. Then maybe I'll even deign
to read their value judgments about worth or "scienciness" of them. Yes scienciness. It should be a word they use.

Yes mathematics, chemistry and physics, for example, are bedrock because they so meaningfully describe and predict
in the broadest way the physical reality we live in. That does not mean application of science to more specific problems
is less "science" It means the problems are very complex and diverse. Of what use is physics without caring about
humans?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top