+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 46
Latest: Tony Ryan
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 12337
Total Topics: 257
Most Online Today: 5
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Darwin  (Read 7258 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24052
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #60 on: January 16, 2015, 03:52:56 pm »

Quote
THEORY

 1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

 2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).

 3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

 4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].

 5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

 6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).

The THEORY of EVOLUTION does not meet "3)", "5)" or "6)". Key word = EVIDENCE. It's NOT THERE. I can prove it's not there. You just don't want to go there.

       

JRM said,
Quote

This could be an interesting conversation if we began with a working definition of "evolution".  The evidence for biological evolution is, of course, overwhelming -- e.g., the fossil record and the fact that biological evolution has been observed in current time (say, a single human lifetime -- or even much shorter time frames).

To say "the evidence for evolution is not there" is not so much right or wrong as it is an incomplete -- or vague -- statement, as there are not one but many theories of biological evolution. Which one is the one you think lacks evidence? -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

 



Surly said,
Quote
He's considering the beatification of Romero. Leave Frank alone.

I have a nice TRUE story I'm working on about Romero. No, I never met him. But I am related to someone who studied him EXTENSIVELY.  :icon_mrgreen:

The story might get you a lot of beady bubbles so I will attempt to wordpress it. No guarantees, though. I'm kinda busy right now.  ;D

I'm having to deal with accusations of "vague" statements and "incomplete definitions" by people  who are silent as death about just about every comment I make here (Hi JRM!) except when they want to pop in and do a little "friendly" sniping.

JRM,

Before I address your statement about evolution and the "various competing definitions", I wish to point out your comment on Ka's valid observation.

Your hairsplitting on Ka's clear statement is known as verbal dancing. Ka was clear.

Although Ka was not talking about complexity per se, that's what SET (Standard Evolutionary Theory) refers to when defining evolution. COMPLEX life emerging from LESS COMPLEX life is evolution.

Here's a great example of a VAGUE statement:
Quote
"there are not one but many theories of biological evolution. "

As I have, and continue to state in my debate with Eddie (that UB has weighed in on as well with his EXTENSIVE knowledge of anthropology and human fossils), science does not DO "vague".

When we are talking about the ORIGIN of species (I. e. NEW speciation), we are talking about EVOLUTION. Different mechanisms and definitions within that field of study have branched out.

Evolution has been applied to planets, mud, conversations, stars and so on. THAT is NOT what we are talking about when we are talking about the ORIGIN of species.

If you REALLY want to talk about what is VAGUE in the above thread, it's the incredibly convenient dial a definition of "religion" that so many people have. But that is another subject. I respect your views on your belief system even though I don't agree with them. Same with WHD.

Ashvin has been quite clear and consistent in stating logically, dispassionately and without rancor, why his views are well founded. He has made it clear what a CHRISTIAN actually is, regardless of those rebrobates out there that hijacked the moniker for predatory profit and mayhem. I have not seen anyone here but Surly admit that. That too, is another subject.

I don't mind if you wish to challenge my views on evolution. I don't mind because I myself never challenged  Standard Evolution Theory (SET) until, as a 40 year old, I went back to college and actually STUDIED biology intensively. THEN I realized it was an exercise in conjecture, nothing more.

I did not question SET because of Sunday School or Christian beliefs; I questioned it because when I studied Biology 101 and 102, Botany, Genetics, Zoology, Parasitology and Microbiology I discovered THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for Evolution.

Scoff all you want. Let's talk natural selection, cell machinery and the fossil "record". And while we are at it, let's talk about the geological column.

Did you know that the geological column used to date fossils (Carbon 14 and tree rings are USELESS for dating ANYTHING older than several thousand years!) has "issues"? No, you didn't.

It's a construct. It's a pieced together thought exercise. They have a bit here and a bit there. There is NO PLACE ON EARTH that you can just go from humans to dinosaurs, PERIOD. I can prove that. However, I will not even attempt to do so if you scoff at that statement. If you do not respect my integrity, there is not point, PAL!

But let us say that I am being too harsh, strident, hysterical (and so on) and you do agree to ponder the evidence I present objectively.

Consider these facts:

1) Modern duck skeletons have been found in exactly the same place as Dinosaur skeletons are. What do you suppose that does to the current "scientific" BELIEF that birds evolved from dinosaurs?

2) ALL species skeletons (and human artifacts) found in the "wrong" strata (BELOW creatures that we supposedly evolved from) are NEVER published (but they ARE documented -and I can prove that too!). The consensus "scientific" view is that some fissure opened from an earthquake and dropped the artifact or the "out of place" skeleton into the aged strata. The fact that NO EVIDENCE of erosion, rock banding or any other well studied geological process having occurred to SAVE a good evolution story can be found is "irrelevant".    They'll figure it out someday, they claim.   ::)

3) Transitional fossils proving the ORIGIN of new species (speciation through evolution) )are not in the fossil record. The claim that human (and other) species like cartilaginous fish are not preserved n the fossil record because they are fragile flies in the face of "1)" above (to put mildly!).

4) Rock dating techniques for multi-million year fossil dating (those fossils CANNOT BE DATED so the rock they are in is what is dated) produce multi-million year ages from lava samples produced by the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980. PLEASE don't call bull**** on this. I have SEVERAL articles full of hemming and hawing by the scientific community trying to dance around that, but still admitting that "erroneous dates" ;D  can be produced (as in the CONSISTENT case of new lava rocks - see Hawaii lava rocks in the ocean formed within the last 100 years).

5) Rock dating ALWAYS produces SEVERAL different dates that vary by millions of years. Now you would expect that the published dates would be an average or a mean. 

But no, this is what they do, JRM. This is SOP (standard operating procedure) in rock dating. Research is done in the scientific literature of other fossils in this type of rock strata (see CONSENSUS VIEW and how to avoid ruining a "scientific" career  ). Then, the date is chosen from the rock dating data that is AT LEAST as old as that stated in the literature.  But that's not the BEST PART. LOL! ANY date OLDER than the literature instantly becomes the "new" age!

That new date then goes into the "scientific" literature for future rinse and repeats. The other SCIENTIFICALLY DETERMNIED DATES ARE DISCARDED despite the fact that no instrument error or contamination is documented as the cause. The other dates ARE NOT put in the record of observation, as SHOULD be done when REAL SCIENCE is being done! Hypothesis, Observation, evidence and reproducibility DO NOT APPLY.

BIAS for longer and longer dates DOES, WHY? Because EVOLUTION REQUIRES millions of years.

How can so many scientists be wrong?
Quote

Michael Crichton on consensus science

Editor: This is a good response to someone who says, ďBut all those scientists canít be wrong!Ē Crichton was referring to science in general, not specifically evolution, but what he says is apt for evolution. Dr Crichton had a career in science and medicine before he became a famous writer. He wrote some well-known science fiction novels such as The Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park, and the long-running TV medical drama ER.

ďI want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because youíre being had.

ďLetís be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

ďThere is no such thing as consensus science. If itís consensus, it isnít science. If itís science, it isnít consensus. Period.Ē

[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]

That's we are supposed to believe goes on in the study of fossils. But exactly what he states as NOT SCIENCE is what is taking place. That's why I am so incensed about it.


And now "millions of years" is NOT ENOUGH for Evolution! A 14 billion year old universe CANNOT, according to the REAL science of probability and statistics, get the simplest life form (that requires a minimum of 250 complex proteins ordered in a specific way and ALL AT ONCE) to occur randomly.

This "evolution" rabbit hole is DEEP, pal.

Natural Selection has been PROVEN, by modern molecular biology research, to whittle away DNA, not add new information in order to INCREASE complexity and promote the ORIGIN of a species from a more simple one (i.e. evolution).


Natural selection explains the SURVIVAL of the Fittest, quite well. But it DOES NOT explain the ARRIVAL of the fittest AT ALL.


NON-RANDOM events produced Sentience as well as COMPLEX biological life forms. SET FAILS to explain either (see: Chaplin in the Lion cage ).
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6

 

+-Recent Topics

Batteries by AGelbert
June 20, 2019, 03:36:23 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
June 20, 2019, 01:47:18 pm

Comic Relief by AGelbert
June 20, 2019, 01:31:46 pm

WTF? by AGelbert
June 20, 2019, 12:39:15 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
June 20, 2019, 12:11:49 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
June 19, 2019, 09:34:29 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
June 19, 2019, 06:48:41 pm

U.S. History & Politics, Climate Change, Trump Impeachment & Standing Rock: CONTEXT by AGelbert
June 19, 2019, 04:37:57 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
June 19, 2019, 03:52:03 pm

Large Sea Creatures by AGelbert
June 19, 2019, 03:12:12 pm