+- +-


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

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 51
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 15760
Total Topics: 267
Most Online Today: 48
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 9
Total: 9

Author Topic: Photosynthesis  (Read 219 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32547
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Photosynthesis
« on: June 16, 2018, 03:00:45 pm »
AG: It's not just "pretty cool"; it is evidence that the energy required for life processes is NOT as cut and dried as the "carrying capacity" crowd would have us believe. PLease bear in mind that scientists thought this type of low energy photosynthesis was so difficult and so unlikely, that they actually tailored their search for life on other planets with a WRONG ASSUMPTION. IOW, regardless of the nice way it is presented in the above article, scientists thought it was IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE of their rigid acceptance of the FLAWED laws of thermodynamics MATH. Remember that the next time somebody says you must have a minimum of X amount of energy to do this or that. The cyanobacterium, Acaryochloris proves that, at least for photosynthesis, you don't. If you think our scientists know all there is to know about thermodynamics, you are wrong.
Palloy's rush to defend the scientific priesthood in Palloy's religion DELETED by Agelbert

Palloy never stops giving the ivory tower scientific community the benefit of the doubt, while at the same time he wastes no time in attacking absolutely anything I have posted that questions the validity of the world view many of these scientists have.

Palloy is banned here for lacking the most elementary semblance of logic and equanimity, which is often laced with snide remarks and mocking. Pallloy HATES to have anything that forms part of the "accepted", and often purely speculative, though pitched as "scientific reality", assumptions by the scientific community, questioned or discredited. Instead of just politely saying that he disagrees with me, he goes on the attack. Therefore, it is a waste of time to engage in debate with him.

It rarely happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' followed by actually changing their minds so that you never hear that old view from them again. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful.

Their humanity is not what I question; what I find fault with is their judgmental attitude towards anyone who questions their theories. They point fingers at religious people for "rigidity" and "irrationality" while failing to look in the mirror. They ignore the judgemental scientific community history that encompasses all the discredited visionary scientists (who questioned a theory and were posthumously proven right) who had careers destroyed by these ivory tower scientists claiming the exclusive mantel of "objectivity". BULLSHIT!

Here are some examples of arguments used to defend "science" that Evolution Theory defenders like Palloy often use, not just to defend the thoroughly unscientific latest iteration of Evolution Theory, MS (Modern Synthesis), but to defend the rationale for not being "harshly judgemental" about past errors in practically all areas of science (that were pitched, before being found to be wrong,  as scientific FACT, NOT speculation!).

As with Evolution Theory, anyone questioning some area of science is typically accused of being "irrational", "uncivilized"  or "stupid". How rude. How convenient. How sophistic. How skilled in fallacious debating techniques. How thoroughly UNscientific. 

This section examines various concerns evolutionists often have regarding their theoryís false predictions.

Responses to common objections

These falsified predictions are not necessary predictions of evolutionary theory. They merely reflect isolated instances of a practitionerís surprise over specific sets of data.

The predictions were considered to be necessary when they were held. And they represented consensus evolutionary science at the time they were held. They are well documented in both peer-reviewed research papers, popular literature authored by leading evolutionists and interviews of leading evolutionists. They were not merely held by a few, individual evolutionists. Nor were they one of several possible competing predictions. That these predictions are not now considered to be necessary predictions of evolution is a reflection of the malleability of evolutionary theory and is a reminder of why a history of evolutionís false predictions is important.

False predictions often have led to productive research

Productive research can come from a great variety of scientific and nonscientific motivations, including false predictions. That productive research may have arisen from some of these predictions does not detract from the fact that they are false.

Evolutionists have fixed these false predictions

A proponent of a theory, given sufficient motivation, can explain all kinds of contradictory findings. (Quine) Typically, however, there is a price to be paid as the theory becomes more complex and has less explanatory power.

Ad hominem and denial

Criticism of evolution draws heated responses, and personal attacks are common. Such attacks, however, do not change the fact that evolution has generated many false predictions. Also, evolutionists sometimes ignore or deny the unexpected findings. They attempt to discredit the facts, referring to them as ďtired old arguments,Ē or fallacies without following up such criticisms with supporting details.

Falsificationism is flawed

It has been argued that in order to qualify as science, ideas and theories need to be falsifiable. Also, falsified predictions are sometimes used to argue a theory is false. Such naÔve falsificationism is flawed (Popper) and not used here. Evolutionís many false predictions do not demonstrate that evolution is not science or that evolution is false.

False predictions are valuable in judging the quality of a theory, its explanatory power, and for improving our scientific understanding in general. Nonetheless, evolutionists sometimes reject any mention of their theoryís false predictions as mere naÔve falsificationism. The failures of naÔve falsificationism do not give evolutionists a license to ignore substantial and fundamental failures of their theory.

If there are so many problems evolution would have been toppled

This objection falls under the category of naÔve falsificationism. Science is a reactive process. New evidence is processed, and theories are adjusted accordingly. But science can also be a conservative process, sustaining substantial problems before reevaluating a theory. Therefore the reevaluation of a theory takes time. The fact that there are problems is no guarantee a theory will have been toppled. (Lakatos; Chalmers)

Those quoted believe in evolution

Many scientists doubt evolution, but they are not cited or quoted in this paper. Only material from evolutionists is used to illustrate that even adherents to the theory agree that the predictions are false.

These falsifications will be remedied in the future

As scientists, we need to evaluate scientific theories according to the currently available data. No one knows what future data may bring, and the claim that future data will rescue evolution is ultimately circular.

There is no better alternative

One way to evaluate a theory is to compare it to alternative explanations. This approach has the advantage of circumventing the difficulties in evaluating scientific theories. But of course any such comparison will crucially depend on what alternative explanations are used in the comparison. If care is not taken good alternatives can be misrepresented or even omitted altogether. And of course there may be alternatives not yet conceived. (van Fraassen; Stanford) In any case, the success or failure of evolutionís predictions depends on the science, not on any alternative explanations.
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


+-Recent Topics

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
01 Apr, 2020 23:13

New Pandemic? by AGelbert
01 Apr, 2020 21:08

Batteries by AGelbert
01 Apr, 2020 19:38

Money by AGelbert
01 Apr, 2020 18:32

Pollution by AGelbert
01 Apr, 2020 17:17

Tidal Power by AGelbert
01 Apr, 2020 17:02

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
01 Apr, 2020 06:04

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by AGelbert
31 Mar, 2020 23:23

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
31 Mar, 2020 17:00

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
31 Mar, 2020 16:26