Skip to comments.So You Think You Are a Darwinian?
Posted on 02/08/2003 7:54:52 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
Darwinism's Dilemma (part I: Cave Man)
Darwinism's Dilemma (part II: Hard Man)
My point exactly!
at least one of them got it
I am sorry I should have been much more clear (wow). Facts that prove a position.
You just don't get it do you? My statement was constructive on two levels and both seem to have gone over your head.
scientific method n. The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
There is a conclusion that validates a theory, moving the theory out of the realm of thought and into fact. You forgetting or ignoring that step does not remove it from the process.
Get a clue - the use of the word "proof" is not scientific.
Allow me to point out that arguing from a position with no attendant facts produces no useful conclusions. Got any facts to offer, dumbass?
I think not.
How much Oil Production you got Bubba?
Why are the major Oil & Gas discoveries all made by evolutionists?
That must be some kinda Godless Commie Liberal plot, huh?
I mean, everybody knows Oilmen are liberals, right? That's why they were W's first supporters.
< /Contempt >
Facts can be proven (in this case, except to the Flat Earth Society) but not theories. Note: calling a fact a theory, or vice versa, doesn't change that.
How does science happen?
This is based around a brief, incomplete list of definition of terms:
An idea about the way the world is. A hypothesis might be that 6 year old children are particularly tall in Nottingham. Before hypothesis can be developed into scientific law it needs to be tested by carefully planned experiments.
Taking a law (probably mathematical or logical) and using it work out what will happen in a given situation. For instance if there was a law that lightning was always followed by thunder, then we could conclude that any particular lightning strike will be followed by thunder.
There are various technical meanings for this word, but for a working scientist it means making some observations (every time lighting strikes thunder always seems to follow) and building these into a general law (thunder always follows lighting).
Often two measurements of something do not give exactly the same result. For instance, if measuring the temperature of the room, the temperature may fluctuate due to the movement of the air. Even if it didn't you may read the thermometer slightly differently each time. If you measure the height of 6 year old children, there will clearly be a variation across the population. This variation is generally called 'noise' or 'random errors'.
If you measure the height of a class of 6 year old children in Nottingham and Leicester, you will almost certainly find that the average height is different. However, if you had chosen two classes in Nottingham, you may have also found a difference. The question is, is the difference between the average height in Nottingham and Leicester significant? We can estimate this using statistics. Usually we would accept the result if we could say there was a 95% chance that the two measurements were different, that is there is a 5% risk that this result could have been obtained by chance.
(It is very important to notice that if infact the average height of children across the UK is the same, but we compare the heights of children in Nottingham to those measured in 20 other cities in this way, accepting a difference which had a 5% risk of being obtained by chance, then inevitably if we repeat the meausement 5 times, we expect at least one city to be difference by chance.)
We can never prove that a scientific law is generally true in all situations. We can only carry on doing experiments until we find somewhere where it no longer holds- where it proves it to be false. (e.g. does thunder follow lighting if it strikes you?). This is sometimes known as falsification.
This does NOT mean that science cannot give us meaningful answers to difficult problems; it simply means that it cannot always give black and white, cut and dried answers. Science can often tell us which of two senarios is most likely to be true, and we can often give a numerical probability to that likelihood. This is exactly the sort of process that we all use to manage our lives, to make informed decisions about say, whether to keep our money in a tin on the mantlepiece, or open a bank account. Yes, of course, there is a chance that the bank will go bust, but virtually all of us decide that on balance we think it is safer than our mantlepiece.The trouble with some science is that the information needed to make these decisions is very technical and so sometimes we have to trust a very few people, who are basically world experts in a given area, to make these decisions for us.
In practice, we are often simply trying to determine the range of applicability of a law. Then we often turn things on their head and test the "null" hypothesis (thunder and lighting always occur simultaneously). We then make measurements to find out how likely it is that the difference in time that we are observing has occured simply by chance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is based on personal interests of staff, and does not represent core work of MR Centre. It is written from the point of view of a working scientist, rather than a scientific philosopher.
If you want to comment on this page please contact Penny.Gowland@nottingham.ac.uk
An absolutely incredible paragraph! First you have been arguing against my statements that this circuit shows intelligent design and here you admit completely to the truth of my statements - that scientists even now cannot figure out how the system works. So tell me how you can create a working system with perfectly fitting parts at random and without any idea as to what you want to achieve????????????
As to the AI nonsense - organisms are intelligently designed so that does not count as computer AI material. To put a human brain on a piece of metal does not make it an AI computer. The "A" in AI stands for artificial. There is nothing artificial about an organism.
Is your name Jim Robinson? Who died and put you in charge here? If you do not like the thread, go somewhere else, there are thousands of threads to choose from here.
You are just another evolutionist tyrant which when faced with the truth about how silly your atheist/materialist theory is wants to silence opponents. Well, this is still a free country. So those who oppose evolution will keep on speaking against it and showing how lame and foolish it is.
Oh and BTW - don't tell me that you are for evolution because it is 'science' instead of because it is the basis for materialistic atheism in our day. Don't tell me that because if you were in it because of the science you would welcome discussion and you also would be able to defend your theory instead of trying to silence those who disagree with it.
Since when are all scientists Popperian irrationalists?
The old evo switcheroonie. My post was in answer to balrog's silly statement that "In my experience, "Darwinian" or "Darwinist" as a term". You added to the attack on Darwin by saying that " Darwin isn't a religious icon, he was just a dude with some ideas." Sounds like a putdown to me.
The whole point is that evolutionists are ashamed of Darwin both as a person and because he was so wrong in his theories. Problem is that both the theory and what is despicable about the man are indelibly intertwined. His promotion of the bracycephalic index as proof for his theory that some human races are inferior both shows his racism and the need for evolution to show that there are some which are 'more human' than other. His eugenics is an attempt to keep humanity from avoiding survival of the fittest through Christian charity. It was also scientifically wrong. As genetics has taught us, it is the parents of those with genetic defects which are the carriers of the bad genes so his proposal to kill (or prevent from procreating) those who had such defects would not have solved the problem. The man was not a scientist as he had absolutely no reason for these views which science has conclusively refuted. He just made stuff out of thing air because it helped his agenda. He did not bother to question or test the stuff he was promoting. He was willing to have people killed without having the vaguest scientific idea of how genetic diseases were transmitted. The man was a monster both as a human being and as a perpetrator of total unscientific garbage upon the public - and you cannot separate the theory from the man no matter how hard you try.
Why is it when Lib lurkers get called out they start calling people names instead of contributing something worthwhile to the debate?
but, but, but...I'm a Christian...and a scientist...arrrghhh. LOL!
Teehee, glad I could help~
As I often say, evolutionists are totally shameless in their dishonesty. At least you are honest enough to admit you are proud of being dishonest for the cause.
Really? Let's see the contributions of the evolutionists to this thread (names withheld to protect the guilty):
Bilge for your mill. - post# 5
It doesn't matter whether or not evolution is true, it must be suppressed "for the good of the children." - post# 6
I almost started to debate this, until I realized that honest debate has nothing to do with your post...- post# 7
Oh slay he the mighty strawman! - post# 9
This whole article stinks, - post# 10
I just took from the first ten posts, did not want to bore all with the same old rhetorical, insulting garbage which the evolutionists try to pass off as argument on these threads.
If evolutionists were really scientists, and believed in science, and were informed about the facts of evolution, they would eagerly refute the statements of opponents with scientific facts and hard evidence. But they are not, they are just a bunch of atheist buffoons.
That has also been my experience. "Darwinism" is a pejorative created by Creationists to bash anyone who does not believe in their version of reality.
Here it is:
In man the frontal bone consists of a single piece, but in the embryo, and in children, and in almost all the lower mammals, it consists of two pieces separated by a distinct suture. ~~This suture occasionally persists more or less distinctly in man after maturity; and more frequently in ancient than in recent crania, especially, as Canestrini has observed, in those exhumed from the Drift, and belonging to the brachycephalic type. Here again he comes to the same nclusion as in the analogous case of the malar bones. In this, and other instances presently to be given, the cause of ancient races approaching the lower animals in certain characters more frequently than do the modern races, appears to be, that the latter stand at a somewhat greater distance in the long line of descent from their early semi-human progenitors. Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter II.
All you and your friends know how to do is engage in ad-hominem attacks against those who disagree with you. Again - I do not see you or the rest of the evo clowns refuting anything I have said. I do not see you or the rest of the evo clowns giving evidence for your side. All you guys know how to do is insult. Shame on you.
I'm starting to like you Clive.
That is the 'defense' that evolutionists always give - the opponents do not know what the theory of evolution is. Evolutionists are always saying what evolution is not, they never are willing to say what the theory of evolution is. For two years I have been trying to nail evolutionists down on what the theory is but they lamely refuse to state it or even more lamely give a stupid answer about the " change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." which of course is not what the theory of evolution is. To go for a definition instead of the chicken hearted mumblings of evolutionists we must go back to Darwin:
"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows."
From: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
More gratuitous insults, totally made up from the king of slime trying again to get the thread pulled by inciting a slime-a-thon.