Posted on 04/04/2014 5:25:29 PM PDT by Moseley
The stakes are higher than most conservatives realize. When the fraud of man-made global warming finally dies, folks will start thinking: What else were we lied to about? How could the high priests of modern knowledge have confidently insisted something that was never remotely plausible?
A key element of progressivism is having wise philosopher-kings who make benevolent decisions for the masses. It is a core element of conservatism that you can make decisions for yourself. But for progressives, it is essential to convince the public that the designated authorities know better than you do, including what to eat, how to raise your kids, how to educate children, whom to vote for, etc.
Who will control society is up for grabs. The entire progressive religion depends upon maintaining public belief that their self-declared experts are all-knowing. Conformity is more important than truth. So desperate Warmists are intensifying their efforts even as their argument collapses in full view of everyone.
But a scientist with an opinion is not a scientist. A real scientist is cheerfully open to being proven wrong, eager for discovery more than for satisfying his ego. Many of the most important discoveries were not what a researcher was expecting. A scientist will have suspicions and a working hypothesis, but only with an open mind.
Instead, modern science has become a festival of speculation. Progressives simply speculate about what might be true and then read tea leaves for any hint consistent with their imagination.
We have special-effects television shows about dinosaurs showing the coloring of dinosaurs whose skin we have never seen and the sounds they make which we have never heard. Science shows tell us that the mother dinosaur is starting to worry that day about the storm approaching, and that the young dinosaurs are feeling playful.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
‘studied for several years ...”
And you misstate the ‘Scientific Method’.
Obviously your years of study have been wasted.
This is considered a historical fact.
Historical facts count as knowledge which can be as dependable, and in some cases more dependable, than facts arrived at through scientific experiments.
That the earth is billions of years old counts as knowledge in my book. If you want to argue about whether it is scientific or not, great.
People who call themselves scientists (but maybe in your book should call themselves historians) have made careful measurements of geological formations along the west coast of Africa and the east coast of South America. They have discovered similarities in the formations such that they can match rocks near the west coast of Africa with rocks near the east coast of South America. The evidence suggests, with a very high degree of probability approaching 100%, that Africa and South America used to part of the same continent.
These same "scientists" have placed instruments on the two coasts and make regular measurements of how far they have moved apart over the past few decades or so. Using that information they have extrapolated back to get an estimate of the time when the two continents were one. Their estimates suggest that millions of years have passed since these continents were one.
Everything we have learned about cosmology comes from data that was generated in the past. We can't conduct many experiments in cosmology, but scientists can make guesses about what they might see in the future based on what they've seen in the past. If those guesses turn out right time and time again, then those guesses mature into hypotheses and then into theories. This is what seems to be happening with regard to more and more careful measurements of the cosmic background radiation. Recent developments suggest that there might now be sufficient evidence to back up the Inflationary Model of the early universe.
This is all good news to my mind. There is some knowledge that is clearly "scientific" in the way you mean it. There is other knowledge which is clearly "historic". There is other knowledge which might be some combination of both. Why would we want to dismiss this knowledge because it isn't 100% scientific? I watched a recent documentary attempting to determine "Patient Zero" for the Spanish Influenza outbreak that killed so many people around the time of WWI. Historic documents and scientific evidence were brought to bear on the question and the conclusions that the "scientists/historians" came to seemed quite convincing. This knowledge might help us more quickly identify the future sources of outbreaks or respond more quickly to prevent them from becoming epidemics. What's wrong with that?
Going back to the theory (or hypothesis?) of Continental Drift, yes it is possible, but highly unlikely, that the two continents separated in a few weeks or months or years, but a vast quantity of carefully collected and analyzed data suggests it took millions of years. Call this knowledge historic or scientific, it still counts as knowledge.
I agree with you that some scientists are full of hubris. There's that egotist Krauss who wrote "A Universe from Nothing" where he purports to have shown exactly that. However, every respectable philosopher that has looked at the book has found it laughingly bad. There are the neuroscientists who are certain that we have no free will and no "self" and that we are just AI machines made from biological material that will someday be replaced by better AI machines made with more durable stuff.
Besides these few showoffs, who seem to love being in front of cameras more than being behind microscopes or telescopes, there are numerous scientists who spend countless mind-numbingly boring and backbreaking hours collecting specimens, categorizing them, analyzing them, and coming up with hypotheses as to why they are one way rather than any other. Some of the knowledge they provide us can be clearly identified as "scientific", some as historic, and some as a combination of both. It is still knowledge and still a reflection of the ultimate source of all knowledge: God.
global warming is a hoax democrats created to grow socialism
If you Google ‘greatest science mysteries’ you will be very hard pressed to find a list that doesn’t include the origin of life.
So apparently the many politicians, professors, teachers and students you surveyed before making your blanket claim are incapable of understanding that there has never been a definitive theory put forth.
Please provide me with the title and author of a textbook that claims that there is a definitive theory on the origin of life.
In my experience, the only people who make claims such as yours try to use it as a strawman in order to claim that the entire theory of evolution must be thrown out.
This wouldn’t make sense even if what you claim is true. The only thing you would be able to dismiss is that evolution explains the origin of life. If you have no evidence to present against natural selection driving differentiation then if you were a logical person you would have narrowed the theory of evolution to what Charles Darwin and any other responsible scientist already understands it to be.
How about SCIENCE NEWS?
http://www.livescience.com/6737-life.html
I cannot believe you are so sheltered as to be unaware that 99.9% of all people believe and 100% of all teachers and professors teach that the life was created from non-life by the process of evolution.
But this is the problem.
This is proof positive that evolution is NOT true.
Evolution has widely different meanings and definitions to different people.
So how can their be proof of various inconsistent and divergent concepts?
How can there be proof of several mutually exclusive concepts?
If you say that you have proof that evolution is true, but the definition keeps changing, then you cannot possibly have proof that evolution is true.
1. You provide no link to the surveys supporting your outlandish claim.
2. The article you link was written by David Terrasso who has a degree in, wait for it - JOURNALISM.
3. The article you link has a disclaimer at the end stating that the article is one man’s opinion, and provides links to the greatest mysteries in science, which I have already explained to you includes the unsolved origin of life.
4. You demand validation of your hypothesis by claiming origin of life is included as part of the theory of evolution, using no other evidence than a groundless claim of universal acceptance.
5. You have used this straw man to claim the entire theory must be thrown out.
Using your own logic David Terrasso could be said to have proved that the mystery of the origin of life has been solved and should be added to the theory of evolution. He’s just as wrong as you are, but HE HAS MORE EVIDENCE THAN YOU DO.
What’s next? Do we throw out Newton’s Law because it can’t explain motion of elementary particles? Do we throw out the Bible because there was no day and night until the fourth day of Creation when the Sun finally came along so days one through three are invalidated?
Also you may want to check your statistics. You now claim that 99.9 % of ALL people believe life was created from non-life by the process of evolution, which leaves no room for Christians, Muslims, Buddhists or any other believers in Divine, spiritual or undetermined origin of life.
A great creationist I heard speak explained that God trying to explain creation to us (the Genesis account) is like gold fish in a bowl sitting on the counter in a kitchen feeling the water vibrate and someone trying to explain that there is a truck driving past on the road outside the house, when the goldfish don’t know anything that exists outside of their goldfish bowl.
So whatever God says to us to explain creation cannot possibly explain to us the full understanding of creation, because we are inside the created universe, but creation took place OUTSIDE the universe that God was creating.
So for God to describe the time periods of creation is to explain something we cannot really understand.
Do you see how inconsistent you are?
You just agreed that Newton’s Law is valid for anything above the nano scale, but you can’t fathom that the theory of evolution is valid if you don’t try to apply it to first life.
You are showing a complete ignorance of how science works. Theories can very seldom be proven to an absolute certainty. Theories that are considered proven absolutely are called Laws. Theories are tested by collecting evidence using one or more of the following means - observation, measurement and experimentation. Most often, predictions are made based on theories, and evidence is sought to determine the accuracy of the prediction.
Theories can easily be proven false when evidence is found which contradicts the theory. The IPCC sponsored climate change theory has been proven false, as predictions made based on that theory have not achieved anything resembling accuracy over the past 20 years.
Use of radioisotopes to date ancient rocks and fossils is an example. Rate of decay for any given isotope are assumed to be constant, because they have never been observed to fluctuate or change. You would have to find observations millions of years in the past to know absolutely that decay rates never change. However, measurements have been made for a sufficient length of time that scientists almost universally agree that they will remain constant. The key point is NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND TO CONTRADICT THIS THEORY.
Similarly for testing evolution, you would not be able to directly test the theory unless you spent millions of years making observations. Experiments on processes that take millions of years can only be examined experimentally over timespans of years or decades.
Evolution involves three facts widely considered proven.
1. Genetic mutations occur naturally in all organisms which sometimes result in offspring with characteristics not inherited from their predecessors. These genetic mutations can often be passed on to succeeding generations. My Father’s sister died from complications of a genetic mutation in her mitochondria in parts of her body. The distribution of the mutated mitochondria indicate that it happened while she was an embryo. Thankfully her children did not inherit this mutation as it did not occur in a cell that developed into her ova. Genetic mutations will either increase, decrease or not effect the chances of survival. Even very dull witted people generally agree with that last part. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND WHICH CONTRADICTS THIS.
2. Over time, organisms inheriting beneficial characteristics tend to displace the members of that species which lack this characteristic. This is generally referred to as survival of the fittest, but many times it becomes survival of the prettiest due to sexual preferences. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND WHICH CONTRADICTS THIS.
3. The environment of the Earth consists of thousands of distinct habitats, which are constantly subject to either gradual or sudden change. The changed habitats will favor either the mutated characteristic or the non-mutated, or will be neutrally adaptable. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND THAT CONTRADICTS THIS.
The theory predicts that over billions of years, trillions of genetic mutations will accumulate throughout all segments of living organisms on Earth, and that the changes in habitats which favor one characteristic over another will result in organisms that range from single cells to Blue Whales.
There have been many observations made which confirm to most scientists satisfaction that billions of years ago the were only single celled organisms, and that more complex life forms appear millions of years later. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND THAT CONTRADICTS THIS
There have been several experiments performed to test whether selection drives genetic changes in organisms.
The longest duration experiment began before recorded history, when Gray Wolves were domesticated and through selection over 300 genetically distinct breeds have been produced.
Shorter term experiments have demonstrated that mutations in micro organisms subjected to selective pressure using antibiotics can result in immunity to the antibiotics.
If I had time I could give more evidence to support the prediction, but the most important fact is that NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND WHICH CONTRADICTS THE PREDICTION.
Every time you respond you provide ZERO FACTS to support your opinion. Your pharaoh fable does not have any applicability to this issue. If there is evidence available and you or anybody else would like to form a hypothesis, that’s fine, but it is only applicable to itself, not to any other theory or law.
Theories present the most likely explanation for a given condition or phenomenon given ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. They are generally relied upon until someone comes up with a theory which better fits all available evidence.
If you have actual evidence you are welcome to provide it. Or you can just keep spouting opinion, your choice.
Well said. One quibble: I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that “theories that are considered proven absolutely are called Laws.” Laws express observations, like the Law of Gravity that two things attract in proportion to their mass and in inverse proportion to the square of their distance. Various Theories of Gravity attempt to explain why that should be so, but even without any of them being proven, the Law of Gravity stands.
In your examples, I’d say #1 is close to a law. It’s up to some theory of genetics to explain why the mutations occur.
Another law-like observation might be that organisms can be categorized into hierarchical groups based on morphological similarities et al. The Theory of Evolution explains why that should be so.
Finally, in addition to your list of non-contradicting observations, I’d add the confirmatory ones. For example, with some exceptions, the hierarchical categories have tended to be confirmed by later observations of a sort that didn’t exist when the categories were first created, e.g. genome sequencing confirming the closeness of our relationship to the other apes.
Yes you can talk to him, and you can prove that you have done so through the use of a simple tape recorder.
Can you prove that he talks to you?
“There have been several experiments performed to test whether selection drives genetic changes in organisms.
The longest duration experiment began before recorded history, when Gray Wolves were domesticated and through selection over 300 genetically distinct breeds have been produced.”
Breeds, yes.
Earlier you thought this was speciation. You are learning.
Your enthusiasm is clear, but understanding-wise I don’t think you’re in any position to be giving lectures.
eg, is hard to know what you mean by this:
“The theory predicts that over billions of years, trillions of genetic mutations will accumulate throughout all segments of living organisms on Earth...”
To the extent that it can be interpreted as accurate, it’s rather empty hyperbole.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.