ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 29th February 2016, 07:59 AM   #121
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Regarding the subject line, if we do have 98% of our DNA in common the inbetweeners would be rather hard to spot. Perhaps something that resembles both an NFL linebacker and a football hooligan's love child?
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 08:00 AM   #122
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,364
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
The question and purpose was not to see: how many different ways you can attack the poster and divert away from the topic, it was simply...


Post the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?


Since nobody can post -- the most validated "theory" in the history of science forever and ever and ever; then...it does not EXIST, it's NOT "Science".

If it isn't "Science", then ahhh, what is it...?


regards
It's science, but that doesn't mean I'm going to do a bunch of searches for you, or any other silly game you decide to play.

Are you getting class credits for coming here?
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 08:01 AM   #123
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,805
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
......I'll bludgeon gr...and sr...some other time..............
Yep. Yep, it's definitely Poe territory. This should be amusing.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 08:03 AM   #124
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla Sama View Post
Did somebody just bring up the Second Law of Thermodynamics to prove a god?
To have a Law there must be a LawGiver. Checkmate atheists!
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 08:05 AM   #125
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,541
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
The question and purpose was not to see: how many different ways you can attack the poster and divert away from the topic, it was simply...


Post the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?


Since nobody can post -- the most validated "theory" in the history of science forever and ever and ever; then...it does not EXIST, it's NOT "Science".

If it isn't "Science", then ahhh, what is it...?


regards
The answer to the part I have highlighted is quite simple: "Evolution is Science that Daniel either refuses to grasp or is incapable of grasping."

You are asking for one mathematical equation or one definition. The definition has been given; you object because there is not a passage called "These Words Define The Unchanging Theory of Evolution and Shall Not be Altered" in a book called "The Unchanging Scientific Theories of Man."

It is not the only such theory to have no set-in-concrete terms to define it while still being understood exactly as has been described in this thread. General Relativity comes to mind, but I seem to recall you doubt that, too.

Perhaps the example you will accept is what has already been pointed out: the God you insist is there. Where is the definition of it? Your omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent Ontological Primitive is a flawed bag of contradictions that is far more general than you admit. The Islamic Allah would fit it as well as any other deity; will you accept that?

But actually, that example is far, far less a good definition than that offered of evolution, and not just for the flaws and contradictions. No, it fails because it allows no predictions and has made none (we can argue the alleged biblical prophecies if you like, but real scrutiny makes them fall apart). The theory of evolution that you deride has offered real predictions that have been borne out.

Are you sure you aren't here as a theological assignment?
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 08:08 AM   #126
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
The question and purpose was not to see: how many different ways you can attack the poster and divert away from the topic, it was simply...


Post the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?


Since nobody can post -- the most validated "theory" in the history of science forever and ever and ever; then...it does not EXIST, it's NOT "Science".

If it isn't "Science", then ahhh, what is it...?


regards
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Is that a Poe? If it is, it's good, I'll give you that.
I file it under over-enthusiastic but under-informed juvenilia.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 08:08 AM   #127
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,112
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Since nobody can post -- the most validated "theory" in the history of science forever and ever and ever; then...it does not EXIST, it's NOT "Science".
Since you are such an expert on fallacies, you might find satisfaction in naming them yourself in this quote.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 08:09 AM   #128
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
I never understand why 'From something we do not understand came simple natural laws, Hydrogen and time' is MORE complex than 'From something we do not understand came all that AND an all-powerful, all-knowing, sentient being that somehow is able to control all of the universe without leaving any detectable traces'
ID made simple:

We can't figure it out so godidit.

It's too complex to have happened on it's own so something even more complex must have happened on it's own.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 08:17 AM   #129
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
1. ad hominem Fallacy

2. Genetic Fallacy





Who cares?? Do you have a cogent Substantive Supported argument or position?




This is tantamount to requesting Ty Cobb start over in Little League




Ipse Dixit, Generalized Sweeping Baseless 'bald' Assertion Fallacy.





I said The Laws of Physics/Chemistry Do NOT contain Symbolic Logic Functions





Another...Ipse Dixit, Generalized Sweeping Baseless 'bald' Assertion Fallacy.


regards
Looks like you are following the southern strategy.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 08:18 AM   #130
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,805
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
I file it under over-enthusiastic but under-informed juvenilia.
Beautifully understated.

I do metaphorically weep for the state of the education system wherever this youth hails from.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 08:25 AM   #131
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,541
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
ID made simple:

We can't figure it out so godidit.

It's too complex to have happened on it's own so something even more complex must have happened on it's own.
Yes, it does boil down to this, but the apologetics defending it are sometimes things of beauty.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 08:25 AM   #132
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Well, based on my years of reading fora I observe that college freshmen start getting sassy in second semester.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 08:55 AM   #133
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,467
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
The question and purpose was not to see: how many different ways you can attack the poster and divert away from the topic, it was simply...


Post the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?
OK, start with this.

Once you have read and understood those 500 pages, congratulations you have now reached the mid 19th century. Only 150+ years of further research to go and you will reach the present day.

Study hard.



Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Since nobody can post -- the most validated "theory" in the history of science forever and ever and ever; then...it does not EXIST, it's NOT "Science".
Post the entire bibble in no more than two sentences.

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
If it isn't "Science", then ahhh, what is it...?


regards
Science which you don't understand.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 08:59 AM   #134
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
The question and purpose was not to see: how many different ways you can attack the poster and divert away from the topic, it was simply...


Post the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?


Since nobody can post -- the most validated "theory" in the history of science forever and ever and ever; then...it does not EXIST, it's NOT "Science".

If it isn't "Science", then ahhh, what is it...?


regards
It is, in fact, to snerk.

Reality does not care that you choose not to understand.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 09:01 AM   #135
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Looks like you are following the southern strategy.
It's the "Oopsie Dixit".
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 09:01 AM   #136
Cainkane1
Philosopher
 
Cainkane1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The great American southeast
Posts: 8,399
I guess that the reason there are no other hominids is that they were eventually wiped out by competition with our species. Its a shame really as I feel life would be more interesting if we could speak to another intelligent non human person.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.
Cainkane1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 09:02 AM   #137
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,626
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Post the entire bibble in no more than two sentences.
Old Testament. New Testament.
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 09:04 AM   #138
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,805
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
Old Testament. New Testament.
Neither of which are sentences.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 09:05 AM   #139
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Originally Posted by Cainkane1 View Post
I guess that the reason there are no other hominids is that they were eventually wiped out by competition with our species. Its a shame really as I feel life would be more interesting if we could speak to another intelligent non human person.
Hominids, by definition are humans.

Myself, I'd like to be able to ask the dolphins to take me with them.
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 09:05 AM   #140
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,626
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Neither of which are sentences.
0<=2
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 09:06 AM   #141
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,467
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
Old Testament. New Testament.
Here comes the new boss. Same as the old boss.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 09:13 AM   #142
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,573
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Please post the "Scientific" Version so we can validate.

Thanks
Organisms that successfully procreate and have successors that successfully procreate will pass on more genetic material to successive generations that Organisms that procreate less successfully and whose successors are less successful.
If there is genetic variation between members of the population, over extended generations the genetic makeup of the population will reflect a higher proportion of those organisms who procreate successfully and whose successors procreate successfully.
Changes in the genome of a population that reflect greater reproductive success will be represented at higher levels in the population over extended time periods.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 09:17 AM   #143
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
The question and purpose was not to see: how many different ways you can attack the poster and divert away from the topic, it was simply...


Post the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?


Since nobody can post -- the most validated "theory" in the history of science forever and ever and ever; then...it does not EXIST, it's NOT "Science".

If it isn't "Science", then ahhh, what is it...?


regards
Sweetie, given your...command...of the language, it is hard to tell if this is a logical error on your part, or an outright lie.

Either way, it's incorrect.

Did you even look at the Talk.Origins site?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 29th February 2016 at 09:19 AM.
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 10:54 AM   #144
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,573
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Say what??





This is not a "Scientific Theory", it's Begging The Question.





Another, Begging The Question Fallacy.



regards

Another set of meaningless arglebarggle, jiggery pokery on you part.

If you have a coherent line of reasoning to present, please do so
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 10:56 AM   #145
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,573
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Well Scientific Theories aren't "ABSTRACT". Is that simple enough for you?
Really, they are all abstracted models of the behavior of reality.

Please support your line of reasoning here, all scientific theories are abstracted models....
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 10:57 AM   #146
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 825
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
The answer to the part I have highlighted is quite simple: "Evolution is Science that Daniel either refuses to grasp or is incapable of grasping."

Grasp what specifically??

Quote:
You are asking for one mathematical equation or one definition.

No I'm asking for a "Scientific Theory" not an Equation or Definition of a Word.

"mathematical equation"?? Math isn't "Science"/Physics/Biology/Chemistry...much like a Tape Measure isn't Carpentry. One of the main reasons is they're different words.

Math is Immaterial "Abstract" and @ BEST, merely "describes"... it "EXPLAINS" exactly Squat/Nada.

Science is in the business of EXPLAINING by Validating/In-Validating "Cause and Effect" relationships between Independent and Dependent Variables via Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.

Albert Einstein: Lecture, Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin 27 Jan 1921...

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."


Quote:
The definition has been given;

Not it hasn't. And again, I'm not looking for a definition of a word.


Quote:
It is not the only such theory to have no set-in-concrete terms to define it...

They aren't "Scientific Theories" then.


Quote:
General Relativity comes to mind, but I seem to recall you doubt that, too.

Doubt it?? 3rd graders falsified it during recess 30 minutes after publication. (but again, I don't want to derail this thread)


Quote:
Perhaps the example you will accept is what has already been pointed out:...

We don't "Accept" things in Science we Hypothesis TEST--- "Science". "Accepting" is for: Propaganda States, 2nd grade Story Time, Politics, and 'religion'


Quote:
Where is the definition of it? Your omniscient/ omnipresent/ omnipotent...

Please don't attempt to divert/derail this topic. We'll get to those things in due time.

Quote:
The theory of evolution that you deride has offered real predictions that have been borne out.

1. "evolution", what's that?? Please post the "Scientific Theory of evolution...?

2. In "Science", Predictions are the Consequent of the Antecedent... "Independent Variables". Predictions without "Independent Variables" are: Jeanne Dixon, Edgar Cayce, Nostradamus, Carnival Tent motifs.

You also have some splain'n to do...

“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014


Quote:
Are you sure you aren't here as a theological assignment?

Yes, I'm sure
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 10:58 AM   #147
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,573
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
That's Begging The Question: "evolution".




Go ahead...?




Scientific Theories are validated/confirmed Scientific Hypotheses...

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with REPEATED TESTING. --chemistryabout

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with REPEATED TESTING. --quarkstoquasars

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. --nsrl.edu




There is no Viable "Scientific Theory" of Gravity...there is the Universal Law of Gravitation. (I don't want to derail this topic, I'll bludgeon gr...and sr...some other time)

Ya see,

Scientific Theories "Explain"....The How (mechanisms/ processes).

Scientific Laws "Describe"....The What/Is; often expressed mathematically.


regards
Irony and agony

You just seem to make this up, the alleged Universal law of Gravitation' is a theory...
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 11:03 AM   #148
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 825
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Really, they are all abstracted models of the behavior of reality.

They are not (Again)...

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with REPEATED TESTING. --chemistryabout

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with REPEATED TESTING. --quarkstoquasars

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. --nsrl.edu



Quote:
Please support your line of reasoning here, all scientific theories are abstracted models....

Look Up. And, Scientific Theories aren't "Models". "Models" are Models.


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 11:03 AM   #149
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
<snip of much unfounded contention>
Sweetie, you have not demonstrated that you have the backgrround, or the capacity, to understand even a cartoon of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Educate yourself, then ask your "questions".
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 11:05 AM   #150
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
They are not (Again)...

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with REPEATED TESTING. --chemistryabout

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with REPEATED TESTING. --quarkstoquasars

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. --nsrl.edu

Look Up. And, Scientific Theories aren't "Models". "Models" are Models.


regards
A veritable garage sale of ipse dicta...oopsie.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 11:09 AM   #151
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,805
Now I understand the raison d'etre of the phrase "not even wrong".
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 11:10 AM   #152
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 825
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Sweetie, given your...command...of the language, it is hard to tell if this is a logical error on your part, or an outright lie.

Sweetie??

Did I miss any comma splices?

Quote:
Either way, it's incorrect.

Yes, and I'm quite overwhelmed by the excruciating attention to detail and accompanying support.


Quote:
Did you even look at the Talk.Origins site?

1. Elephant Hurling Fallacy.

2. "The group is characterized by a long list of in-crowd jokes like the fictitious University of Ediacara,[3] the equally fictitious Evil Atheist Conspiracy[4] which allegedly hides all the evidence supporting Creationism, a monthly election of the Chez Watt-award for "statements that make you go 'say what', or some such.",[5] pun cascades, a strong predisposition to quoting Monty Python and a habit of calling penguins "the best birds"."--Wiki

What's next, you gonna source The National Enquirer ??
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 11:15 AM   #153
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,541
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Grasp what specifically??




No I'm asking for a "Scientific Theory" not an Equation or Definition of a Word.

"mathematical equation"?? Math isn't "Science"/Physics/Biology/Chemistry...much like a Tape Measure isn't Carpentry. One of the main reasons is they're different words.

Math is Immaterial "Abstract" and @ BEST, merely "describes"... it "EXPLAINS" exactly Squat/Nada.

Science is in the business of EXPLAINING by Validating/In-Validating "Cause and Effect" relationships between Independent and Dependent Variables via Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.

Albert Einstein: Lecture, Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin 27 Jan 1921...

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."





Not it hasn't. And again, I'm not looking for a definition of a word.





They aren't "Scientific Theories" then.





Doubt it?? 3rd graders falsified it during recess 30 minutes after publication. (but again, I don't want to derail this thread)





We don't "Accept" things in Science we Hypothesis TEST--- "Science". "Accepting" is for: Propaganda States, 2nd grade Story Time, Politics, and 'religion'





Please don't attempt to divert/derail this topic. We'll get to those things in due time.




1. "evolution", what's that?? Please post the "Scientific Theory of evolution...?

2. In "Science", Predictions are the Consequent of the Antecedent... "Independent Variables". Predictions without "Independent Variables" are: Jeanne Dixon, Edgar Cayce, Nostradamus, Carnival Tent motifs.

You also have some splain'n to do...

“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014





Yes, I'm sure
Oh, my. The "third graders disproved" general relativity bit discredits the rest. Nothing of the sort happened, and you cannot demonstrate it.

The bit about the definition of God being a derail is manifest waffling and avoiding the point. You, kind sir, brought up God. You offered the (non-)definition which you now run from because its holes are pointed out.

The remainder is you ignoring what is being told you.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 11:17 AM   #154
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 825
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Sweetie, you have not demonstrated that you have the backgrround, or the capacity, to understand even a cartoon of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

"evolution", what's that?? Please post the "Scientific Theory" of evolution and we'll see WHO can't understand it....?

"Natural Selection"?? Is a Contradiction in Terms. To be able to "SELECT" you must have the ability to REASON; Sentience and Intelligence...is "Nature" Alive??

Natural Selection is a "Concept"; Non-Physical/Immaterial. "Concepts" aren't Mechanisms because they can't manipulate the Physical.

It's Tantamount to claiming that the "Race for Space" (Concept) was the Mechanism for the Apollo 11 Lunar Module, or Freedom (Concept) developed the Battle Plans for the Revolutionary War.

William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....

"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. NATURAL SELECTION DOES NOTHING….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets." {emphasis mine}
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200

And Cartoons have a leg up on "theory of evolution"; Cartoons actually exist.

regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 11:22 AM   #155
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,541
Ah, Refutation by Semantic Game Playing.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 11:28 AM   #156
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 825
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
Oh, my. The "third graders disproved" general relativity bit discredits the rest. Nothing of the sort happened, and you cannot demonstrate it.

Since requesting the "Scientific Theory of evolution" appears to be the acme of foolishness (It's a Fairytale!), I suppose we can expand and discuss other fairytales...

So Relativity, sr and gr via different mechanisms (Speed vs. Gravity), can: Dilate/Bend/Warp...TIME ??

TIME is a "Conceptual" relationship between 2 motions. Specifically, it's based on a single rotation of the Earth on it's axis in respect to the Sun (A Day).
It's a "CONCEPT" (Non-Physical). It is without Chemical Formula/Structure, no Dimensionality/Orthogonality, and no Direction or Location. You can't put some in a jar and paint in red.

I mean c'mon now, let's reason together....can you Dilate/Bend Warp Non-Physical "Concepts"??

That which you are using to measure....isn't the thing you're measuring.

** A Football Field is 100 Yards long but a Football Field isn't Yardsticks!! If I bend a Yardstick...does the Football Field Bend also? **

So if something affects say...Cesium Atomic Clocks, or any modern "Clock" for that matter, does that then IPSO FACTO mean the Earth's rotation is Affected?
These Two matheMagical Fairytales (sr and gr) were falsified 30 seconds after their respective publications by 3rd graders @ recess, for goodness sakes.
IN TOTO, each are Massive Reification Fallacies on Nuclear Steroids!!

I really don't know why you'd need anymore but Quantum Mechanics (The most successful branch of Physics in the History of Science) has taken both to the Woodshed and Bludgeoned them Senseless !!! "Non-Locality" and Delayed Choice Experiments (in the literal thousands without exception) have annihilated "Space-Time".

Even Einstein later in Life, after 30 years of playing with UFT reckoned with it...

"I must confess that I was not able to find a way to explain the atomistic character of nature. My opinion is if that the objective description through the field as an elementary concept is not possible then one has to find a possibility to AVOID the continuum (together with SPACE and TIME) ALTOGETHER but I have not the slightest idea what kind of elementary concepts could be used in such a theory".--- Letter from Albert Einstein to David Bohm, 28 October 1954.

Albert Einstein, Endorsed (See Foreword)...
"Hence it is clear that the space of physics, is not in the last analysis, anything given in nature or Independent of human thought. It is a function of our conceptual scheme [mind]."
Max Jammer; The Concepts of Space, 1954, p. 171

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." --- Albert Einstein


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 11:30 AM   #157
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 825
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
Ah, Refutation by Semantic Game Playing.

One Liner Unsupported "fly by" Color Commentaries aren't cogent arguments or positions.


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 11:33 AM   #158
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Sweetie??

Did I miss any comma splices?

Yes, and I'm quite overwhelmed by the excruciating attention to detail and accompanying support.
It seems clear that you have no intention of even beginning to educate yourself; and, in fact,you have no intention of so doing. Pity

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
1. Elephant Hurling Fallacy.
No, Dear, just your supposition that everyone here must be as duplicitous as you have demonstrated yourself to be. Read.

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
2. "The group is characterized by a long list of in-crowd jokes like the fictitious University of Ediacara,[3] the equally fictitious Evil Atheist Conspiracy[4] which allegedly hides all the evidence supporting Creationism, a monthly election of the Chez Watt-award for "statements that make you go 'say what', or some such.",[5] pun cascades, a strong predisposition to quoting Monty Python and a habit of calling penguins "the best birds"."--Wiki
As I say, not everyone is as duplicitous as you have demonstrated yourself to be. You have much foundation to lay; much error to unlearn.

The very next section of your source (reading is important, snooks):
Quote:
...Apart from the humor, the group includes rebuttals to creationist claims. There is an expectation that any claim is to be backed up by actual evidence...
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
What's next, you gonna source The National Enquirer ??
Not hardly. Nor will you find reference to bald superstition asserted as evidence.

There is no "Royal Road". Do yourself a favor. Read.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 29th February 2016 at 11:37 AM.
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 11:39 AM   #159
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,805
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
"evolution", what's that?? Please post the "Scientific Theory" of evolution and we'll see WHO can't understand it....?........
Why do you keep doing this? Do you not understand that it isn't one paper? It is the cumulative total of 200 years work, in tens of thousands of scientific papers in hundreds of peer reviewed journals. People working on the human genome project were contributing to the theory of evolution in the same way as people doing epidemiological cohort research or people mapping geographical changes in mitochondrial DNA. You either know this and have deliberately asked for something you know cannot be provided, or your schooling was incredibly weak. You might start by reading On The Origin of Species, but we know rather more about things now than then. Genes, for instance.

Let me ask you this. How is it that after 200 years of busting a gut trying, evolution hasn't been disproven? After all, it would be trivially easy to disprove it. All you creationists need to do is find an undisturbed out-of-place fossil. A rabbit in a T Rex's stomach, for instance, or a modern horse in the same strata as a triceratops, and it's game over. Can you think of any particular reason why generations of bible bashers doing their damndest to upset the scientific apple-cart have so completely and utterly failed?
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

Last edited by MikeG; 29th February 2016 at 11:42 AM.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2016, 11:49 AM   #160
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,541
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Since requesting the "Scientific Theory of evolution" appears to be the acme of foolishness (It's a Fairytale!),
No. It's been provided; you are simply incapable of grasping it and therefore dismiss it groundlessly.


Originally Posted by Daniel
I suppose we can expand and discuss other fairytales...
You are too kind. And as Slowvehicle has pointed out, duplicitous. Still nowhere in your list is the God you claim, and being as you have now yourself moved on to fairy tales, it is most appropriate here.


Originally Posted by Daniel
So Relativity, sr and gr via different mechanisms (Speed vs. Gravity), can: Dilate/Bend/Warp...TIME ??

TIME is a "Conceptual" relationship between 2 motions. Specifically, it's based on a single rotation of the Earth on it's axis in respect to the Sun (A Day).
It's a "CONCEPT" (Non-Physical). It is without Chemical Formula/Structure, no Dimensionality/Orthogonality, and no Direction or Location. You can't put some in a jar and paint in red.

I mean c'mon now, let's reason together....can you Dilate/Bend Warp Non-Physical "Concepts"??

That which you are using to measure....isn't the thing you're measuring.
All of which amounts to you dismissing something because you do not understand it. Ipse Dixit away, my friend. Ipse Dixit away.


Originally Posted by Daniel
** A Football Field is 100 Yards long but a Football Field isn't Yardsticks!! If I bend a Yardstick...does the Football Field Bend also? **

So if something affects say...Cesium Atomic Clocks, or any modern "Clock" for that matter, does that then IPSO FACTO mean the Earth's rotation is Affected?
These Two matheMagical Fairytales (sr and gr) were falsified 30 seconds after their respective publications by 3rd graders @ recess, for goodness sakes.
IN TOTO, each are Massive Reification Fallacies on Nuclear Steroids!!
You may not realize it, but you are spewing increasingly incoherent bollocks. Might want to check your keyboard.


Originally Posted by Daniel
I really don't know why you'd need anymore but Quantum Mechanics (The most successful branch of Physics in the History of Science) has taken both to the Woodshed and Bludgeoned them Senseless !!! "Non-Locality" and Delayed Choice Experiments (in the literal thousands without exception) have annihilated "Space-Time".
Ah. You've missed all the Einsteinian confirmations, then. Gravity waves, anyone?


Originally Posted by Daniel
Even Einstein later in Life, after 30 years of playing with UFT reckoned with it...

"I must confess that I was not able to find a way to explain the atomistic character of nature. My opinion is if that the objective description through the field as an elementary concept is not possible then one has to find a possibility to AVOID the continuum (together with SPACE and TIME) ALTOGETHER but I have not the slightest idea what kind of elementary concepts could be used in such a theory".--- Letter from Albert Einstein to David Bohm, 28 October 1954.

Albert Einstein, Endorsed (See Foreword)...
"Hence it is clear that the space of physics, is not in the last analysis, anything given in nature or Independent of human thought. It is a function of our conceptual scheme [mind]."
Max Jammer; The Concepts of Space, 1954, p. 171

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." --- Albert Einstein


regards
Setting aside your inappropriate attachment of meanings not implicit here, you've undercut your case. By your (fallacious) reasoning, your beloved Irreducible Complexity, et al, are illusions from which you can reason nothing.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.