Oh look, more "science" falls by the wayside..unethical study

[Photonic]

1. So, this post is pretty much an admission that you've learned not so much after having spent 'your whole life using mathematics and physical principles'?

2. You've given up trying to deny that theoretical physics uses 'faith' and 'belief' in that many of the ideas discussed in this and an earlier thread are not, have not, will not be proven....

....and in fact, are no more than a smoke-and-mirrors attempt to attack theology?

Good choice!

3. "Go ahead and enlighten me then."
Now, focus like a laser: I'm about to explain what you were unable to follow in the previous post...
...the standard model is flawed in a very serious way.
This is gonna blow your skirt up………

a. The Standard Model cannot explain the transition from the elementary particles to states of matter in which the elementary particles are bound to one another and form complex structures.

b. Further, the Standard Model is arbitrary in that it contains many numerical parameters- at least twenty-one, designating specific numerical properties of the model such that they cannot be derived from theory.

c. Above all, the Standard Model does not incorporate the force of gravity. General relativity stands apart, unreconciled. “While general relativity suggests an orderly and predictable universe at the large level (Einstein was known to say “God does not play dice”) it is unable to explain the unpredictable subatomic environment that quantum physics so accurately describes. Conversely quantum mechanics has trouble explaining the mechanics behind large objects.” Unifying General Relativity and the Standard Model | The Faith of a Heretic

4. Now, get ready!
Here is the reason that string theory held so very much promise for folks like you:

String theory is an active research framework in particle physics that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity.[1] It is a contender for a theory of everything (TOE), a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter. String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wow...doesn't it just hit you where you live, in that a mere 'layman' can eviscerate your argument, you know, you being someone who has supposedly studied "mathematics and physical principles (and) spent (his) whole life using."

I don't know about you...but I love it!!
Nasty, huh?

OK...I'll tell you why: 'cause I can read and write, and actually understand what I read.
But there is nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure.

Oh excellent, you've spouted a few misconceptions here, but I'll work through them one by one so I don't hurt your brain.

1. Non-sequitur.

2. Another non-sequitur.

3.

The Standard Model is conceptually simple and contains a description of the elementary particles and forces. The SM particles are 12 spin-1/2 fermions (6 quarks and 6 leptons), 4 spin-1 ‘gauge’ bosons and a spin-0 Higgs boson. These are shown in the figure below and constitute the building blocks of the universe. The 6 quarks include the up and down quarks that make up the neutron and proton. The 6 leptons include the electron and its partner, the electron neutrino. The 4 bosons are particles that transmit forces and include the photon, which transmits the electromagnetic force. With the recent observation of the tau neutrino at Fermilab, all 12 fermions and all 4 gauge bosons have been observed. Seven of these 16 particles (charm, bottom, top, tau neutrino, W, Z, gluon) were predicted by the Standard Model before they were observed experimentally! There is one additional particle predicted by the Standard Model called the Higgs, which has not yet been observed. It is needed in the model to give mass to the W and Z bosons, consistent with experimental observations. While photons and gluons have no mass, the W and Z are quite heavy. The W weighs 80.3 GeV (80 times as much as the proton) and the Z weighs 91.2 GeV. The Higgs is expected to be heavy as well. Direct searches for it at CERN dictate that it must be heavier than 110 GeV.

Now that we understand WHAT the Standard Model is we will work our way down.

a. The Standard Model explains the characteristics of the interaction particles. (The particles that control the interaction of the 3 forces of Physics, it is incomplete in that it does not describe gravity). This does indeed translate to the states of matter in that it describes these forces that control the transition.

I would like to see the transition of matter occur without the fundamental forces existing.

b. Non-sequitur, I can do nothing more than simply point out that you have a serious misconception of how math applies to reality. It is not within he scope of this argument to give you an understanding of why math works.

I will simply as you the question, how do you define mass in relation to energy?

c. Non-sequitur. It has no relation to the transition of matter from one state to another.

4. String theory has shit all to do with reality as it stands. It makes no accurate predictions. What does that mean? It means it can't be tested.

The point of a Theory of Everything is to unify. Right now it is just playing pretend. If you can prove otherwise by all means.

As to your final and very weak statement, the reason you as a layman can reject my argument is that you have no understanding of my argument.

Your lack of knowledge is not the same as knowledge. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you can start learning.

Now, I've been polite, and you've been a complete cock. If you have ANY point to your argument, you will stop using ad hominem and direct attacks.

1. So...you're agreeing with my post???

This is no fun!!


2. "It means it can't be tested."

Whoops, there it is!

Let me repeat that for the hard-of-thinking:
"It means it can't be tested."

My argument exactly.
The example I've given, the multiverse, "It means it can't be tested."
Such ideas are based on....
...wait for it....

Belief and faith!!!

3. "... stop using ad hominem and direct attacks."

Nope.

See...this is only fun when someone bites it big time!
That's where you come in.

4. You have made two major mistakes in this post: First, you digress from your main point. Second, you returned to it.

5. Now, this insult is on a somewhat higher level, tell me how you like it:
You never learned to question, to look at the underpinings of your less-than-intuitive understanding of eschatological world views.

(sigh)...I know you'd be insulted if you could only understand it.

Ironic that you only seem to want to understand the world through pure intuition. Reason be damned.

 

[LOki]

You see parents genes never seem to have a problem reproducing offspring that are the same whether they are cat's,dog's,horses,or humans.

That is why genetics are no friend of the evolutionist.

Actually they are. Mutations occur all the time and evolution has been shown in many creatures in the here and now. Natural selection is not about creating the critter that will fill this niche.

Natural selection is about all these critters are being mutated all the time and every now and then one of those mutations gives one particular critter a massive advantage over his competitors. That critter prospers and the rest die out. That is an evolutionary step. The Galapagos Islands are a miniature lab of evolution. They are closely tied in geography but each island has species of finches that have evolved to take advantage of whatever that particular island has to offer.

You miss his point.There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

Even if this were true, it's entirely irrelevant in light of natural demonstrations of speciation.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels on ball bearing.

No one has seriously tried to induce a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels on ball bearing.

I'm sure you were trying to make a retarded point, and what do you know? Success!

In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. “Important issues about selection,” he remarked with some understatement, “remain unresolved.” selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190

Oh. Berlinski again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh excellent, you've spouted a few misconceptions here, but I'll work through them one by one so I don't hurt your brain.

1. Non-sequitur.

2. Another non-sequitur.

3.

Now that we understand WHAT the Standard Model is we will work our way down.

a. The Standard Model explains the characteristics of the interaction particles. (The particles that control the interaction of the 3 forces of Physics, it is incomplete in that it does not describe gravity). This does indeed translate to the states of matter in that it describes these forces that control the transition.

I would like to see the transition of matter occur without the fundamental forces existing.

b. Non-sequitur, I can do nothing more than simply point out that you have a serious misconception of how math applies to reality. It is not within he scope of this argument to give you an understanding of why math works.

I will simply as you the question, how do you define mass in relation to energy?

c. Non-sequitur. It has no relation to the transition of matter from one state to another.

4. String theory has shit all to do with reality as it stands. It makes no accurate predictions. What does that mean? It means it can't be tested.

The point of a Theory of Everything is to unify. Right now it is just playing pretend. If you can prove otherwise by all means.

As to your final and very weak statement, the reason you as a layman can reject my argument is that you have no understanding of my argument.

Your lack of knowledge is not the same as knowledge. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you can start learning.

Now, I've been polite, and you've been a complete cock. If you have ANY point to your argument, you will stop using ad hominem and direct attacks.

1. So...you're agreeing with my post???

This is no fun!!


2. "It means it can't be tested."

Whoops, there it is!

Let me repeat that for the hard-of-thinking:
"It means it can't be tested."

My argument exactly.
The example I've given, the multiverse, "It means it can't be tested."
Such ideas are based on....
...wait for it....

Belief and faith!!!

3. "... stop using ad hominem and direct attacks."

Nope.

See...this is only fun when someone bites it big time!
That's where you come in.

4. You have made two major mistakes in this post: First, you digress from your main point. Second, you returned to it.

5. Now, this insult is on a somewhat higher level, tell me how you like it:
You never learned to question, to look at the underpinings of your less-than-intuitive understanding of eschatological world views.

(sigh)...I know you'd be insulted if you could only understand it.

Ironic that you only seem to want to understand the world through pure intuition. Reason be damned.

Even one as dense as you has to realize that reason is exactly what I have been purveying...
....so this post of yours must be another of your attempts at misdirection.

As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, sunlight is the best disinfectant. (Although, in your case, I would add that actual disinfectant might not be a bad idea either.)

 

[westwall]

(Can you test for God? Nope.)

Actually you can test for God very easily.
Biblical prophesy can be used to test, not only that he lives but that he sees the end from the beginning.
In fact, in the testing arena, God said, "If one of My prophets is wrong, take him out back and stone him to death." That was/is the test.
God passed/continues to pass........

God also said that Christians are immune to all poison.

Why don't you test THAT?

Could you show me where you came up with, "God says Christians are immune to all poisons"?

Westwall, do you have any opinions about what happens to you after death? What if this life on earth is merely a training camp for what lies ahead?

I assume that when we die our corporeal body turns back to the stardust from which it originated. I have no proof of a soul, so if there is a soul I hope God takes pitty on a poor non believer and sends me back for another go around!

 

[westwall]

You see parents genes never seem to have a problem reproducing offspring that are the same whether they are cat's,dog's,horses,or humans.

That is why genetics are no friend of the evolutionist.

Actually they are. Mutations occur all the time and evolution has been shown in many creatures in the here and now. Natural selection is not about creating the critter that will fill this niche.

Natural selection is about all these critters are being mutated all the time and every now and then one of those mutations gives one particular critter a massive advantage over his competitors. That critter prospers and the rest die out. That is an evolutionary step. The Galapagos Islands are a miniature lab of evolution. They are closely tied in geography but each island has species of finches that have evolved to take advantage of whatever that particular island has to offer.

You miss his point.There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels on ball bearing.

In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. “Important issues about selection,” he remarked with some understatement, “remain unresolved.” selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190

I got his point quite well. He and you don't understand the basics of evolutionary theory. Critters don't suddenly become some other critter for no apparent reason. 55 million years ago horses evolved from some other critter (forgive me but my paleontology is weak) and they were tiny little dudes the size of a cat. Through time they split into many different types of horse and grew in size because that gave them a competative edge.

Horses today are basically the same as horses from 55 million years ago genetically. However, the species has grown in complexity and size to where they are today. They will remain horses until they die out due to some horrendous catastrophe or some other critter comes along that out competes them and they go the way of the Moa.

 

[Gadawg73]

I'm going to be helpful.

Here's an online library containing the vast majority of research papers and experiments submitted for physics, cosmology, etc.


arxiv.org

I hate to be serious with you....it's like scolding a little kid...but these posts that you intend as evidence that you have some kind of expertise in the area under discussion...
...but, sadly, you simply come across as a less-than-insightful bore who has memorized some list and keeps thrusting that forward whether or not it has any bearing.


Ignore the headaches and try to concentrate.

Do you know how incredibly stupid your posts are?

 

[LOki]

1. So...you're agreeing with my post???

This is no fun!!


2. "It means it can't be tested."

Whoops, there it is!

Let me repeat that for the hard-of-thinking:
"It means it can't be tested."

My argument exactly.
The example I've given, the multiverse, "It means it can't be tested."
Such ideas are based on....
...wait for it....

Belief and faith!!!

3. "... stop using ad hominem and direct attacks."

Nope.

See...this is only fun when someone bites it big time!
That's where you come in.

4. You have made two major mistakes in this post: First, you digress from your main point. Second, you returned to it.

5. Now, this insult is on a somewhat higher level, tell me how you like it:
You never learned to question, to look at the underpinings of your less-than-intuitive understanding of eschatological world views.

(sigh)...I know you'd be insulted if you could only understand it.

Ironic that you only seem to want to understand the world through pure intuition. Reason be damned.

Even one as dense as you has to realize that reason is exactly what I have been purveying...

=

 

[Gadawg73]

Actually they are. Mutations occur all the time and evolution has been shown in many creatures in the here and now. Natural selection is not about creating the critter that will fill this niche.

Natural selection is about all these critters are being mutated all the time and every now and then one of those mutations gives one particular critter a massive advantage over his competitors. That critter prospers and the rest die out. That is an evolutionary step. The Galapagos Islands are a miniature lab of evolution. They are closely tied in geography but each island has species of finches that have evolved to take advantage of whatever that particular island has to offer.

You miss his point.There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels on ball bearing.

In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. “Important issues about selection,” he remarked with some understatement, “remain unresolved.” selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190

I got his point quite well. He and you don't understand the basics of evolutionary theory. Critters don't suddenly become some other critter for no apparent reason. 55 million years ago horses evolved from some other critter (forgive me but my paleontology is weak) and they were tiny little dudes the size of a cat. Through time they split into many different types of horse and grew in size because that gave them a competative edge.

Horses today are basically the same as horses from 55 million years ago genetically. However, the species has grown in complexity and size to where they are today. They will remain horses until they die out due to some horrendous catastrophe or some other critter comes along that out competes them and they go the way of the Moa.

Exactly, horses are in the ungulate order, odd toes variety. They actually share a common ancestor with rhinos.

 

[Gadawg73]

Ironic that you only seem to want to understand the world through pure intuition. Reason be damned.

Even one as dense as you has to realize that reason is exactly what I have been purveying...

=

Yes, we have many a right wing religous loon in these parts that believe the earth is 6000 years old and other whacky things such as there is no proof of evolution.
But do they really believe it?
On anything scientific that does not match their religous ideolgy they hide behind the old reliable :"I know it is true but I still do not believe it".

 

[westwall]

I'm going to be helpful.

Here's an online library containing the vast majority of research papers and experiments submitted for physics, cosmology, etc.


arxiv.org

I hate to be serious with you....it's like scolding a little kid...but these posts that you intend as evidence that you have some kind of expertise in the area under discussion...
...but, sadly, you simply come across as a less-than-insightful bore who has memorized some list and keeps thrusting that forward whether or not it has any bearing.


Ignore the headaches and try to concentrate.

Do you know how incredibly stupid your posts are?

On average I would say they were no stupider than yours.

 

[koshergrl]

Does anyone else appreciate the irony of Loki, gadawg and westwall calling anyone, let alone PC, "stupid"?????

I know it gives me chuckles.

 

[koshergrl]

And I have to think their first line of defense against women who overpower them intellectually is to call them "dumb".

With "fat" and "ugly" probably close behind.

 

[LOki]

Does anyone else appreciate the irony of Loki, gadawg and westwall calling anyone, let alone PC, "stupid"?????

I know it gives me chuckles.

 

[LOki]

And I have to think their first line of defense against women who overpower them intellectually is to call them "dumb".

With "fat" and "ugly" probably close behind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually they are. Mutations occur all the time and evolution has been shown in many creatures in the here and now. Natural selection is not about creating the critter that will fill this niche.

Natural selection is about all these critters are being mutated all the time and every now and then one of those mutations gives one particular critter a massive advantage over his competitors. That critter prospers and the rest die out. That is an evolutionary step. The Galapagos Islands are a miniature lab of evolution. They are closely tied in geography but each island has species of finches that have evolved to take advantage of whatever that particular island has to offer.

You miss his point.There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels on ball bearing.

In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. “Important issues about selection,” he remarked with some understatement, “remain unresolved.” selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190

I got his point quite well. He and you don't understand the basics of evolutionary theory. Critters don't suddenly become some other critter for no apparent reason. 55 million years ago horses evolved from some other critter (forgive me but my paleontology is weak) and they were tiny little dudes the size of a cat. Through time they split into many different types of horse and grew in size because that gave them a competative edge.

Horses today are basically the same as horses from 55 million years ago genetically. However, the species has grown in complexity and size to where they are today. They will remain horses until they die out due to some horrendous catastrophe or some other critter comes along that out competes them and they go the way of the Moa.

"He and you don't understand ...(forgive me but my paleontology is weak)"

So, horses have remained horses?
No new species, huh?
So....where is the 'evolution'?

You're not another zombie who has fallen under the sway of concepts that he doesn't quite understand are you?

But...I'm perfectly happy to have you believe whatsoever you choose to...just realize that you are accepting based on faith.

But, to help you in your search for knowledge......

. ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

"There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life Nature Library (New York: Time Incorporated, 1962), pp. 14-15

"Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

 

[koshergrl]

You're such a dummy, PC!

 

[LOki]

You miss his point.There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels on ball bearing.

In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. “Important issues about selection,” he remarked with some understatement, “remain unresolved.” selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190

I got his point quite well. He and you don't understand the basics of evolutionary theory. Critters don't suddenly become some other critter for no apparent reason. 55 million years ago horses evolved from some other critter (forgive me but my paleontology is weak) and they were tiny little dudes the size of a cat. Through time they split into many different types of horse and grew in size because that gave them a competative edge.

Horses today are basically the same as horses from 55 million years ago genetically. However, the species has grown in complexity and size to where they are today. They will remain horses until they die out due to some horrendous catastrophe or some other critter comes along that out competes them and they go the way of the Moa.

"He and you don't understand ...(forgive me but my paleontology is weak)"

So, horses have remained horses?
No new species, huh?
So....where is the 'evolution'?

You're not another zombie who has fallen under the sway of concepts that he doesn't quite understand are you?

But...I'm perfectly happy to have you believe whatsoever you choose to...just realize that you are accepting based on faith.

But, to help you in your search for knowledge......

. ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

"There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life Nature Library (New York: Time Incorporated, 1962), pp. 14-15

"Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8]Ring species -- the abridged version - YouTube[/ame]

 

[westwall]

Does anyone else appreciate the irony of Loki, gadawg and westwall calling anyone, let alone PC, "stupid"?????

I know it gives me chuckles.

Where preytell did i call anyone stupid? I merely replied that Gawdawg has made some stupid posts, about the same number as PC. That doesn't make him stupid, or you stupid, or me for that matter. We all make stupid posts from time to time.

 

[westwall]

And I have to think their first line of defense against women who overpower them intellectually is to call them "dumb".

With "fat" and "ugly" probably close behind.

Oh no, not at all. My wife is probably smarter than me on the whole though for practical things I tend to pick up on them a little quicker. My daughter though, she's a real corker...maybe even a genius, the testing is still going on for that particular appelation but the signs are there.

 

[Woyzeck]

1. Richard Dawkins, in “The God Delusion,” makes no secret of his distain for those of faith, and contempt for theology. As in the case of many of our atheist scientists, they have hoped to discover laws of some final physical theory so powerful that they will explain the property of matter in all of its modes. “the most extreme hope for science,” Steven Weinberg has written, “is that we will be able to trace the explanation of all natural phenomena to final laws and historical accidents.”

He hasn't made a secret of it for years, really. The God Delusion was just the big blockbuster book that made headlines. Given the vocal minority of retards that he has to deal with as an evolutionary biologist, you can't blame him.

A grand unifying theory has been the holy grail of physics for years now, for all physicists, not just the alleged atheist ones who are trying to lock out deities. I'm sure you could find a physicist hoping to find the physical theory to prove god.



Good for them?



Math has always been a powerful tool for human kind. This is nothing new. Other than that, see above. Good for those guys you listed above. If they find some mathematical proof, they're gonna need empirical observations and evidence to back it up. If they can do it, more power to them.



Can you test for God? Nope. Where's it written in the cosmos that he exists? In a series of poorly written texts written by people who didn't have the breadth of knowledge of the universe that we do now.

That's why people like Dawkins, and Sagan, and Tyson, and Hitchens are around. That's why they take beef with the issue of a deity. There is no empirical evidence to suggest it.

4. Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”

As Uncensored has indicated, scientist are often considered as infallible...and behave as the new 'priest-class,' yet are not subject to the same contumely.

Oh see, this is where you totally miss the point. Science and scientists? Fuck, anyone with two brain cells knows the entire point of science is fallibility. Which rose in response to the claimed infallibility of... anyone? Churches and religious organizations. Who claimed to know how shit worked. And then everyone else found out that they were wrong.

Science has to be fallible. It has been for centuries. You can see in any history class when you learn about the scientific revolution. Look how many previous theories there were that were overturned. Science is built on these failures, because you can always learn from failure. Theories generally only make sense of current and existing evidence. If enough evidence comes up to prove the theory wrong, that theory goes right out the window.

Scientists can be fallible and shitty too. Andrew Wakefield anyone? What about the Bone War of the late 1800s? It's why this thread is silly. Science knows it's infallible, and no one is surprised by bad scientists.

1. I knew you'd be back, because is galls you how deftly Berlinski proves that science uses belief and faith just as theologians do.

As do you.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

2. "That's why they take beef with the issue of a deity. There is no empirical evidence to suggest it."

And the empirical evidence for a 'multiverse'?

Get the point?

None. No evidence. There's really no reason to take Dawkins seriously on that subject, that's his own speculating opinion. He's not a physicist by trade, he's a biologist. Plus, you even quoted him as saying it's a hypothesis.

Get it through your head, scientists are not fucking religious prophets, any freethinking fan of science will not take everything they say as set in stone.

3. I notice that your language has declined, as it does when one is losing the argument. Your post is more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel…

Stop making these retarded excuses and debate me. If I'm so wrong, come along and tell me why. It shouldn't be too difficult for you, unless you ironically lack faith in your own premise.