Science, or Scientists?

[Spoonman]

God created Adam and Eve to follow directions and to not have knowledge.

ok, so now that we have determined you are a direct descendent of adam, whats next?

 

[edthecynic]

One thing I have to say about science. if you look at their theory for the creation of the earth and the universe and the order which things developed, they pretty much took genesis and added a few scientific terms to beef it up. but the basic premise is pretty much the same. if we had only listened to God in the first place.

What a great point!

This, from "The Genesis Enigma," chapter nine...Dr. Andrew Parker:

1. The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.

2. The images in that writer’s mind of how our planet and life came to be must have seemed curious for the knowledge and experience of the time! Yet….he presented it as though it had been dictated to him, as though he had been spoken to by God.



3. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic.

Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today.

Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.

a. Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!

There ARE life forms that are NOT photosynthetic and are blind!!!
Try again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

For one not every square inch of the planet has been excavated for fossils and two fossils aren't so easy to find. To think with all the destructive forces of nature that every living thing that ever existed would be in the fossil record is a little overblown is it not?.

Evolution like the big bang are merely workable theories; another attempt to make sense of the natural world just like religion and creationism.

But in reality we may never understand the origins of the universe and life. We may be physically incapable of understanding the complexities of the required physics and the dizzying infinite number of processes involved just as my dog is incapable of understanding trigonometry.

"We may be physically incapable of understanding..."


1. The interpretations and explanations provided by science come, mainly by way of our observations, and a few instruments. Human observations. But birds and bees communicate within the ultraviolet portion of sunlight… a part of the spectrum that humans don’t see.
Ultraviolet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. And eyesight is our most important sense. It provides the majority of our sensory information about the world. Consider how much less we’d know if we had no eyes. Even so…we’d probably feel that we knew everything about our surroundings. But we don’t know about the world in ultraviolet. Or in infrared. We live between 400 and 700 nanometers. What Wavelength Goes With a Color?

b. And the inner ear contains hair cells that are moved by sound waves between 20 and 20,000 Hertz.
Sensitivity of Human Ear
That’s the extent of our contact with the real world.
Beyond said ranges…we don’t know about it!




2. Further, our sensory system actually distorts the information that we do collect. For example, there is no such thing as color in the real world: color is made in the mind based on the wavelength information that the eyes send to the brain.

a. And, when we look at a rock, or any solid material, what we are actually seeing is swarms of subatomic particles with lots of empty space between; over 99% of the rock is empty space. Yet, that’s not what our limited senses and processing center tell us is true and real.


3. So, do we gather and understand half of what there is to know about the universe? A tenth? A millionth? Is it possible that there is a force, God, in the universe, and we are unable to process the information due to our limited senses and limited ability to interpret sensory data?


From "The Genesis Enigma," Dr. Andrew Parker

 

[PoliticalChic]

One thing I have to say about science. if you look at their theory for the creation of the earth and the universe and the order which things developed, they pretty much took genesis and added a few scientific terms to beef it up. but the basic premise is pretty much the same. if we had only listened to God in the first place.

What a great point!

This, from "The Genesis Enigma," chapter nine...Dr. Andrew Parker:

1. The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.

2. The images in that writer’s mind of how our planet and life came to be must have seemed curious for the knowledge and experience of the time! Yet….he presented it as though it had been dictated to him, as though he had been spoken to by God.



3. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic.

Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today.

Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.

a. Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!

There ARE life forms that are NOT photosynthetic and are blind!!!
Try again.

You misunderstand.....

....but I hardly believe that trying again will be any aid to you.

 

[Hollie]

... gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing
I was wondering when I'd make you so nervous you lapsed back into repeating those meaningless phrases you used to...you know....mumble and mutter....and...I didn't have to wait that long!

I get such a kick out of how easy it is to get you to lie and repeat those jingles.



I used to think you were insane, tied to constant repetition of meaningless phrases...but I realize now, they're incantations!

"mutter and stutter"
"quote mine"
"creationist"
" Harun Yahya, " (whatever the heck that means)
"cut and paste"


You even took your name from your fav holiday!!!
Halloween!

I should have guessed earlier!


Y'know....I forgot to congratulate you....you were terrif in act 4, scene 1 of Macbeth!
A bit type-cast...but still....






"1. You seem to be confusing philosophy with science.
1a. They are different. That they're spelled differently might have clued you in."


Really?

As you brought this up, perhaps you could explain that to me.

1. How easy was that?

1a. A simple challenge to your mindless prattle causes you to ruthlessly spam your own pointless thread.

So....you can't elucidate the distinctions between philosophy and science?

Gee....how unusual for you to be stumped by your own post

Don't ever change.

1. Don't ever change. What a great admonition.


2. Words to live by. Is that why you're cutting and pasting the same phony " quotes" you cut and pasted in the other thread.... even when it was demonstrated that you're "quotes" were largely cut and pasted from Harun Yahya.... the same edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" that were shown to be frauds.... those quotes?


3. Now it's clear why you bailed out of that other thread you opened and drenched with phony "quotes'. You just need an audience for your cutting and pasting.


4. Don't ever change.

 

[edthecynic]

What a great point!

This, from "The Genesis Enigma," chapter nine...Dr. Andrew Parker:

1. The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.

2. The images in that writer’s mind of how our planet and life came to be must have seemed curious for the knowledge and experience of the time! Yet….he presented it as though it had been dictated to him, as though he had been spoken to by God.



3. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic.

Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today.

Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.

a. Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!

There ARE life forms that are NOT photosynthetic and are blind!!!
Try again.

You misunderstand.....

....but I hardly believe that trying again will be any aid to you.

Why am I not surprised you will not admit your ignorance?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QqmUBbfn6Y]Hydrothermal Vents - YouTube[/ame]

All Life Descended From Sulfur-Eating Bacteria, Biologist Says - Los Angeles Times

All life on Earth descended from sulfur-eating bacteria that lived 3.5 billion years ago in near-boiling water and emitted a stench like rotten eggs, according to a new analysis by a controversial UCLA molecular biologist.
The bacteria, which were very similar to those that now proliferate around hot-water vents on the ocean floor, were not the first form of life to appear on Earth, James A. Lake reported in a paper in this week's Nature magazine. But "it's as far back as we can trace our common ancestry," he said. "There's a little bit of (that bacteria) in everything alive today."


snip/


Lake reached his conclusions by studying evolutionary changes in cellular structures called ribosomes, which manufacture proteins under instructions from the cell's genetic blueprint.
Although the primary genetic blueprint of the cell is composed of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the blueprint for the ribosome is composed of ribonucleic acid (RNA) that is separate from the rest of the cell's genetic material. Because the ribosome has the same function in all living organisms, scientists believe that it has changed less over time than has the DNA.
That change occurs when individual components of RNA or DNA, called nucleotides, are mutated (altered) by sunlight, chemicals or mistakes in copying. If two species of bacteria split apart from a single ancestor a million years ago, for example, the composition of their RNA would be expected to be quite similar.
But if the two bacteria split apart hundreds of millions of years ago, each would have had much more time to mutate independently, and the compositions of their RNAs would be much different.
Geneticists and anthropologists have concluded that such differences in composition provide a valuable way to tell how long ago two different animals--or two different species--had a common ancestor.
A year ago, for example, geneticist Allan Wilson of the University of California at Berkeley reported that he had used the same technique on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) from a structure in women's cells to suggest that all humans were descended from a common ancestor who lived in northern Africa about 200,000 years ago. He has also shown that human and chimpanzee lineages split apart from that of baboons 30 million years ago, while humans and chimps split apart only 5 million years ago.

 

[flacaltenn]

Science often relies on crutches to hobble on until someone tires of hobbling..
And Darwinisn is neither right or wrong.. It's simply an insufficient crutch.

It is void of 150 years of revelations about mutations, gene activation, and environmental pressures as an environmental accelerator. The fact that mankind developed in a "peaceful and calm" time portal in the historical record explains why we tend to believe that "gradual adaptation" is the PRIME explanation for every form of life on the planet.

A few continental drifts, meteor impacts as big as Manhattan and a couple hundred years of Cosmic Ray superstorms would set our asses straight about "Darwinian survival and adaptation"..

Nature has ways of genetic engineering that Darwin couldn't even imagine..
Nobody should be wasting their time expecting to find "missing links"..

 

[PoliticalChic]

... gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing
I was wondering when I'd make you so nervous you lapsed back into repeating those meaningless phrases you used to...you know....mumble and mutter....and...I didn't have to wait that long!

I get such a kick out of how easy it is to get you to lie and repeat those jingles.



I used to think you were insane, tied to constant repetition of meaningless phrases...but I realize now, they're incantations!

"mutter and stutter"
"quote mine"
"creationist"
" Harun Yahya, " (whatever the heck that means)
"cut and paste"


You even took your name from your fav holiday!!!
Halloween!

I should have guessed earlier!


Y'know....I forgot to congratulate you....you were terrif in act 4, scene 1 of Macbeth!
A bit type-cast...but still....






"1. You seem to be confusing philosophy with science.
1a. They are different. That they're spelled differently might have clued you in."


Really?

As you brought this up, perhaps you could explain that to me.

1. How easy was that?

1a. A simple challenge to your mindless prattle causes you to ruthlessly spam your own pointless thread.

So....you can't elucidate the distinctions between philosophy and science?

Gee....how unusual for you to be stumped by your own post

Don't ever change.

1. Don't ever change. What a great admonition.


2. Words to live by. Is that why you're cutting and pasting the same phony " quotes" you cut and pasted in the other thread.... even when it was demonstrated that you're "quotes" were largely cut and pasted from Harun Yahya.... the same edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" that were shown to be frauds.... those quotes?


3. Now it's clear why you bailed out of that other thread you opened and drenched with phony "quotes'. You just need an audience for your cutting and pasting.


4. Don't ever change.

"Now it's clear why you bailed out of that other thread you opened and drenched with phony "quotes'."


Oh, my....another fib from you, Halloween?


After I provide....what....four...five...OP's explaining the lack of science behind Darwin's theory....

...now you sob that my instruction isn't 24-7????

Why, you selfish little thing!

I have other left-backs to educate, as well.


Be good, and there'll be more enlightenment in the future.

 

[Hollie]

... gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing
I was wondering when I'd make you so nervous you lapsed back into repeating those meaningless phrases you used to...you know....mumble and mutter....and...I didn't have to wait that long!

I get such a kick out of how easy it is to get you to lie and repeat those jingles.



I used to think you were insane, tied to constant repetition of meaningless phrases...but I realize now, they're incantations!

"mutter and stutter"
"quote mine"
"creationist"
" Harun Yahya, " (whatever the heck that means)
"cut and paste"


You even took your name from your fav holiday!!!
Halloween!

I should have guessed earlier!


Y'know....I forgot to congratulate you....you were terrif in act 4, scene 1 of Macbeth!
A bit type-cast...but still....






"1. You seem to be confusing philosophy with science.
1a. They are different. That they're spelled differently might have clued you in."


Really?

As you brought this up, perhaps you could explain that to me.

1. How easy was that?

1a. A simple challenge to your mindless prattle causes you to ruthlessly spam your own pointless thread.

So....you can't elucidate the distinctions between philosophy and science?

Gee....how unusual for you to be stumped by your own post

Don't ever change.

1. Don't ever change. What a great admonition.


2. Words to live by. Is that why you're cutting and pasting the same phony " quotes" you cut and pasted in the other thread.... even when it was demonstrated that you're "quotes" were largely cut and pasted from Harun Yahya.... the same edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" that were shown to be frauds.... those quotes?


3. Now it's clear why you bailed out of that other thread you opened and drenched with phony "quotes'. You just need an audience for your cutting and pasting.


4. Don't ever change.

"Now it's clear why you bailed out of that other thread you opened and drenched with phony "quotes'."


Oh, my....another fib from you, Halloween?


After I provide....what....four...five...OP's explaining the lack of science behind Darwin's theory....

...now you sob that my instruction isn't 24-7????

Why, you selfish little thing!

I have other left-backs to educate, as well.


Be good, and there'll be more enlightenment in the future.

Gee whiz. Why am I not surprised at your lies and falsehoods?



And here I was trying to be helpful.




I thought that pointing out your cutting and pasting of the same edited, out of context "quotes" you dumped into a different thread would have provided you an opportunity to see how such an intentional alteration is what we can describe as lying



I would have thought that your prayer leader at the Harun Yahya madrassah would have told you what lying Is and why it's a bad thing to do. But then again, wouldn't it be a bit.... naive, to expect your prayer leader at the Harun Yahya madrassah to have the first clue at understanding what lying is?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. How easy was that?

1a. A simple challenge to your mindless prattle causes you to ruthlessly spam your own pointless thread.






1. Don't ever change. What a great admonition.


2. Words to live by. Is that why you're cutting and pasting the same phony " quotes" you cut and pasted in the other thread.... even when it was demonstrated that you're "quotes" were largely cut and pasted from Harun Yahya.... the same edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" that were shown to be frauds.... those quotes?


3. Now it's clear why you bailed out of that other thread you opened and drenched with phony "quotes'. You just need an audience for your cutting and pasting.


4. Don't ever change.

"Now it's clear why you bailed out of that other thread you opened and drenched with phony "quotes'."


Oh, my....another fib from you, Halloween?


After I provide....what....four...five...OP's explaining the lack of science behind Darwin's theory....

...now you sob that my instruction isn't 24-7????

Why, you selfish little thing!

I have other left-backs to educate, as well.


Be good, and there'll be more enlightenment in the future.

Gee whiz. Why am I not surprised at your lies and falsehoods?



And here I was trying to be helpful.




I thought that pointing out your cutting and pasting of the same edited, out of context "quotes" you dumped into a different thread would have provided you an opportunity to see how such an intentional alteration is what we can describe as lying



I would have thought that your prayer leader at the Harun Yahya madrassah would have told you what lying Is and why it's a bad thing to do. But then again, wouldn't it be a bit.... naive, to expect your prayer leader at the Harun Yahya madrassah to have the first clue at understanding what lying is?

"... Harun Yahya madrassah...
I really don't know what that is....I assume it is either one of your secret spells, or the kind of word salad one often gets from folks with your mental condition.


Want another try at being honest?

Well...OK:

Up to now you've avoided responding to the OP....

...I just thought it was because you're really stupid, and didn't understand the import....

So....let's see:

True or not, there are two distinct forms of science:
a. one that bases it's truths on physical evidence
b. and one that bases it's truths on conclusions arrived at by consensus

This is not to say that scientists aren't free to use one or the other at different times and
for different subjects.


I'll predict that you'll fail to give an honest answer, as it makes Swiss cheese out of 90% of your previous posts.
Let's see.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. How easy was that?

1a. A simple challenge to your mindless prattle causes you to ruthlessly spam your own pointless thread.






1. Don't ever change. What a great admonition.


2. Words to live by. Is that why you're cutting and pasting the same phony " quotes" you cut and pasted in the other thread.... even when it was demonstrated that you're "quotes" were largely cut and pasted from Harun Yahya.... the same edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" that were shown to be frauds.... those quotes?


3. Now it's clear why you bailed out of that other thread you opened and drenched with phony "quotes'. You just need an audience for your cutting and pasting.


4. Don't ever change.

"Now it's clear why you bailed out of that other thread you opened and drenched with phony "quotes'."


Oh, my....another fib from you, Halloween?


After I provide....what....four...five...OP's explaining the lack of science behind Darwin's theory....

...now you sob that my instruction isn't 24-7????

Why, you selfish little thing!

I have other left-backs to educate, as well.


Be good, and there'll be more enlightenment in the future.

Gee whiz. Why am I not surprised at your lies and falsehoods?



And here I was trying to be helpful.




I thought that pointing out your cutting and pasting of the same edited, out of context "quotes" you dumped into a different thread would have provided you an opportunity to see how such an intentional alteration is what we can describe as lying



I would have thought that your prayer leader at the Harun Yahya madrassah would have told you what lying Is and why it's a bad thing to do. But then again, wouldn't it be a bit.... naive, to expect your prayer leader at the Harun Yahya madrassah to have the first clue at understanding what lying is?

Wow.....Post #30 sure silenced you, huh?

 

[edthecynic]

"Now it's clear why you bailed out of that other thread you opened and drenched with phony "quotes'."


Oh, my....another fib from you, Halloween?


After I provide....what....four...five...OP's explaining the lack of science behind Darwin's theory....

...now you sob that my instruction isn't 24-7????

Why, you selfish little thing!

I have other left-backs to educate, as well.


Be good, and there'll be more enlightenment in the future.

Gee whiz. Why am I not surprised at your lies and falsehoods?



And here I was trying to be helpful.




I thought that pointing out your cutting and pasting of the same edited, out of context "quotes" you dumped into a different thread would have provided you an opportunity to see how such an intentional alteration is what we can describe as lying



I would have thought that your prayer leader at the Harun Yahya madrassah would have told you what lying Is and why it's a bad thing to do. But then again, wouldn't it be a bit.... naive, to expect your prayer leader at the Harun Yahya madrassah to have the first clue at understanding what lying is?

Wow.....Post #30 sure silenced you, huh?

Just like post #26 took the wind out of your sails.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gee whiz. Why am I not surprised at your lies and falsehoods?



And here I was trying to be helpful.




I thought that pointing out your cutting and pasting of the same edited, out of context "quotes" you dumped into a different thread would have provided you an opportunity to see how such an intentional alteration is what we can describe as lying



I would have thought that your prayer leader at the Harun Yahya madrassah would have told you what lying Is and why it's a bad thing to do. But then again, wouldn't it be a bit.... naive, to expect your prayer leader at the Harun Yahya madrassah to have the first clue at understanding what lying is?

Wow.....Post #30 sure silenced you, huh?

Just like post #26 took the wind out of your sails.

Of course it didn't, you dolt.

I merely refused to let you change the subject.


Now....as you are on the same mental level as Halloween....perhaps you'd like a shot at post #30.


Or...did I overestimate you.

 

[edthecynic]

Wow.....Post #30 sure silenced you, huh?

Just like post #26 took the wind out of your sails.

Of course it didn't, you dolt.

I merely refused to let you change the subject.


Now....as you are on the same mental level as Halloween....perhaps you'd like a shot at post #30.


Or...did I overestimate you.

IOW, I annihilated the "biblical" timeline in your post so thoroughly even you can't salvage it, so all you can do is bullshit. The fact remains that blind organisms using chemosynthesis rather than photosynthesis throw a monkey wrench into your biblical timeline.

This is the second thread I've shot down your biblical timeline.
Try again in a new thread.

 

[edthecynic]

did I overestimate you.

You only overestimate yourself.

 

[Hollie]

"Now it's clear why you bailed out of that other thread you opened and drenched with phony "quotes'."


Oh, my....another fib from you, Halloween?


After I provide....what....four...five...OP's explaining the lack of science behind Darwin's theory....

...now you sob that my instruction isn't 24-7????

Why, you selfish little thing!

I have other left-backs to educate, as well.


Be good, and there'll be more enlightenment in the future.

Gee whiz. Why am I not surprised at your lies and falsehoods?



And here I was trying to be helpful.




I thought that pointing out your cutting and pasting of the same edited, out of context "quotes" you dumped into a different thread would have provided you an opportunity to see how such an intentional alteration is what we can describe as lying



I would have thought that your prayer leader at the Harun Yahya madrassah would have told you what lying Is and why it's a bad thing to do. But then again, wouldn't it be a bit.... naive, to expect your prayer leader at the Harun Yahya madrassah to have the first clue at understanding what lying is?

"... Harun Yahya madrassah...
I really don't know what that is....I assume it is either one of your secret spells, or the kind of word salad one often gets from folks with your mental condition.


Want another try at being honest?

Well...OK:

Up to now you've avoided responding to the OP....

...I just thought it was because you're really stupid, and didn't understand the import....

So....let's see:

True or not, there are two distinct forms of science:
a. one that bases it's truths on physical evidence
b. and one that bases it's truths on conclusions arrived at by consensus

This is not to say that scientists aren't free to use one or the other at different times and
for different subjects.


I'll predict that you'll fail to give an honest answer, as it makes Swiss cheese out of 90% of your previous posts.
Let's see.

I saw in this pos the same naive assumptions and disregarded for facts that typifies your posts.


The issue, which you are unwilling to come to terms with, is not entirely a matter of your inability to recognize your lies as precisely that, but the utter lack of reasonable or rational standard you accept in promoting those lies.


None of your edited, parsed and falsified "quotes" are either reasonable or even intuitive. You simply accept what you are fed by the charlatans at Harun Yahya and you spend not a moment being concerned by the blatant lies, falsehoods and propaganda they disseminate. It's a complete lack of any ethical standard, yet you blithely proceed on, unaware and unconcerned that you are an accomplice to lies, falsehoods and propaganda.


There is a genuine concern regarding your dishonestly parsing entire paragraphs of what was written. This is an all too common approach taken by extremists who are unable to argue from a science perspective and are thus left to tactics that simply discard integrity and honesty as their only avenue to promote their lurid conspiracies in an attempt to lie and deceive.

 

[rdean]

Well, after several threads in which the so-called 'experts' and self-anointed science wonks have lied, clouded the issue, and attacked, let's get to the truth.

I've proven that the actual physical evidence necessary to verify Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't exist. I proved it by simply demanding that they produce it.
There is no fossil evidence of serial changes from the simple early life to the advanced trilobites and brachiopods so prevalent in the Cambrian period.

I've challenged the other side dozens of times to present it....and nothing but lies, hot air, and vituperation.





1. Look, biases aside, scientists are simply people. I know, we love to invest folks with quasi-divine characteristics...doing only good, wanting only what is best for others, or for all mankind.....not the case.
Scientists are just people with careers to advance, with mouths to feed and mortgages to pay.

There is the implication that scientists only report, conclude, what the data tells them.
The Global Warming scam should disabuse any of that notion.





2. Yet, as one put it...Darwin's theory is "robust." That's true.
Want the explanation?
OK.
Here's what science was:
"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.."
Empiricism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You've been taught that, haven't you?

Philosopher Michael Devitt explains that “there is only one way of knowing, the empirical way that is the basis of science.”
Discuss. (An interesting quote from Michael Devitt)

a. This echoes David Hume, “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:”
“If we take in our hand any volume; ... let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”







3. But Richard Feynman, of quantum mechanics fame, attacked philosophy often, calling it “low-level baloney,” and saying philosophers “are always on the outside making stupid remarks.” Richard Feynman: Accidental Philosopher | Issue 59 | Philosophy Now




4. Here comes the hermeneutical key that will unlock the puzzle.
While religion provided the conclusions in science early on, by the late 19th century, methodological naturalism took over:
Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, excluding appeal to the divine for explanations. Many concur, i.e., science has been a success because it eschews pointing to some sort of creative intelligence.

a. So....science is either empirical, requiring evidence....or, it can rely on logic and a philosophical basis for truth.



5. Those scientists who either refused to accept Darwin's theory due to the absence of physical evidence, or who relied on a theological explanation for the sudden appearance of species, i.e., with no fossil trail transitional evidence leading up to the species, were the era's version of 'Global Warming deniers.'






6. But...what explanation did the 'consensus' guys give? After all, they were denying the empiricism basis of science! Well, the honest ones- not the variety that I've been able to entice into making fools of themselves in previous threads-

a. Openly admit that the physical evidence doesn't exist....no fossil proof, and no observations of one species changing into another...

b. But, no matter what, no supernatural basis will be admitted! OK.

c. Instead, their faith rests on the belief that evidence will be found....or, that the theory just plain makes sense!!
And....and this may be the most important aspect....Darwin's theory is elegant. The logic, even without physical evidence, is unassailable.







Generally, when the less astute attempt to field questions about the absence of fossil evidence, it is answered with anger.

See what I mean about 'scientists' being just like other folks?



Well, then....there are two versions of science.
Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.
Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


Darwin's theory support is populated with the former, the rationalists.
And lots of 'em are simply outraged if you don't agree with them.

I'm trying to figure out what damaged you? Have you ever wondered?

examples of transitional species

 

[Hollie]

Wow.....Post #30 sure silenced you, huh?

Just like post #26 took the wind out of your sails.

Of course it didn't, you dolt.

I merely refused to let you change the subject.


Now....as you are on the same mental level as Halloween....perhaps you'd like a shot at post #30.


Or...did I overestimate you.

I couldn't help but notice that you're so completely befuddled that you're left with nothing but lashing out like a petulant child who has been scolded and sent for a time-out.


Your juvenile name-calling makes you all of what, 12 years old?


You continue to dodge and sidestep any accountability for cutting and pasting the exact same phony "quotes" you dumped in this thread that were exposed as frauds in another thread you started.

 

[Hollie]

Well, after several threads in which the so-called 'experts' and self-anointed science wonks have lied, clouded the issue, and attacked, let's get to the truth.

I've proven that the actual physical evidence necessary to verify Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't exist. I proved it by simply demanding that they produce it.
There is no fossil evidence of serial changes from the simple early life to the advanced trilobites and brachiopods so prevalent in the Cambrian period.

I've challenged the other side dozens of times to present it....and nothing but lies, hot air, and vituperation.





1. Look, biases aside, scientists are simply people. I know, we love to invest folks with quasi-divine characteristics...doing only good, wanting only what is best for others, or for all mankind.....not the case.
Scientists are just people with careers to advance, with mouths to feed and mortgages to pay.

There is the implication that scientists only report, conclude, what the data tells them.
The Global Warming scam should disabuse any of that notion.





2. Yet, as one put it...Darwin's theory is "robust." That's true.
Want the explanation?
OK.
Here's what science was:
"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.."
Empiricism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You've been taught that, haven't you?

Philosopher Michael Devitt explains that “there is only one way of knowing, the empirical way that is the basis of science.”
Discuss. (An interesting quote from Michael Devitt)

a. This echoes David Hume, “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:”
“If we take in our hand any volume; ... let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”







3. But Richard Feynman, of quantum mechanics fame, attacked philosophy often, calling it “low-level baloney,” and saying philosophers “are always on the outside making stupid remarks.” Richard Feynman: Accidental Philosopher | Issue 59 | Philosophy Now




4. Here comes the hermeneutical key that will unlock the puzzle.
While religion provided the conclusions in science early on, by the late 19th century, methodological naturalism took over:
Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, excluding appeal to the divine for explanations. Many concur, i.e., science has been a success because it eschews pointing to some sort of creative intelligence.

a. So....science is either empirical, requiring evidence....or, it can rely on logic and a philosophical basis for truth.



5. Those scientists who either refused to accept Darwin's theory due to the absence of physical evidence, or who relied on a theological explanation for the sudden appearance of species, i.e., with no fossil trail transitional evidence leading up to the species, were the era's version of 'Global Warming deniers.'






6. But...what explanation did the 'consensus' guys give? After all, they were denying the empiricism basis of science! Well, the honest ones- not the variety that I've been able to entice into making fools of themselves in previous threads-

a. Openly admit that the physical evidence doesn't exist....no fossil proof, and no observations of one species changing into another...

b. But, no matter what, no supernatural basis will be admitted! OK.

c. Instead, their faith rests on the belief that evidence will be found....or, that the theory just plain makes sense!!
And....and this may be the most important aspect....Darwin's theory is elegant. The logic, even without physical evidence, is unassailable.







Generally, when the less astute attempt to field questions about the absence of fossil evidence, it is answered with anger.

See what I mean about 'scientists' being just like other folks?



Well, then....there are two versions of science.
Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.
Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


Darwin's theory support is populated with the former, the rationalists.
And lots of 'em are simply outraged if you don't agree with them.

To be in abject denial of the fosill record suggests you're suffering from a pathology.


Your suggestion that the fosill record compiled by the relevant science community simply doesn't exist and therefore must be part of some vast, global conspiracy is concerning.


While your conspiracy theories are in concert with, and a promotion of what you scour from Harun Yahya, there are means and methods to extricate people from cult organizations.


Here is another source for data regarding transitional fosills


CC200: Transitional fossils

 

[editec]

I've proven that the actual physical evidence necessary to verify Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't exist.

Oh yes and we're all thoroughly impressed, too.

Just imagine our very own PC has managed to cow the entire scientific community simply with the power of her sheer intellect.

​