|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
yeezevee
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 17109
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Ultimate_Integral wrote:
| Quote: |
| I know theories explains facts, but they themselves become a bigger fact if proven 110%. |
Always_Faithful
| Quote: |
| Proof is another greatly misused word. It applies only to deductive reasoning; science being inductive. |
|
Forgive Ultimate_Integral for his superficial statements dear Always_Faithful., I wish Ultimate_Integral stopped at some where 99.999.... instead of 110% Fact., I am afraid at this rate he will find out there is 120%...150% ...1000%.... etc.. etc FACTS that over ride his 110%..
so one should not worry too much about Ultimate_Integral statements. I am sure he will come along in time..
with best regards
yeezevee |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ultimate_Integral
Joined: 09 May 2006
Posts: 322
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| THHuxley_redux wrote: |
1. There is no such thing as "proof" in science, not to mention the impossibility of proving anything "110%." There is only greater or lesser confidence based entirely on evidence and reason... but never 100% confidence.
2. Even facts are not something we can have 100% confidence in. History is littered with "facts" that turned out to be false. In science "fact" means "confirmed to such an extent that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
3. Theories explain facts. They never become facts. Theories can be very weak (such as a "feeling/hunch") or very strong (such as an idea massively confirmed by experimental and observational evidence). The most powerfully confirmed theory remains a theory because its role never changes; to explain facts.
4. Each prospective "touch of the fire" is an observation, and each instance of getting burned is a fact. Each observation provides more evidence that the theory is correct. As more evidence is collected, it stops being merely "a good hunch" very early on. If we continue to get burned 100% of the time, and if we test it again and again the theory becomes strong enough to be provisionally considered true. But the theory remains a theory and never becomes a fact.
|
I was assuming you were capable of picking up the exaggeration. Of course in real life it is very difficult to get 100% accurate data without being prone to error. But good experimentalist scientist work so hard that they can come up to stuff like near a billionth of degree from absolute zero, like the guys did more than a decade ago. Billionth! What do you mean there is no "proof" in science? What do you think those guys do when they manipulate equations after equations just to prove their ideas? Playing Maze? Here is the fourth definition of "prove"
| Quote: |
| to subject to a test, experiment, comparison, analysis, or the like, to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics. |
and here is its noun form "proof"
| Quote: |
| evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. |
| Quote: |
| the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: |
You do not have to have 100% accurate data to prove something in science. That would be nonsensical. Yeah, I just have a good feeling that light is composed of photons. I mean Einstein said so so I guess it could be right  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ultimate_Integral wrote: |
| I was assuming you were capable of picking up the exaggeration. |
If you were correct, no exaggeration would be necessary.
But you are not correct, so perhaps it just makes you feel better. But there is absolutely no such thing as proof in science.
There is only very great confidence.
And theories never become facts.
They always remain theories.
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Always_Faithful
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 2024
Location: Location: Location
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ultimate_Integral wrote: |
| I was assuming you were capable of picking up the exaggeration. Of course in real life it is very difficult to get 100% accurate data without being prone to error. But good experimentalist scientist work so hard that they can come up to stuff like near a billionth of degree from absolute zero, like the guys did more than a decade ago. Billionth! What do you mean there is no "proof" in science? What do you think those guys do when they manipulate equations after equations just to prove their ideas? Playing Maze? |
100% confidence degree in science is not simply difficult, it is impossible. Science doesn't work that way. You don't even seem to understand what 100% means. Learn the difference between induction and deduction, and you might get the idea. Until then, you are aruing at a colloquial level of meaning.
| Quote: |
Here is the fourth definition of "prove"
| Quote: |
| to subject to a test, experiment, comparison, analysis, or the like, to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics. |
and here is its noun form "proof"
| Quote: |
| evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. |
quote]the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: |
Dictionary definitions for a formal achedemic definition of proof? The very fact that you'd use such a source shows just how unsuited you are for such discussions.
This is the kind of source you should be using when arguing at such a level.
| Quote: |
| You do not have to have 100% accurate data to prove something in science. |
The statement in bold is both oxymoronic and misguided. Proof, by definition, is 100% establishable, such as 1 + 1 = 2. That is true for any reality. Science is only true using the presupposition that physical noumena can be known through the human senses and methods, if it indeed exists at all.
| Quote: |
| That would be nonsensical. Yeah, I just have a good feeling that light is composed of photons. I mean Einstein said so so I guess it could be right |
If you're going to be sarcastic, please at least make sure you know what you're talking about.
_________________
A destructive man helps to naturally select a better society; an ignorant man does nothing but drag society down: Innocence is worse than evil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Agnostic Indian
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 208
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 8:22 pm Post subject: Breaking News on Evolution |
|
|
Recent Evolution News update:Dec 22
So how on Earth did life go from bacteria to the blue whale?
"It happened primarily in two great leaps, and each time, the maximum size of life jumped up by a factor of about a million," said Jonathan Payne, assistant professor of geological and environmental science at Stanford.
No single leap of evolution now.Correct your records for future reference
Human beings date back to ? [paleontologists were busy dating bones ..they forgot the metals and stones!]
Grooved Sphere from South Africa
A metallic sphere from South Africa with three parallel grooves around its equator (photo courtesy of Roelf Marx). The sphere was found in a Precambrian mineral deposit, said to be 2.8 billion years old.
This coinlike object, from a well boring near Lawn Ridge, Illinois, was reportedly found at a depth of about 114 feet below the surface (Winchell 1881, p. 170). According to information supplied by the Illinois State Geological Survey, the deposits containing the coin are between 200,000 and 400,000 years old.
ancient letters from a quarry
Mysterious Letters from a Quarry
Raised letterlike shapes found inside a block of marble from a quarry near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Corliss 1978, p. 657; American Journal of Science 1831, vol. 19, p. 361). The block of marble came from a depth of 60-70 feet in strata dated 500-600 million years old.
Something for evolutionists to ponder about:
1. Evolution by natural selection is more plausible in a theistic world than an atheistic world.
2. Darwin never accounted for the arrival of the fittest. Naturalism’s god-of-chance is always called upon to do the job.
3. Science rules out the possibility that natural processes might prevent major evolutionary change simply by definition because biological stability and conservation would imply that creation events had taken place since the creation of the universe.
4. Creation preceded Evolution anyway.
5. Edward Blyth described the process of natural selection well before Darwin and Wallace. He concluded that it acted as a force of conservation eliminating deterimental variations from populations.
6. Darwin admitted that based upon the data published in his Origin of Species, one could come to “directly opposite” conclusions. For example, natural selection can prevent major evolutionary change from occurring on a gradual step-by-step basis by eliminating useless transitional stages thus explaining the lack of transitional sequences leading to all of the major body plans (phyla) in the fossil record.
7. Natural selection better describes biology’s “ordinary rules of stability” than major evolutionary change.
8. Darwinian theory predicts a pervasive pattern of natural history that is upside-down from the pattern found in the fossil record.
9. Natural history is more compatible with progressive creation than Darwinian evolution.
10. The ultimate origin of Nature itself cannot be natural. Either Nature or a Natural Law Giver has always existed. Nature has not always existed. What do you conclude? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:08 pm Post subject: Re: Breaking News on Evolution |
|
|
| Agnostic Indian wrote: |
| No single leap of evolution now.Correct your records for future reference |
No one has ever proposed a "single leap" for evolution.
| AI wrote: |
Grooved Sphere from South Africa
A metallic sphere from South Africa with three parallel grooves around its equator (photo courtesy of Roelf Marx). The sphere was found in a Precambrian mineral deposit, said to be 2.8 billion years old. |
It is an ordinary stone concretion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klerksdorp_Spheres
The rest of your "anomalous artifacts" are likewise either completely natural or hoaxes. Creationists have been making these claims for a century, and not a single one has ever panned out as genuine.
| AI wrote: |
| 1. Evolution by natural selection is more plausible in a theistic world than an atheistic world. |
Anything is always more plausible in a world where magic exists.
| AI wrote: |
| 2. Darwin never accounted for the arrival of the fittest. Naturalism’s god-of-chance is always called upon to do the job. |
That's okay. We figured it out later.
| AI wrote: |
| 3. Science rules out the possibility that natural processes might prevent major evolutionary change simply by definition because biological stability and conservation would imply that creation events had taken place since the creation of the universe. |
Nothing in that sentence makes sense. I honestly cannot make heads or tails of what you are trying to say.
| AI wrote: |
| 4. Creation preceded Evolution anyway. |
Of course.
| AI wrote: |
| 5. Edward Blyth described the process of natural selection well before Darwin and Wallace. He concluded that it acted as a force of conservation eliminating deterimental variations from populations. |
And he was half right.
| AI wrote: |
| 6. Darwin admitted that based upon the data published in his Origin of Species, one could come to “directly opposite” conclusions. For example, natural selection can prevent major evolutionary change from occurring on a gradual step-by-step basis by eliminating useless transitional stages thus explaining the lack of transitional sequences leading to all of the major body plans (phyla) in the fossil record. |
A. Where did he "admit this?" Exactly?
B. Why would there be "transitional sequences" for transitions that never occurred? The phyla (with a few notable exceptions) appear to all be original metazoan radiations from protozoan ancestors. But that's okay, since we have detailed transitional sequences between organisms at every lower taxonomic level.
| AI wrote: |
| 7. Natural selection better describes biology’s “ordinary rules of stability” than major evolutionary change. |
No biologist would agree with you. Natural selection explains both with great subtlety and elegance.
| AI wrote: |
| 8. Darwinian theory predicts a pervasive pattern of natural history that is upside-down from the pattern found in the fossil record. |
This is false, because Darwinian theory predicts no pattern whatsoever. Evolution is non-directional and contingent. As a result, different patterns are reflected in the fossil record depending entirely on the environmental circumstances that created them.
| AI wrote: |
| 9. Natural history is more compatible with progressive creation than Darwinian evolution. |
This is directly contradicted by those fossil sequences that document major evolutionary transitions such as the reptile-mammal or ape-human transitions. None of these conform to a progressive creation model.
| AI wrote: |
| 10. The ultimate origin of Nature itself cannot be natural. Either Nature or a Natural Law Giver has always existed. Nature has not always existed. What do you conclude? |
I conclude that you are wrong and that nature has always existed.
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Always_Faithful
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 2024
Location: Location: Location
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What do you know, my suspicions were correct. This was an unsourced copy and paste job after all
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/evolution.html
The author couldn't even get his grammar right in the subtitle.
_________________
A destructive man helps to naturally select a better society; an ignorant man does nothing but drag society down: Innocence is worse than evil.
Last edited by Always_Faithful on Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:36 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SkepticOfBible
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 140
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: Re: Breaking News on Evolution |
|
|
| Agnostic Indian wrote: |
Recent Evolution News update:Dec 22
So how on Earth did life go from bacteria to the blue whale?
"It happened primarily in two great leaps, and each time, the maximum size of life jumped up by a factor of about a million," said Jonathan Payne, assistant professor of geological and environmental science at Stanford.
No single leap of evolution now.Correct your records for future reference
|
Perhaps cite the context please
http://science24x7.com/2008/12/24/life-got-bigger-in-two-million-fold-leaps-scientists-say/
This no way debunks evolution nor does this support ID. Better luck next time |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Agnostic Indian
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 208
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
News can only be copied and pasted unless one has created as well as reported it!
by the way '[paleontologists were busy dating bones ..they forgot the metals and stones!] ' is from yours truly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Agnostic Indian
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 208
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:47 pm Post subject: Re: Breaking News on Evolution |
|
|
| SkepticOfBible wrote: |
| Agnostic Indian wrote: |
Recent Evolution News update:Dec 22
So how on Earth did life go from bacteria to the blue whale?
"It happened primarily in two great leaps, and each time, the maximum size of life jumped up by a factor of about a million," said Jonathan Payne, assistant professor of geological and environmental science at Stanford.
No single leap of evolution now.Correct your records for future reference
|
Perhaps cite the context please
http://science24x7.com/2008/12/24/life-got-bigger-in-two-million-fold-leaps-scientists-say/
This no way debunks evolution nor does this support ID. Better luck next time |
What makes you think the statement above was made against evolution or in favor of ID?
Your jingoistic defense of evolution(without provocation) can easily be ||led with the way a Muslim defends the notion that Quran is the last and final word of Allah.
Earth was scientifically flat for a very long time!It Ain't now .
Same can/may happen to evolution.so relax ....
and Merry Christmas to All |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Agnostic Indian wrote: |
| by the way '[paleontologists were busy dating bones ..they forgot the metals and stones!] ' is from yours truly |
The "headline" might be, but the content is not.
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crazy canuck
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 6391
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Agnostic Indian wrote: |
News can only be copied and pasted unless one has created as well as reported it!
by the way '[paleontologists were busy dating bones ..they forgot the metals and stones!] ' is from yours truly |
Dear Fellow Indian,
I thought you wre going to read some books by J.Stephen Gould to gain knowledge about how fossils are dated and correlated!!
Bring that metal piece from Pre Cambrian and metalurgists will analyze trace elements and tell you when and where that fundie got the piece of metal to stuck into rock. Even the carbon impurity can be dated and they can tell you when metal was forged. If from mars, it will have different metal signature.If its from another galaxy , they will find out.
Some backwood baptist fundies of Texas implanted skull into Jurassic sediments. They were caught.
C.C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The list of Creationist errors and hoaxes in the creation of anomalous artifacts is a long one, starting with the faked "human footprints" along dinosaur tracks at Glen Rose, Texas, the hammer in the concretion of Carl Baugh, the Calaveras and Moab skulls....
None of them have ever panned out as being genuine.
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sona2
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 1012
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MaximGatling wrote: |
Didn't you hear? The Muslims invented Science.
They're ever so keen on inventing pseudo-scientific gobbledy-gook to "prove" the Quran is 110% scientific. There's a lot of X-tians who engage in this sort of denial too. |
Actually, medieval Muslim scholars and philosophers, had advanced a theory of evolution which was even more advanced then Darwins theory as it started with minerals. In fact, a contemporary of of Dawin, William Dapper even commented on this. Even before the term "evolution" was in use, there was a term called "Mohammedan theory of evolution" some suspect Darwin himself may have been influenced by the Muslim theory to start with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crazy canuck
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 6391
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THHuxley_redux wrote: |
The list of Creationist errors and hoaxes in the creation of anomalous artifacts is a long one, starting with the faked "human footprints" along dinosaur tracks at Glen Rose, Texas, the hammer in the concretion of Carl Baugh, the Calaveras and Moab skulls....
None of them have ever panned out as being genuine. |
Hammer in a concretion!!
They should have planted sickle along with hammer too!!
That would have made sense!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
