PDA

View Full Version : Not science, but rather ideology.



Jorge
07-02-2014, 04:34 AM
Those of you that have been at TWeb for a while have heard me say it scores of times:
"Much of what is today sold as science is actually ideology - belief! - sold to the masses as "science". And people believe it because it comes with the authoritative credentials of individuals and institutions."

Look, it's all very simple: the average 'Joe' does not even comprehend a lot of the "science" that he hears about, much less critically analyze what it's saying and the ramifications.

A recent article caught my eye ... here is that article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140630164012.htm

The title of the article is "Evolution of life’s operating system revealed in detail"

Right from the onset we see ideology, not science. You see, it was/is "EVOLUTION".
The reader is not given an option ... "Evolution is how it happened ... now we will give you the details."

Tell me, how would you feel about the following headline: "The Martian's Influence on Modern Art" ?
Now wait ... WHAT Martian's? There are no Martians that I am aware of!
Wouldn't that be your response. Yup, and I would agree.
Now apply that same rationale to the "Evolution" headline.

Let's continue with a few more excerpts. "The evolution of the ribosome, a large molecular structure found in the cells of all species, has been revealed in unprecedented detail in a new study." Note here how true science is intermixed with ideology. Watch ...

Is the ribosome a "large molecular structure found in the cells of all species"? Yes, that is good, solid, verifiable science. Now, did it "Evolve"? NOT NECESSARILY!!! That is believed to be true by many but also NOT believed to be true by many others. Materialists, of course, do believe it - they have to ... they have no choice in the matter. But this is an ideological belief - not science!

Many of those that do not believe it are just as equally 'qualified' -- PhDs and all that jazz -- but do not share the belief on scientific grounds. Heck, some of the nonbelievers of Evolution aren't even Theists.

So again, we see how ideological beliefs are intermixed with real science. The unsuspecting/untrained in these things swallow the entire thing as "science".

I'm almost out of time but this article contains many, many other examples illustrating the title of this thread. I will try to get back to this later. I'll end with the last sentence from the article: Loren Williams, the principal researcher, said: "We learned some of the rules of the ribosome, that evolution can change the ribosome as long as it does not mess with its core," Williams said. "Evolution can add things on, but it can't change what was already there."

Once again we see ideological beliefs dominating the "science". First, Evolution is presupposed to be the mechanism at work - nothing else is allowed or considered. Second, she acknowledges that the "core" of the ribosome remains constant. Given what it does, does this not even suggest to her a common design? No, of course not, that's not allowed. Third, if, quote, "Evolution can add things but it can't change what was already there", wouldn't the obvious question be HOW DID THE "already there" GET THERE TO BEGIN WITH? It couldn't have been via Evolution since Evolution - by her own words - can only add to what was already there. In short, she is expressing a part of her metaphysical beliefs and hasn't even realized that her roof is suspended in mid-air.

Anyway ... got'ta run for now.

P.S. If you're going to post something here then be civil and rational. I'm looking to see if you have any worthwhile contributions / critiques of the thesis. Otherwise just stay away.

Jorge

One Bad Pig
07-02-2014, 05:54 AM
Those of you that have been at TWeb for a while have heard me say it scores of times:
"Much of what is today sold as science is actually ideology - belief! - sold to the masses as "science". And people believe it because it comes with the authoritative credentials of individuals and institutions."

Look, it's all very simple: the average 'Joe' does not even comprehend a lot of the "science" that he hears about, much less critically analyze what it's saying and the ramifications.

A recent article caught my eye ... here is that article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140630164012.htm

The title of the article is "Evolution of life’s operating system revealed in detail"

Right from the onset we see ideology, not science. You see, it was/is "EVOLUTION".
The reader is not given an option ... "Evolution is how it happened ... now we will give you the details."

Tell me, how would you feel about the following headline: "The Martian's Influence on Modern Art" ?
Now wait ... WHAT Martian's? There are no Martians that I am aware of!
Wouldn't that be your response. Yup, and I would agree.
Now apply that same rationale to the "Evolution" headline.

This is how I feel about your headline: creationism, which you support, is also "not science, but rather ideology." And you bringing up credentials isn't likely to get far considering how yours are viewed 'round here. I recommend you try formulating your arguments so they don't leave you quite so open to attack.

HMS_Beagle
07-02-2014, 06:49 AM
Right from the onset we see ideology, not science. You see, it was/is "EVOLUTION".
The reader is not given an option ... "Evolution is how it happened ... now we will give you the details."

Once again we see that the OP author has zero understanding of how science operates. Science - all science - builds upon previous work and previously verified results. Science isn't required to re-invent the wheel and re-verify all that came before with every new paper. Every paper describing a new form of TB isn't required to re-validate the germ theory of disease. Every new parachute design proposed isn't required to re-validate the theory of gravity.

In the case of evolutionary theory we have over 150 years of positive supporting evidence from hundreds of different scientific disciplines. We have over 60 years of positive supporting evidence from genetics. There is no need at all for this latest work on ribosomes to re-validate the veracity of evolutionary processes.


Tell me, how would you feel about the following headline: "The Martian's Influence on Modern Art" ? Now wait ... WHAT Martian's? There are no Martians that I am aware of! Wouldn't that be your response. Yup, and I would agree. Now apply that same rationale to the "Evolution" headline.

If we had 1/10 as much evidence for Martians as we do for evolution it would be a perfectly valid statement. That fact that you continue to be willfully ignorant of the huge amount of positive evidence for evolution isn't science's problem.


First, Evolution is presupposed to be the mechanism at work - nothing else is allowed or considered.

Nothing else is considered because there in no evidence of any other processes or forces in play. You are free to provide your evidence if you claim there are other mechanisms or processes.


Second, she acknowledges that the "core" of the ribosome remains constant. Given what it does, does this not even suggest to her a common design? No, of course not, that's not allowed.

There is no evidence for an external Designer. You are free to provide your evidence if you claim there is one.


Third, if, quote, "Evolution can add things but it can't change what was already there", wouldn't the obvious question be HOW DID THE "already there" GET THERE TO BEGIN WITH?

Which is a question for another paper and another line of study. It doesn't change the validity of the work in this paper.

You've been pushing this childish misunderstand if science for years now and haven't managed to convince a single person. Isn't it high time you took a science course and finally got a clue about how real science works?

klaus54
07-02-2014, 08:17 AM
Here we go again. Jorge abandons threads with unanswered questions and starts another B.S. fest.

Jorge -- do have ANY idea how scientific method works?

In what sense is your version of Biblical Scientific Creationism, "science" by the standards of scientific method?

If you push off the history of Earth and the Cosmos into a reading of Genesis 1 (which you can't even articulate unambiguously), this is NOT science in any way shape or form. If all of Earth's pre-6Ka history is a phenomenonlogical artifact of a miracle, then your view is NOT science. It's beyond the purview of science.

If you would simply admit that FACT, I would respect your view. But as such you yammer and bluster and claim creation is scientific when 1) you can't explain HOW, and 2) as such can't explain in what sense it's science.

If you're going to bring up miracles -- they are WELL-DEFINED in Scripture and have a TARGETED PURPOSE. E.g. Jesus turning water into wine at Cana. We can UNDERSTAND that as a miracle and CAN'T EXPLAIN IT SCIENTIFICALLY. No one in hisher right mind would try to do that.

So WHY do you claim science when Earth and the Cosmos as they exist now can only be explained by a large set of miracles that have no purpose other than to deceive?

Also, as is your want, you PROJECT tremendously.

K54

Jorge
07-02-2014, 09:35 AM
This is how I feel about your headline: creationism, which you support, is also "not science, but rather ideology." And you bringing up credentials isn't likely to get far considering how yours are viewed 'round here. I recommend you try formulating your arguments so they don't leave you quite so open to attack.

You may wish to begin by educating yourself so as to not display your ignorance so loudly.

Past, present or (I am sure) future, Biblical Creationism has never been promoted as science because that's not what it is. Anyone who has promoted it as science is wrong - got that? - wrong. To promote Biblical Creationism as science would be the same - equally wrong! - as promoting Theistic Evolutionism as science. I trust you 'got it'.

What I have said, and now repeat, is that Biblical Creationism provides a worldview framework for interpreting observations (the same observations that we all have) in such a way that the observable world does indeed support the Biblical Creationist position. Stated in another way, when observations are not forced to be interpreted via the Materialistic worldview, we find that science certainly does support Biblical Creationism.

As for my credentials - I do not consider the worthiness of an argument on the basis of credentials - be they mine or those of others - so you need to drop that nonsense.

Finally, my arguments are quite solid, thank you very much. In fact, they are so solid that they've withstood decades of attacks. Certainly no one here has been able to do anything other than express personal, irrational incredulity and that doesn't count except in the bizarre world of certain people.

Now you know better and so I'll expect no more of the erroneous beliefs that you've just spouted.

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
07-02-2014, 10:36 AM
Past, present or (I am sure) future, Biblical Creationism has never been promoted as science because that's not what it is.

Stated in another way, when observations are not forced to be interpreted via the Materialistic worldview, we find that science certainly does support Biblical Creationism.

Jorge

Leave it to Jorge to directly contradict himself in the span of two paragraphs. :ahem:

Jorge
07-02-2014, 10:47 AM
Once again we see that the OP author has zero understanding of how science operates. Science - all science - builds upon previous work and previously verified results. Science isn't required to re-invent the wheel and re-verify all that came before with every new paper. Every paper describing a new form of TB isn't required to re-validate the germ theory of disease. Every new parachute design proposed isn't required to re-validate the theory of gravity.

You write the above while saying that "the author has zero understanding of how science operates".
With that you just moved into first place on the list for Mother Irony of Ironies.

Evolution (with upper-case 'E') is ideology, not science. No one can demonstrate the "fact of Evolution" - that a single common ancestor gave rise to the millions of species of flora and fauna - this "fact" must be believed. Yes, this "fact" can be inferred but that inference is so chock full of holes that a huge number of scientists have disowned Evolution as a plausible explanation. That people like yourself do not wish to accept/acknowledge this is a psychological and/or spiritual condition.


In the case of evolutionary theory we have over 150 years of positive supporting evidence from hundreds of different scientific disciplines. We have over 60 years of positive supporting evidence from genetics. There is no need at all for this latest work on ribosomes to re-validate the veracity of evolutionary processes.

You're mixing aardvarks with bazookas plus you are not paying attention to what I've posted. The "supporting evidence" you speak of is a result of INTERPRETING the evidence in a certain way. Watch: I too see the same common structure in the ribosome amongst the species. Given what the ribosome does (primarily to read and translate DNA segments, then 'reproduce' the proteins that this DNA code represents) I personally would have predicted/expected for the Designer to have installed this common structure in virtually every living organism. In fact, I fail to see how this 'ribosome common core' could be missing from anything that is alive (certain viruses may be an exception).




If we had 1/10 as much evidence for Martians as we do for evolution it would be a perfectly valid statement. That fact that you continue to be willfully ignorant of the huge amount of positive evidence for evolution isn't science's problem.


You keep calling me "ignorant" never stopping to think that I know and understand this stuff far more than you ever have or will. Such a thought would keep you up a night so forget that I mentioned it.

BTW, recall my OP warning. If you want to turn this into another one of your personal ad hominem attacks then just stay out of the thread. Thanks.



Nothing else is considered because there in no evidence of any other processes or forces in play. You are free to provide your evidence if you claim there are other mechanisms or processes.

Many thousands of books and papers over the last 25 years alone have been published that total obliterate your (ignorant) claim that "... there is no evidence of any other processes or forces at play". Ever heard of Intelligent Design Theory? How about the book that I co-authored (Without Excuse)? Both of those sources will keep you busy for months studying this "non-existent" evidence.



There is no evidence for an external Designer. You are free to provide your evidence if you claim there is one.

1. There are two and only two possibilities - there either is or there is not an external Designer.

2. If the former is true then the debate is over.

3. If the latter is true then this means that there must be a natural, guide-less mechanism and/or process that explains how inert mass-energy was able to 'create' life and then how that life was able to 'create' millions of distinct species.

Be logical, okay? You cannot Evolve the millions of species unless you first have life - "prebiotic Evolution" is an oxymoron. Therefore, you MUST begin with that - you have no choice.

4. In the case of life, no such mechanism-process is known. Hypotheses abound but no such mechanism-process has ever been observed. Therefore, this case remains strictly in the realm of belief - the person must believe that inert mass-energy may 'create' life.

You disagree with that? Okay, then demonstrate how it happened - we want no hypotheses or imaginations, we want hard proof! Without that mechanism-process, the only alternative is (a) belief or (b) DESIGNER. Case closed, debate over, thank you.



There really is no need to go further but just as a closing remark: in the case of speciation ('Evolution' of existing life), there exists a great deal of counter-evidence opposing the plausibility of such a directionless, guide-less purely natural mechanism. This is why so many Evolutionists have 'jumped ship'. This is why ex-Evolutionists such as Behe, Sanford, Kenyon, and many, many others eventually realized that they could no longer sustain their belief in Evolution. Of course, you are free to continue believing in Evolution, just don't call it science - it isn't science. Evolution is regarded as science because the scientific establishment has decreed it to be "the best (Materialistic) explanation available". Just as that same establishment once decreed Phlogiston Theory and The Geocentric Model and Blood Humors to be "the best explanations available".



Which is a question for another paper and another line of study. It doesn't change the validity of the work in this paper.

The paper contains some good science - I would agree with that. It's the intermixing of that good science with the religious ideology of Evolution that I'm criticizing here. I gave an example of that in the OP.


You've been pushing this childish misunderstand if science for years now and haven't managed to convince a single person. Isn't it high time you took a science course and finally got a clue about how real science works?

That I've not convinced a single person may reflect on my ability to make it clear but it may also reflect on the 'student'. I taught maths, stats and science for many years and one thing that I learned from my own experiences and observing my colleagues is that the best teacher in the world is totally powerless against a student that has no desire to learn. This is especially true in the case of ideology. The hedonistic Atheist, for example, that thoroughly enjoys his(her) "free" lifestyle - doing as (s)he pleases, pursuing his(her) lusts and desires without restraint - will NEVER learn the lessons of an alternative ideology where that "free" lifestyle must be abandoned only to be "shackled" by prohibitions. It has nothing to do with the validity of the lessons or the ability of the teacher; it has everything to do with fulfilling the personal desires of that person.

Ergo, my 'failure' in getting these lessons across to certain folk here is easily explained.
I sleep quite well, thanks you.

Jorge

Jorge
07-02-2014, 10:50 AM
Here we go again. Jorge abandons threads with unanswered questions and starts another B.S. fest.

Jorge -- do have ANY idea how scientific method works?

In what sense is your version of Biblical Scientific Creationism, "science" by the standards of scientific method?

If you push off the history of Earth and the Cosmos into a reading of Genesis 1 (which you can't even articulate unambiguously), this is NOT science in any way shape or form. If all of Earth's pre-6Ka history is a phenomenonlogical artifact of a miracle, then your view is NOT science. It's beyond the purview of science.

If you would simply admit that FACT, I would respect your view. But as such you yammer and bluster and claim creation is scientific when 1) you can't explain HOW, and 2) as such can't explain in what sense it's science.

If you're going to bring up miracles -- they are WELL-DEFINED in Scripture and have a TARGETED PURPOSE. E.g. Jesus turning water into wine at Cana. We can UNDERSTAND that as a miracle and CAN'T EXPLAIN IT SCIENTIFICALLY. No one in hisher right mind would try to do that.

So WHY do you claim science when Earth and the Cosmos as they exist now can only be explained by a large set of miracles that have no purpose other than to deceive?

Also, as is your want, you PROJECT tremendously.

K54

My previous posts here pretty much answer what you bring up - simply read.

Do remember my "warning" in the OP. If you wish to practice your usual, then go do it elsewhere.

Jorge

One Bad Pig
07-02-2014, 10:52 AM
You may wish to begin by educating yourself so as to not display your ignorance so loudly.
Jorge, this is not a very civil response. If you're going to ask for civility, it helps to practice it yourself.


Past, present or (I am sure) future, Biblical Creationism has never been promoted as science because that's not what it is. Anyone who has promoted it as science is wrong - got that? - wrong. To promote Biblical Creationism as science would be the same - equally wrong! - as promoting Theistic Evolutionism as science. I trust you 'got it'.
Got it.


As for my credentials - I do not consider the worthiness of an argument on the basis of credentials - be they mine or those of others - so you need to drop that nonsense.
Then why did you bring up credentials?


Finally, my arguments are quite solid, thank you very much. In fact, they are so solid that they've withstood decades of attacks. Certainly no one here has been able to do anything other than express personal, irrational incredulity and that doesn't count except in the bizarre world of certain people.
That you find your arguments solid does not necessarily mean others do as well. I admire your persistence, but your arguments have indubitably been met with rather more than 'personal, irrational incredulity.' Some of your opponents have been more than happy to return the volume and vitriol you habitually dish out, but others have been much more reasoned in their opposition. Volume doesn't impress me. The conviction of your beliefs does not impress me. Reasoned argument I'm willing to listen to. Yelling makes me want to find something more interesting to do.


Now you know better and so I'll expect no more of the erroneous beliefs that you've just spouted.

Jorge
You might make a better impression if you pretended that you weren't lecturing children. That goes back to civility. People don't like being talked down to.

HMS_Beagle
07-02-2014, 11:37 AM
Evolution (with upper-case 'E') is ideology, not science. No one can demonstrate the "fact of Evolution" - that a single common ancestor gave rise to the millions of species of flora and fauna - this "fact" must be believed. Yes, this "fact" can be inferred but that inference is so chock full of holes that a huge number of scientists have disowned Evolution as a plausible explanation. That people like yourself do not wish to accept/acknowledge this is a psychological and/or spiritual condition.

Yes, we know you're fond of making up your own private definitions that no one else on the planet uses or agrees with. Not very persuasive to anyone.


The "supporting evidence" you speak of is a result of INTERPRETING the evidence in a certain way.

Lame Creationist excuse no.27: "same evidence, different interpretation". Not all interpretations are equally valid. If there are multiple interpretations offered science goes with the one that is the most parsimonious, the most consilient with all the other available evidence. Under those guidelines there is no reason whatsoever to infer a Magic Designer POOFED everything into existence looking exactly like it had evolved over billions of years.


You keep calling me "ignorant" never stopping to think that I know and understand this stuff far more than you ever have or will.

Let's try a quick test. How was the Barringer Meteor Crater formed? By what multiple independent methods has the event been dated? What were the results of that dating?


Many thousands of books and papers over the last 25 years alone have been published that total obliterate your (ignorant) claim that "... there is no evidence of any other processes or forces at play"

Then why can't you or any other YEC present that evidence here?


Ever heard of Intelligent Design Theory?

There's no such thing as Intelligent Design Theory. There's Intelligent Design unsupported and unfalsifiable speculation.


How about the book that I co-authored (Without Excuse)?

Yes. That would be the one discussed in multiple threads here at TWeb in which you ran from all questions and criticisms.


Be logical, okay? You cannot Evolve the millions of species unless you first have life - "prebiotic Evolution" is an oxymoron. Therefore, you MUST begin with that - you have no choice.

Wrong. Evolution doesn't rest on abiogenesis any more than chemistry rests on the initial formation of atoms.


There really is no need to go further but just as a closing remark: in the case of speciation ('Evolution' of existing life), there exists a great deal of counter-evidence opposing the plausibility of such a directionless, guide-less purely natural mechanism. This is why so many Evolutionists have 'jumped ship'. This is why ex-Evolutionists such as Behe, Sanford, Kenyon, and many, many others eventually realized that they could no longer sustain their belief in Evolution.

Your "so many" are a handful of fringe loonies who only publish their "evidence" in popular press books written for ignorant laymen. Not one of them has the sack to even submit their IDiocy to any mainstream scientific journals.


Ergo, my 'failure' in getting these lessons across to certain folk here is easily explained.
I sleep quite well, thanks you.

Most self-deluded fools generally do.

The Pixie
07-02-2014, 02:22 PM
The title of the article is "Evolution of life’s operating system revealed in detail"

Right from the onset we see ideology, not science. You see, it was/is "EVOLUTION".
The reader is not given an option ... "Evolution is how it happened ... now we will give you the details."

Tell me, how would you feel about the following headline: "The Martian's Influence on Modern Art" ?
Now wait ... WHAT Martian's? There are no Martians that I am aware of!
Wouldn't that be your response. Yup, and I would agree.
Now apply that same rationale to the "Evolution" headline.
The difference is that evolution is accepted as mainstream science due to the overwhelming evidence. On the other hand, the evidence suggests there are no martians - certainly not of a sophistication to have had an influence on art, modern or not.

That you choose to ignore the evidence for evolution does not mean it is not science.

Let's continue with a few more excerpts. "The evolution of the ribosome, a large molecular structure found in the cells of all species, has been revealed in unprecedented detail in a new study." Note here how true science is intermixed with ideology. Watch ...

Is the ribosome a "large molecular structure found in the cells of all species"? Yes, that is good, solid, verifiable science. Now, did it "Evolve"? NOT NECESSARILY!!! That is believed to be true by many but also NOT believed to be true by many others. Materialists, of course, do believe it - they have to ... they have no choice in the matter. But this is an ideological belief - not science!
But they are the same, conceptually.

There is an abundance of evidence showing the ribosome is a large molecular structure found in the cells of all species. There is an abundance of evidence showing evolution happened.

That you choose to ignore the evidence for evolution does not mean it is not science.

klaus54
07-02-2014, 06:31 PM
My previous posts here pretty much answer what you bring up - simply read.

Do remember my "warning" in the OP. If you wish to practice your usual, then go do it elsewhere.

Jorge

You mean the post where you contradict yourself within the span of two paragraphs? You claimed Creationism is never presented as science yet science supports Biblical Creationism.

Boys and Girls, may I present to you.... Jorge!

K54



Past, present or (I am sure) future, Biblical Creationism has never been promoted as science because that's not what it is. Anyone who has promoted it as science is wrong - got that? - wrong. To promote Biblical Creationism as science would be the same - equally wrong! - as promoting Theistic Evolutionism as science. I trust you 'got it'.

What I have said, and now repeat, is that Biblical Creationism provides a worldview framework for interpreting observations (the same observations that we all have) in such a way that the observable world does indeed support the Biblical Creationist position. Stated in another way, when observations are not forced to be interpreted via the Materialistic worldview, we find that science certainly does support Biblical Creationism.

klaus54
07-02-2014, 06:46 PM
...
Stated in another way, when observations are not forced to be interpreted via the Materialistic worldview, we find that science certainly does support Biblical Creationism.
...


Please explain how observations, and I mean the VAST MAJORITY of them, can be forced into a "Biblical Creationist" worldview? They just so happen to fit into a "materialist" worldview quite nicely and consiliently.

You DO know what "consilient" means, right?

Don't look now, but your fly is op..., err... I meaning you're PROJECTING big time again.

Oh, and if you can't supply an unambiguous Genesis interpretation, you're just whistling Dixie anywho.

You've been caught in Biblical/Scientific pincer maneuver but are unwilling to surrender. And you're nearly out of ammo and vittles.

K54

rwatts
07-02-2014, 07:58 PM
Those of you that have been at TWeb for a while have heard me say it scores of times:
"Much of what is today sold as science is actually ideology - belief! - sold to the masses as "science". And people believe it because it comes with the authoritative credentials of individuals and institutions."

Look, it's all very simple: the average 'Joe' does not even comprehend a lot of the "science" that he hears about, much less critically analyze what it's saying and the ramifications.

A recent article caught my eye ... here is that article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140630164012.htm

The title of the article is "Evolution of life’s operating system revealed in detail"

Right from the onset we see ideology, not science. You see, it was/is "EVOLUTION".
The reader is not given an option ... "Evolution is how it happened ... now we will give you the details."

Tell me, how would you feel about the following headline: "The Martian's Influence on Modern Art" ?
Now wait ... WHAT Martian's? There are no Martians that I am aware of!
Wouldn't that be your response. Yup, and I would agree.
Now apply that same rationale to the "Evolution" headline.

Let's continue with a few more excerpts. "The evolution of the ribosome, a large molecular structure found in the cells of all species, has been revealed in unprecedented detail in a new study." Note here how true science is intermixed with ideology. Watch ...

Is the ribosome a "large molecular structure found in the cells of all species"? Yes, that is good, solid, verifiable science. Now, did it "Evolve"? NOT NECESSARILY!!! That is believed to be true by many but also NOT believed to be true by many others. Materialists, of course, do believe it - they have to ... they have no choice in the matter. But this is an ideological belief - not science!

Many of those that do not believe it are just as equally 'qualified' -- PhDs and all that jazz -- but do not share the belief on scientific grounds. Heck, some of the nonbelievers of Evolution aren't even Theists.

So again, we see how ideological beliefs are intermixed with real science. The unsuspecting/untrained in these things swallow the entire thing as "science".

I'm almost out of time but this article contains many, many other examples illustrating the title of this thread. I will try to get back to this later. I'll end with the last sentence from the article: Loren Williams, the principal researcher, said: "We learned some of the rules of the ribosome, that evolution can change the ribosome as long as it does not mess with its core," Williams said. "Evolution can add things on, but it can't change what was already there."

Once again we see ideological beliefs dominating the "science". First, Evolution is presupposed to be the mechanism at work - nothing else is allowed or considered. Second, she acknowledges that the "core" of the ribosome remains constant. Given what it does, does this not even suggest to her a common design? No, of course not, that's not allowed. Third, if, quote, "Evolution can add things but it can't change what was already there", wouldn't the obvious question be HOW DID THE "already there" GET THERE TO BEGIN WITH? It couldn't have been via Evolution since Evolution - by her own words - can only add to what was already there. In short, she is expressing a part of her metaphysical beliefs and hasn't even realized that her roof is suspended in mid-air.

Anyway ... got'ta run for now.

P.S. If you're going to post something here then be civil and rational. I'm looking to see if you have any worthwhile contributions / critiques of the thesis. Otherwise just stay away.

JorgeIdeological gavitationalists:-

Gravity plays a role in keeping cells small (http://phys.org/news/2013-10-gravity-role-cells-small.html)


There is true physics and physics falsely called. The above kind of stuff should not be taught in schools and darn those pesky ideologues who try to sneak their metaphysics into true physics. Physics began to slide from its path of true wisdom when those biologists began to get involved in this most purest of sciences.

Next thing, gravitationalists will be telling us that a force due to gravity causes rain to fall. This is in clear contradiction to the clear word of the Bible. You can bet your bottom dollar that when this happens, gravitational theory will be guilty of making bombs fall and millions of folk will be killed, thanks to this most vilest of ideas. Jumping of cliffs will no longer be safe, because of the introduction of such an unGodly idea.


I think we should all back Jorge on this, and form a committee to ensure that gravity never gets taught to the ears of our dearest of citizens, the children of our junior schools.

rwatts
07-02-2014, 08:09 PM
On the other hand, the evidence suggests there are no martians ....I thought Jorge was from Mars.

oxmixmudd
07-03-2014, 07:46 AM
Those of you that have been at TWeb for a while have heard me say it scores of times:
"Much of what is today sold as science is actually ideology - belief! - sold to the masses as "science". And people believe it because it comes with the authoritative credentials of individuals and institutions."

Look, it's all very simple: the average 'Joe' does not even comprehend a lot of the "science" that he hears about, much less critically analyze what it's saying and the ramifications.

A recent article caught my eye ... here is that article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140630164012.htm

The title of the article is "Evolution of life’s operating system revealed in detail"

Right from the onset we see ideology, not science. You see, it was/is "EVOLUTION".
The reader is not given an option ... "Evolution is how it happened ... now we will give you the details."

Tell me, how would you feel about the following headline: "The Martian's Influence on Modern Art" ?
Now wait ... WHAT Martian's? There are no Martians that I am aware of!
Wouldn't that be your response. Yup, and I would agree.
Now apply that same rationale to the "Evolution" headline.

Let's continue with a few more excerpts. "The evolution of the ribosome, a large molecular structure found in the cells of all species, has been revealed in unprecedented detail in a new study." Note here how true science is intermixed with ideology. Watch ...

Is the ribosome a "large molecular structure found in the cells of all species"? Yes, that is good, solid, verifiable science. Now, did it "Evolve"? NOT NECESSARILY!!! That is believed to be true by many but also NOT believed to be true by many others. Materialists, of course, do believe it - they have to ... they have no choice in the matter. But this is an ideological belief - not science!

Many of those that do not believe it are just as equally 'qualified' -- PhDs and all that jazz -- but do not share the belief on scientific grounds. Heck, some of the nonbelievers of Evolution aren't even Theists.

So again, we see how ideological beliefs are intermixed with real science. The unsuspecting/untrained in these things swallow the entire thing as "science".

I'm almost out of time but this article contains many, many other examples illustrating the title of this thread. I will try to get back to this later. I'll end with the last sentence from the article: Loren Williams, the principal researcher, said: "We learned some of the rules of the ribosome, that evolution can change the ribosome as long as it does not mess with its core," Williams said. "Evolution can add things on, but it can't change what was already there."

Once again we see ideological beliefs dominating the "science". First, Evolution is presupposed to be the mechanism at work - nothing else is allowed or considered. Second, she acknowledges that the "core" of the ribosome remains constant. Given what it does, does this not even suggest to her a common design? No, of course not, that's not allowed. Third, if, quote, "Evolution can add things but it can't change what was already there", wouldn't the obvious question be HOW DID THE "already there" GET THERE TO BEGIN WITH? It couldn't have been via Evolution since Evolution - by her own words - can only add to what was already there. In short, she is expressing a part of her metaphysical beliefs and hasn't even realized that her roof is suspended in mid-air.

Anyway ... got'ta run for now.

P.S. If you're going to post something here then be civil and rational. I'm looking to see if you have any worthwhile contributions / critiques of the thesis. Otherwise just stay away.

Jorge

Jorge,

Why do you so consistently overreach to the point you destroy your arguments at the outset? You had a little nugget you could have run with. The quot at the end of your post, the one of about the core. You could have focused on that, perhaps brought in some other information concerning the lack of success determining a path for abiogenesis and had a post and thread that could have perhaps brought something substantive to your side of the table.

IOW, you could, using that element, make the point that this is something she believes, not something she can prove or something implied through the correct application of the scientific method.

As it is you DESTROYED any sense of competence, any sense of legitimacy with your opening volleys. Only the ignorant would try to say "Evolution is pure ideology" Jorge. There are these two substantial and consilient pillars that drive the FACT evolution has occurred, at least as far as what will be deduced by any direct application of the scientific method. And those pillars are: (1) radiometric dating and (2) the fossil distribution within the relative sediments.

From these two we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a) life has a long (multiple millions of years) and varied history on the planet. b) life has evolved (changed) substantially over time. c) the form life has taken over time, possibly excepting certain mass extinctions, can be shown to be connected by time and a hierarchy.

HOW life changed is the only theoretical part. The rest is a solid as the Earth goes around the sun. So to claim acceptance of evolution as a given in the opening phrases is somehow proof of an ideologically driven position is just stupid. It is no more ideologically driven than research that determines the distances to the stars though measured parallax.

OTOH, to assume this unchanging core of the ribosome arrived through evolution is based on a belief, not objective fact. And there you could have had a go at a reasonable deduction that supported your perception of the world.

You are your own worst enemy Jorge.



Jim

klaus54
07-03-2014, 09:57 AM
Jim,

Nice treatise, and you should also include bio-geography, embryology, and genetic hierarchies in the broad categories of evidence for biological evolution.

And it wouldn't hurt to throw in Plate Tectonics and Geologic History into the mix.

K54

Jorge
07-04-2014, 09:38 AM
The difference is that evolution is accepted as mainstream science due to the overwhelming evidence. On the other hand, the evidence suggests there are no martians - certainly not of a sophistication to have had an influence on art, modern or not.

That you choose to ignore the evidence for evolution does not mean it is not science.

Once again you people make claims that are as unfounded as they are untrue. No one - certainly not I - is "ignoring the evidence for evolution". There are two main differences regarding this "evidence" between myself and those like you: (1) I examine this "evidence" critically instead of swallowing it whole without any critical thinking, as if it were "Gospel Truth". (2) I separate the scientific facts from the ideological beliefs. By applying (1) and (2) one realizes that the "fact of Evolution" is an oxymoron.


But they are the same, conceptually.

I rest my case.



There is an abundance of evidence showing the ribosome is a large molecular structure found in the cells of all species. There is an abundance of evidence showing evolution happened.

That you choose to ignore the evidence for evolution does not mean it is not science.

As I have stated countless times here on TWeb, 'evolution' is a scientific fact - observable, testable and verifiable. On the other hand, 'Evolution' - i.e., the Evolutionary paradigm that is chock-full of beliefs - is not a scientific fact, it is part of a metaphysical system - Materialism.

Maybe my ability to explain all of this is lacking -- I do not believe that to be the case but let's just allow for that possibility. Nonetheless, my inability doesn't change the veracity of the claim.

Jorge

Jorge
07-04-2014, 09:46 AM
Jorge,

Why do you so consistently overreach to the point you destroy your arguments at the outset? You had a little nugget you could have run with. The quot at the end of your post, the one of about the core. You could have focused on that, perhaps brought in some other information concerning the lack of success determining a path for abiogenesis and had a post and thread that could have perhaps brought something substantive to your side of the table.

IOW, you could, using that element, make the point that this is something she believes, not something she can prove or something implied through the correct application of the scientific method.

As it is you DESTROYED any sense of competence, any sense of legitimacy with your opening volleys. Only the ignorant would try to say "Evolution is pure ideology" Jorge. There are these two substantial and consilient pillars that drive the FACT evolution has occurred, at least as far as what will be deduced by any direct application of the scientific method. And those pillars are: (1) radiometric dating and (2) the fossil distribution within the relative sediments.

From these two we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a) life has a long (multiple millions of years) and varied history on the planet. b) life has evolved (changed) substantially over time. c) the form life has taken over time, possibly excepting certain mass extinctions, can be shown to be connected by time and a hierarchy.

HOW life changed is the only theoretical part. The rest is a solid as the Earth goes around the sun. So to claim acceptance of evolution as a given in the opening phrases is somehow proof of an ideologically driven position is just stupid. It is no more ideologically driven than research that determines the distances to the stars though measured parallax.

OTOH, to assume this unchanging core of the ribosome arrived through evolution is based on a belief, not objective fact. And there you could have had a go at a reasonable deduction that supported your perception of the world.

You are your own worst enemy Jorge.

Jim

Yeah, I know that you would have liked it much more if I had focused solely on the part that left your personal beliefs intact while avoiding those parts that ruffle your ideological feathers. Sorry, that's not how I operate. It all works hand-in-glove, O-Mudd. Unlike yourself, I am quite able to realize that compartmentalization is not only disallowed here, it is dishonest. One aspect is connected to all the others - denying the veracity of God's Word in one Book undermines the ENTIRETY of God's Word.

We cannot sing praises to almighty God at one moment only to essentially call Him a liar moments later. We cannot embrace the Bible as God's Holy Word in certain sections that we agree with only to trash other sections either because we do not agree or because the Bible does not agree with Harvard, MIT or Princeton. That you do not wish to accept these things does not make me "my own worst enemy". Try looking in a mirror.

Jorge

klaus54
07-04-2014, 10:12 AM
Jorge,

The biggest problem for your form of creationism is that you have NO THEORY that fits the vast majority of the data. You never presented one, nor have I ever seen one presented.

You totally have the scenario BACKWARDS. You have an IDEOLOGY, namely some "literal" interpretation of the Genesis stories that you either can't or won't articulate. And YOU try to FORCE some data into this IDEOLOGY.

That you won't acknowledge these simple facts indicates you are either profoundly stupid, ignorant of what science and ideology means, or are a despicable prevaricator intent upon deceiving the less informed churchy types.

If you want to shut me up 1) give your unambiguous, plain, straightforward, direct reading of the Genesis stories, and 2) a testable theory that fits both the IDEOLOGY in (1) as well as the vast majority of evidence for Evolution/Deep Time/Deep History.

Put up or shut up.

K54

P.S. If it's impossible for you to shut up, AT LEAST ADMIT THAT (Jorgian) CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE.

HMS_Beagle
07-04-2014, 10:20 AM
Once again you people make claims that are as unfounded as they are untrue. No one - certainly not I - is "ignoring the evidence for evolution". There are two main differences regarding this "evidence" between myself and those like you: (1) I examine this "evidence" critically instead of swallowing it whole without any critical thinking, as if it were "Gospel Truth". (2) I separate the scientific facts from the ideological beliefs. By applying (1) and (2) one realizes that the "fact of Evolution" is an oxymoron.

Jorge with his made up custom definitions again. :ahem:


As I have stated countless times here on TWeb, 'evolution' is a scientific fact - observable, testable and verifiable. On the other hand, 'Evolution' - i.e., the Evolutionary paradigm that is chock-full of beliefs - is not a scientific fact, it is part of a metaphysical system - Materialism.

Maybe my ability to explain all of this is lacking -- I do not believe that to be the case but let's just allow for that possibility. Nonetheless, my inability doesn't change the veracity of the claim.

Jorge

What's lacking is any evidence that there are two distinct and different forms of evolution as you keep squawking. You made it up whole cloth and not a single person in the scientific community agrees with your nonsense. You can blither the same bogus bovine scat until the cows come home and it won't magically become true.

HMS_Beagle
07-04-2014, 10:23 AM
Let's try a quick test. How was the Barringer Meteor Crater formed? By what multiple independent methods has the event been dated? What were the results of that dating?


Bumped for Jorge who was going to demonstrate how he understands science so much better than me. :lol::lol::lol:

Jorge
07-04-2014, 11:34 AM
Bumped for Jorge who was going to demonstrate how he understands science so much better than me.

A muskrat understands science much better than you, Beagle Boy.
Why you would think that I'd waste my time proving the obvious escapes me. :shrug: :lol:

Jorge

klaus54
07-04-2014, 11:57 AM
A muskrat understands science much better than you, Beagle Boy.
Why you would think that I'd waste my time proving the obvious escapes me. :shrug: :lol:

Jorge

Boys and Girls,

How many Jorge non-answers does this make? You can includes ones from the old site. Maybe several thousand?

Jorge: Give your unambiguous plain simple clear direct literal reading of the Genesis stories.

Then:

1) Give a scientific theory of your Genesis interpretation that includes the vast majority of the physical evidence.

OR

2) Admit there is no such thing as Biblical Scientific Creationism.

In trying to address (1) you might want to refute some of the well-known evidences of Deep Time, such as HMS_B's example of terrestrial meteor craters.

K54

HMS_Beagle
07-04-2014, 01:03 PM
A muskrat understands science much better than you, Beagle Boy.
Why you would think that I'd waste my time proving the obvious escapes me.

Jorge

A muskrat certainly has bigger cajones than you do Jorge.

Thanks though for running from yet another challenge where your bluff was called. :lol:

Duragizer
07-05-2014, 09:38 PM
I thought Jorge was from Mars.

Nah. He's from another universe entirely.

Jorge
07-06-2014, 03:19 AM
Nah. He's from another universe entirely.

I'll agree with that - thanks!

Hey, I preferred your other "avatar" pic - the one with the giant 'S' across your chest.
That 'S', as we all know, stood for 'Stupid'. Truth in advertising is a good thing. :rofl:

Jorge

Jorge
07-06-2014, 03:22 AM
Thanks though for running from yet another challenge where your bluff was called.

I do have to agree that I "run" from you. I simply cannot stand
being in the presence of what you represent - dishonesty and all that. :duh:

Jorge

klaus54
07-06-2014, 01:39 PM
I see you gave up on this thread and started another, but not before leaving a trail of stink.

Most folks just whimper and silent disappear when their attempts at argument get thrashed, but not ye olde Black Knight. :lol:

Getting ready to dive into the new one. 'Need to get my dose of Schadenfreude for the day.

K54

Duragizer
07-12-2014, 10:55 PM
I'll agree with that - thanks!

Hey, I preferred your other "avatar" pic - the one with the giant 'S' across your chest.
That 'S', as we all know, stood for 'Stupid'. Truth in advertising is a good thing. :rofl:

Jorge

Get some new material.

Jorge
07-21-2014, 03:46 AM
Get some new material.

Why? The "old" material was absolutely true and it worked so well.

"Hey, I preferred your other "avatar" pic - the one with the giant 'S' across your chest.
That 'S', as we all know, stood for 'Stupid'. Truth in advertising is a good thing."

Jorge


Stop with the gratuitous insults.

Jorge
07-21-2014, 04:13 AM
Jorge with his made up custom definitions again.

Among my "made up definitions" is one that (of course!) has always been ridiculed and totally rejected at TWeb by the likes of Beagle Boy and all of his ideological comrades (O-Mudd, Rogue06, Santa Klaus, Terror ... etc ... etc.). Here I'm referring to the definition/difference between origins (or historical) science and operational science. You people have howled at that every time I post it, calling it a "Creationist invention" among other things.

Of course, I know well that in saying this you people are displaying either ignorance or dishonesty (my vote goes to the latter since my multiple posts and explanations should have pulled you out of the state of 'ignorance' long ago).

But let's just say, for a moment, that I'm the one who is wrong; i.e., this distinction is a "Creationist invention", etc. Okay, so let's see a couple of quotes from two very high-profile Evolutionists:

“For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”

—Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005), Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.


“If a moving automobile were an organism, [U]functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history—how it came to be made and its journey thus far.” [underline mine]

—Wilson, E.O. (1929– ), From so Simply a Beginning, p. 12, Norton, 2006.

Hmmm ... sounds like Mayr and Wilson - two very high-profile Evolutionists - also recognized a distinction between operational and historical science. Oops!


Not that I expect any retractions or apologies from the TWeb howlers
referred to above - they'd rather chew off the hind foot caught in the 'trap'. :hehe:

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
07-21-2014, 06:30 AM
Among my "made up definitions" is one that (of course!) has always been ridiculed and totally rejected at TWeb by the likes of Beagle Boy and all of his ideological comrades (O-Mudd, Rogue06, Santa Klaus, Terror ... etc ... etc.). Here I'm referring to the definition/difference between origins (or historical) science and operational science. You people have howled at that every time I post it, calling it a "Creationist invention" among other things.

Jorge

No you weren't Jorge. You were touting your stupid made-up definitions of 'evolution' and 'Evolution'. That's the blunder you just got called on again. You cowardly attempt to change the subject is noted though.

rogue06
07-21-2014, 08:28 AM
Among my "made up definitions" is one that (of course!) has always been ridiculed and totally rejected at TWeb by the likes of Beagle Boy and all of his ideological comrades (O-Mudd, Rogue06, Santa Klaus, Terror ... etc ... etc.). Here I'm referring to the definition/difference between origins (or historical) science and operational science. You people have howled at that every time I post it, calling it a "Creationist invention" among other things.

Of course, I know well that in saying this you people are displaying either ignorance or dishonesty (my vote goes to the latter since my multiple posts and explanations should have pulled you out of the state of 'ignorance' long ago).

But let's just say, for a moment, that I'm the one who is wrong; i.e., this distinction is a "Creationist invention", etc. Okay, so let's see a couple of quotes from two very high-profile Evolutionists:

“For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”

—Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005), Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.


“If a moving automobile were an organism, [U]functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history—how it came to be made and its journey thus far.”

—Wilson, E.O. (1929– ), From so Simply a Beginning, p. 12, Norton, 2006.

Hmmm ... sounds like Mayr and Wilson - two very high-profile Evolutionists - also recognized a distinction between operational and historical science. Oops!


Not that I expect any retractions or apologies from the TWeb howlers
referred to above - they'd rather chew off the hind foot caught in the 'trap'. :hehe:

Jorge
Um, no.

As I have pointed out evolution is indeed considered a "historical science" in contrast to "experimental science." Your quotes confirm this.

Here is what I posted on the "It's official: ID really is creationism" thread (pay particular attention to the underlined part:



I have tried but fools such as yourself continue resisting what is OBVIOUS to even a Middle-School teenager. Briefly ...

AGAIN: there is operational/observational science and then there is historical science...

Let's stop right here.

[U]"Operational science" is actually is a term coined by Ken Ham and his cronies over at AnswersinGenesis (AiG) and used in their opposition to the Big Bang (kind of ironic considering how many atheists opposed it considering its religious implications), abiogenesis and evolutionary theory and is not considered a valid scientific term. What historical science can, and has, been compared to is "experimental science" which is a different kettle of fish as the term is used quite differently by philosophers of science than how evolution deniers utilize "operational science."

Philosophers of science consider both historical and experimental science as entirely valid and that various scientific disciplines and fields can employ both approaches. Moreover, they do not assert that one approach is more valid or empirically verifiable than the other which is the opposite of what YECs try to imply.

From the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA - a Christian organization of scientists with the stated purpose of "investigat[ing] any area relating Christian faith and science" and makes a point of "not tak[ing] a position when there is honest disagreement between Christians on an issue"):


Attack the Reliability of Historical Sciences

"Even though we cannot directly observe events in the ancient history of nature, can we by a logical analysis of historical evidence reach reliable conclusions about what happened in the past, on the earth and in other parts of the universe? Most young-earth creationists say NO. They challenge the credibility of all historical sciences that claim the evidence indicates an old earth and universe. They ask 'Were you there? Did you see it?', and imply that 'no' means 'then you can't know much about it.' Their skepticism about historical science is similar to the postmodernism of radical relativists who challenge the reliability of all science by claiming that scientific evidence is always inadequate, so the conclusions of scientists must be determined by their nonscientific beliefs. But despite this postmodern skeptical relativism, when we ask "is historical science reliable?" it's easy to answer "yes" and here is why. Although historical data is limited, since we cannot do controlled lab experiments, historical science is empirical (based on observations) with plenty of observations available, and scientists have developed methods to reduce the practical impact of data limitations. Occasionally there are rational reasons for caution, but in most areas (and for all important questions about age) most scholars who carefully examine the methods of historical science will confidently agree that 'historical sciences [in fields like geology, radiometric dating, and astronomy] have a solid foundation — the logical evaluation of empirical evidence — that provides a reliable way to learn about the history of nature.' (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/histsci.htm#i)"

Source (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/agelogic-cr.htm)


And from another source:


"Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled laboratory settings, historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided. First, the reputed superiority of experimental research is based upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism or falsificationism) that are deeply flawed, both logically and as accounts of the actual practices of scientists. Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained."

Source (http://web.archive.org/web/20130319072441/http://spot.colorado.edu/~cleland/articles/Cleland.Geology.pdf)


As an aside I should note that trying to determine how particular historical events occurred (historical science) is the basis of forensic sciences -- something I don't think YECs ever complain about when it is used to convict someone of a crime.

Furthermore, when scientists do make a distinction between historical science and research that is aimed at identifying laws (experimental science) they aren't declaring that there exists a neat clean line between them or saying, as noted above, that one is more reliable than the other.


1.4 Historical Particulars and General Laws

Some sciences try to discover general laws; others aim to uncover particular sequences of historical events. It isn't that the "hard" sciences only do the former and the "soft" sciences strive solely for the latter. Each broad discipline contains subareas that differ in how they emphasize one task or the other.

...

Laws take the form of if/then statements. Isaac Newton's universal law of gravitation says that the gravitational attraction between any two objects is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The law does not say that the universe contains two, four, or any number of objects. It just says what would be true if the universe contained objects with mass.

In contrast, astronomers typically will be interested in obtaining information about a unique object. Focusing on a distant star, they might attempt to infer its temperature, density, and size. Statements that provide information of this sort are not if/then in form. Such statements describe historical particulars and do not state laws.

This division between nomothetic ("nomos" is Greek for law) and historical sciences does not mean that each science is exclusively one or the other. The particle physicist might find that the collisions of interest often occur on the surface of the sun; if so, a detailed study of that particular object might help to infer the general law. Symmetrically, the astronomer interested in obtaining an accurate description of the star might use various laws to help make the inference.

Although the particle physicist and the astronomer may attend to both general laws and historical particulars, we can separate their two enterprises by distinguishing means from ends. The astronomer's problem is a historical one because the goal is to infer the properties of a particular object; the astronomer uses laws only as a means. Particle physics, on the other hand, is a nomothetic discipline because the goal is to infer general laws; descriptions of particular objects are only relevant as a means.

The same division exists within evolutionary biology. When a systematist infers that human beings are more closely related to chimps than they are to gorillas, this phylogenetic proposition describes a family tree that connects three species. The proposition is logically of the same type as the proposition that says that Alice is more closely related to Berry than she is to Carl ... Reconstructing genealogical relationships is the goal of a historical science.


Sober continues by noting that some evolutionary biologists are utilizing the sort of mathematical modeling that isn't historical in this sense, but in fact instead seeks after the type of general "if-then" statements which include scientific laws. IOW, evolutionary theory is really both a "nomothetic" science as well as being an historical science.

Critics of historical science either don't realize or ignore the fact that it still makes predictions that can be tested. This means that in a way all science is historical science. As theoretical physicist and cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss explains


We make observations about past events, based on everything from data gathered in the laboratory yesterday to remnants of phenomena, like meteor impacts or stellar explosions, which may have happened billions of years ago. We then use them to make predictions about the future, about experiments or observations that have not yet taken place. To quibble about how long ago the original data was generated is to miss the point.

Source (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/02/why-the-one-appealing-part-of-creationism-is-wrong.html?mbid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true)


IOW, all science is historical science, it is just that some events occurred very recently, and some occurred very long ago.

Krauss cites several examples to support his contention one of which involves plate tectonics and continental drift. He notes that the latter is measurable and points out that "given the measurements and the current shape of continents, one can speculate that, in the distant past, at periods determined by measurements made using modern physics and chemistry, which allow us to model the dynamics of the crust and the mantle of Earth, the currently existing continents were fused together, apparently several times, in a supercontinent."

Of course such a theory will lead to predictions that can be checked such as if this is correct we should be able to find identical geological structures at the edges of the current continents that were once fused and notes that this is the case.

And if someone still insists on criticizing historical science consider the observation made by KBertsche in a post concerning the Ham/Nye debate earlier this year:



In fact, some areas of "observational" science (e.g. particle physics) are much more indirect and "iffy" than some areas of "historical" science.

Finally, I find it incredibly ironic that for all the carping that evolution deniers do about historical science, Casey Luskin, the vocal Intelligent Design proponent, seeks to legitimatize ID by proclaiming that "Intelligent Design Is a Historical Science, Just Like Darwinian Evolution (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/intelligent_des_4065891.html)."

Fail better.

rogue06
07-21-2014, 08:37 AM
No you weren't Jorge. You were touting your stupid made-up definitions of 'evolution' and 'Evolution'. That's the blunder you just got called on again. You cowardly attempt to change the subject is noted though.
Jorge has created his own personal definitions for many different words -- including but not limited to "Macroevolution," "Methodological Naturalism," "Distort," "Religion" and prefers his "GToE” (General Theory of Evolution – containing the Big Bang, abiogenesis, plate tectonics, natural star formation and extra-solar planets) -- and gets peeved if everybody doesn't immediately accept them.

klaus54
07-21-2014, 10:29 AM
Jorge,

Your input on the "Literal Genesis 1:3" thread would be most appreciated.

Thanks!

K54

klaus54
07-21-2014, 10:37 AM
Among my "made up definitions" is one that (of course!) has always been ridiculed and totally rejected at TWeb by the likes of Beagle Boy and all of his ideological comrades (O-Mudd, Rogue06, Santa Klaus, Terror ... etc ... etc.). Here I'm referring to the definition/difference between origins (or historical) science and operational science. You people have howled at that every time I post it, calling it a "Creationist invention" among other things.
....


Argument by neologism...

...Ah, forget it. You wouldn't understand anyway.

K54

Omniskeptical
07-21-2014, 12:30 PM
Evolution is not a science. It is a theory of biology at best.

Omniskeptical
07-21-2014, 12:36 PM
Among my "made up definitions" is one that (of course!) has always been ridiculed and totally rejected at TWeb by the likes of Beagle Boy and all of his ideological comrades (O-Mudd, Rogue06, Santa Klaus, Terror ... etc ... etc.). Here I'm referring to the definition/difference between origins (or historical) science and operational science. You people have howled at that every time I post it, calling it a "Creationist invention" among other things.

Of course, I know well that in saying this you people are displaying either ignorance or dishonesty (my vote goes to the latter since my multiple posts and explanations should have pulled you out of the state of 'ignorance' long ago).

But let's just say, for a moment, that I'm the one who is wrong; i.e., this distinction is a "Creationist invention", etc. Okay, so let's see a couple of quotes from two very high-profile Evolutionists:

“For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”

—Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005), Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.


“If a moving automobile were an organism, [U]functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history—how it came to be made and its journey thus far.” [underline mine]

—Wilson, E.O. (1929– ), From so Simply a Beginning, p. 12, Norton, 2006.

Hmmm ... sounds like Mayr and Wilson - two very high-profile Evolutionists - also recognized a distinction between operational and historical science. Oops!


Not that I expect any retractions or apologies from the TWeb howlers
referred to above - they'd rather chew off the hind foot caught in the 'trap'. :hehe:

JorgeHow about concentrating on the difference between interpretational science versus operational science, Jorge? Wait you don't know enough science?

klaus54
07-21-2014, 04:21 PM
"A theory of biology" is not science.

Interesting.

K54

phank
07-21-2014, 04:54 PM
"A theory of biology" is not science.

Interesting.

K54But conversely, a theory of biology compatible with ideology rather than evidence IS science. In the creationist world, ideology defines evidence, so if a claim supports the ideology, it's evidence even if it's incorrect or outright fabricated. Facts conflicting with the ideology are not evidence, because they CANNOT be evidence. The ideology prohibits this.

So we're back to here:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/07/understanding-c-7.html

klaus54
07-21-2014, 05:25 PM
But conversely, a theory of biology compatible with ideology rather than evidence IS science. In the creationist world, ideology defines evidence, so if a claim supports the ideology, it's evidence even if it's incorrect or outright fabricated. Facts conflicting with the ideology are not evidence, because they CANNOT be evidence. The ideology prohibits this.

So we're back to here:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/07/understanding-c-7.html

Correct.

But if it wasn't obvious I was being sarcastic with OS's silly remark. Not sure if he's a completely scientifically illiterate or troll or both.

In any case, he doesn't understand the meaning of "theory" in science.

K54

Jorge
07-22-2014, 04:08 AM
Among my "made up definitions" is one that (of course!) has always been ridiculed and totally rejected at TWeb by the likes of Beagle Boy and all of his ideological comrades (O-Mudd, Rogue06, Santa Klaus, Terror ... etc ... etc.). Here I'm referring to the definition/difference between origins (or historical) science and operational science. You people have howled at that every time I post it, calling it a "Creationist invention" among other things.

Of course, I know well that in saying this you people are displaying either ignorance or dishonesty (my vote goes to the latter since my multiple posts and explanations should have pulled you out of the state of 'ignorance' long ago).

But let's just say, for a moment, that I'm the one who is wrong; i.e., this distinction is a "Creationist invention", etc. Okay, so let's see a couple of quotes from two very high-profile Evolutionists:

“For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”

—Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005), Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.


“If a moving automobile were an organism, [U]functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history—how it came to be made and its journey thus far.” [underline mine]

—Wilson, E.O. (1929– ), From so Simply a Beginning, p. 12, Norton, 2006.

Hmmm ... sounds like Mayr and Wilson - two very high-profile Evolutionists - also recognized a distinction between operational and historical science. Oops!


Not that I expect any retractions or apologies from the TWeb howlers
referred to above - they'd rather chew off the hind foot caught in the 'trap'. :hehe:

Jorge

"Not that I expect any retractions or apologies from the TWeb howlers
referred to above - they'd rather chew off the hind foot caught in the 'trap'."

Prediction fulfilled!!! :bravo:

WOW!!! :dizzy:

I just finished reading the responses to my post above. Talk about REVISIONIST HISTORY! I'm certainly not going to waste my time seeking the many posts (if the old TWeb posts were still here, these would number into the hundreds) where historical vs. operational science was ridiculed and called a "Creationist invention". Now, as if by magic, that never happened ... now it has to do with OTHER things that I've talked about.

Yes, of course, now why didn't I think of that? :doh:

I have indeed spoken of other things here such as 'evolution' vs. 'Evolution' and others. I've always made considerable efforts to make my meaning clear on these things - hundreds of posts. That you people refuse to accept the truth is your problem - don't try to make it mine.

Your childishly-transparent revisionism is hereby identified and exposed for all to see.
.
.
Time for another "break" from you people - I can only take so much. :no:

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
07-22-2014, 06:47 AM
I have indeed spoken of other things here such as 'evolution' vs. 'Evolution' and others. I've always made considerable efforts to make my meaning clear on these things - hundreds of posts. That you people refuse to accept the truth is your problem - don't try to make it mine.

Jorge

All these years and Jorge still doesn't get that "it's true because I said it's true!!" will never cut it in a scientific discussion. :lol:

klaus54
07-22-2014, 07:40 AM
All these years and Jorge still doesn't get that "it's true because I said it's true!!" will never cut it in a scientific discussion. :lol:

You forgot the "insult and retreat" strategy when he's run out of ammo (always with a little projection thrown in):



Your childishly-transparent revisionism is hereby identified and exposed for all to see.
.
.
Time for another "break" from you people - I can only take so much. :no:


K54

phank
07-22-2014, 12:52 PM
To be fair, Jorge does have a point. It's no accident that there are so many physicians who signed the famous "doubting Darwin" document. Physicians really are not concerned with the historical development of the liver or the immune system, they are only interested in the failure modes of these systems and appropriate techniques for addressing the failures. From the physician's point of view, the liver or immune system might just as well have been poofed into existence last Tuesday.

Where Jorge goes off the rails is in equating the lack of any need to understand the evolutionary history (for some purposes), with the nonexistence of any evolutionary history. Kind of like saying "I have no need to know where my car was manufactured, therefore I don't know where it was manufactured, therefore it was not manufactured at all but was rather miraculously brought into being all at once and nothing first.

Roy
07-22-2014, 01:26 PM
"A theory of biology" is not science.

Interesting.Is the interesting aspect that you omitted the indefinite article from "a science"?

Evolution can quite easily be science without being a science.

Just as Hooke's Law is science but not a science, smoked salmon is fish but not a fish, the immaculate conception is religion but not a religion, and ice-cream is cold but not a cold.

Roy

Jedidiah
07-22-2014, 01:27 PM
I don't appreciate the stuff Jorge posts any more than most of you. I wonder why you keep luring him back with insults and other belittling comments. If he is wrong just ignore him.

rogue06
07-22-2014, 01:39 PM
I don't appreciate the stuff Jorge posts any more than most of you. I wonder why you keep luring him back with insults and other belittling comments. If he is wrong just ignore him.
Think of mossy's "Guilty pleasures......... (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2761-Guilty-pleasures)" thread. :innocent:

klaus54
07-22-2014, 03:20 PM
I don't appreciate the stuff Jorge posts any more than most of you. I wonder why you keep luring him back with insults and other belittling comments. If he is wrong just ignore him.

Because he's the only one willing to enter a discussion on the physical inter.. ...err reading of Genesis 1.

Now he's failed miserably but HAS hinted that he knows the answer, but won't tell us since we're not worthy. Casting pearls before swine and that jazz.

And he's NOT wrong per se. He's NOT EVEN WRONG.

Oh, I did get one more YEC participant "Mr. Anderson" who said essentially "the plain reading of Ge 1:3 is plain and obvious. Don't ask YECs about plain stuff."

K54

P.S. I apologize. "Mr. Anderson" replied in my "Literal Ge 1:3" thread.

klaus54
07-22-2014, 03:25 PM
Is the interesting aspect that you omitted the indefinite article from "a science"?

Evolution can quite easily be science without being a science.

Just as Hooke's Law is science but not a science, smoked salmon is fish but not a fish, the immaculate conception is religion but not a religion, and ice-cream is cold but not a cold.

Roy

Just a clarification for the lurkers. The "A theory of biology is not science" are not my words but a quote from a fella who thinks cosmic rays come from the ground.

K54

klaus54
07-22-2014, 03:29 PM
To be fair, Jorge does have a point. It's no accident that there are so many physicians who signed the famous "doubting Darwin" document. Physicians really are not concerned with the historical development of the liver or the immune system, they are only interested in the failure modes of these systems and appropriate techniques for addressing the failures. From the physician's point of view, the liver or immune system might just as well have been poofed into existence last Tuesday.

Where Jorge goes off the rails is in equating the lack of any need to understand the evolutionary history (for some purposes), with the nonexistence of any evolutionary history. Kind of like saying "I have no need to know where my car was manufactured, therefore I don't know where it was manufactured, therefore it was not manufactured at all but was rather miraculously brought into being all at once and nothing first.

Correct. A professional driver doesn't have to understand how an internal combustion works, an auto mechanic doesn't need to know thermodynamics, and an electrician doesn't have to know Maxwell's Equations. Similarly, a physician doesn't have to understand (what creationist call) macroevolution to practice their art.

K54

Roy
07-22-2014, 04:04 PM
Just a clarification for the lurkers. The "A theory of biology is not science" are not my words but a quote from a fella who thinks cosmic rays come from the ground.I'm sure the lurkers are quite capable of determining for themselves that your so-called quote is nothing of the sort.

Omniskeptical is quite capable of making his own howlers. You shouldn't be inventing them for him.

Roy

klaus54
07-22-2014, 07:50 PM
I'm sure the lurkers are quite capable of determining for themselves that your so-called quote is nothing of the sort.

Omniskeptical is quite capable of making his own howlers. You shouldn't be inventing them for him.

Roy

I stand corrected. I was going from faulty memory.

Sorry, here is his/her quote which is equally risible:



Evolution is not a science. It is a theory of biology at best


If you can parse that into something sensible, be my guest.

Especially the "at best" part. Likely an indication he doesn't understand the meaning of "theory" in science.

I appreciate the distinction due to the presence or not of the indefinite article.

How would his quote translate into Russian?

K54

Omniskeptical
07-23-2014, 01:23 PM
"A theory of biology" is not science.

Interesting.

K54
It isn't a science; it's a theory. Stop being stupid.

Omniskeptical
07-23-2014, 01:25 PM
I stand corrected. I was going from faulty memory.How are you not stewpid?

HMS_Beagle
07-23-2014, 01:34 PM
It isn't a science; it's a theory. Stop being stupid.

Not "a" science but a scientific theory supported by consilient scientific evidence from hundreds of different scientific fields.

That makes it science. Period.

Stop with the stupid trolling.

Omniskeptical
07-23-2014, 01:42 PM
Not "a" science but a scientific theory supported by consilient scientific evidence from hundreds of different scientific fields.

That makes it science. Period.

Stop with the stupid trolling.It isn't science in the other sciences. It is a theory of biology.

HMS_Beagle
07-23-2014, 03:12 PM
It isn't science in the other sciences.

Of course it's science. How are you not stewpid?

Omniskeptical
07-24-2014, 06:25 AM
Of course it's science. How are you not stewpid?It isn't science in other sciences not biology. Wow, a troll question from Tiggy. I am so surprised. :wink:

Jorge
07-24-2014, 08:10 AM
Those of you that have been at TWeb for a while have heard me say it scores of times:
"Much of what is today sold as science is actually ideology - belief! - sold to the masses as "science". And people believe it because it comes with the authoritative credentials of individuals and institutions."

Look, it's all very simple: the average 'Joe' does not even comprehend a lot of the "science" that he hears about, much less critically analyze what it's saying and the ramifications.

Jorge

Just as an aside - tangentially connected to 'science' - I found an interesting headline this morning.

My (Biblical Creationist) science is easily able to explain this event - one just has to know what God says about Israel. The 'science' of the Materialist would have no explanation for this event and would likely pooh-pooh it as "irrational superstition". Yet undeniable is the fact that the people saying this are there, in person, observing the actual events first-hand. So which science is superior ... who shall we believe? :hehe:

“As one of the terrorists from Gaza was reported to say when asked why they couldn’t aim
their rockets more effectively: “We do aim them, but their God changes their path in mid-air.”"


FROM: http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/their-god-changes-path-of-rockets-in-mid-air/#YLQ2SyZBdYtD3Z7G.99

Interesting stuff! :read:

Jorge

Jorge
07-24-2014, 08:15 AM
Where Jorge goes off the rails is in equating the lack of any need to understand the evolutionary history (for some purposes), with the nonexistence of any evolutionary history. Kind of like saying "I have no need to know where my car was manufactured, therefore I don't know where it was manufactured, therefore it was not manufactured at all but was rather miraculously brought into being all at once and nothing first.

That is so utterly preposterous, so out-of-this-galaxy-wacky, that I am left speechless. :dizzy:

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
07-24-2014, 08:25 AM
My (Biblical Creationist) science is easily able to explain this event

Jorge

Since your (Biblical Creationist) science consists 100% of you pulling things out of your butt, of course it can "explain" anything and everything. :lol:

klaus54
07-24-2014, 11:03 AM
Just as an aside - tangentially connected to 'science' - I found an interesting headline this morning.

My (Biblical Creationist) science is easily able to explain this event - one just has to know what God says about Israel. The 'science' of the Materialist would have no explanation for this event and would likely pooh-pooh it as "irrational superstition". Yet undeniable is the fact that the people saying this are there, in person, observing the actual events first-hand. So which science is superior ... who shall we believe? :hehe:

“As one of the terrorists from Gaza was reported to say when asked why they couldn’t aim
their rockets more effectively: “We do aim them, but their God changes their path in mid-air.”"


FROM: http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/their-god-changes-path-of-rockets-in-mid-air/#YLQ2SyZBdYtD3Z7G.99

Interesting stuff! :read:

Jorge

Your point is not clear.

Why would the remark of a medieval-minded terrorist be of any value?

The fact that Hamas are incompetent schmucks is a better "naturalistic" reason.

K54

klaus54
07-24-2014, 11:16 AM
....
My (Biblical Creationist) science is easily able to explain this event - one just has to know what God says about Israel. The 'science' of the Materialist would have no explanation for this event and would likely pooh-pooh it as "irrational superstition". Yet undeniable is the fact that the people saying this are there, in person, observing the actual events first-hand. So which science is superior ... who shall we believe? :hehe:

“As one of the terrorists from Gaza was reported to say when asked why they couldn’t aim
their rockets more effectively: “We do aim them, but their God changes their path in mid-air.”"


FROM: http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/their-god-changes-path-of-rockets-in-mid-air/#YLQ2SyZBdYtD3Z7G.99

Interesting stuff! :read:

Jorge

I thought you had admitted that Biblical Creationism wasn't science?

K54

Jorge
07-24-2014, 12:56 PM
I thought you had admitted that Biblical Creationism wasn't science?

K54

You remind me of Terror, making one logical fallacy after another. Here, for example, your fallacy is that of Equivocation. I have indeed said (and maintain) that Biblical Creationism is not science any more than Materialism or Theistic Evolutionism are science. Our science is a PART of Biblical Creationism, not the same thing as Biblical Creationism (in the same sense as Mathematics is a part of Epistemology, not the same thing as Epistemology). Additionally, Biblical Creationist science is not the same 'science' as that of the Materialist or yours. The Biblical Creationist science is more encompassing and is based on a different set of presuppositions from that of Materialism. Your 'science' is restricted to the material domain and, as such, is limited, incomplete and, therefore, more prone to error.

No charge for the lesson.

Jorge

klaus54
07-24-2014, 01:17 PM
You remind me of Terror, making one logical fallacy after another. Here, for example, your fallacy is that of Equivocation. I have indeed said (and maintain) that Biblical Creationism is not science any more than Materialism or Theistic Evolutionism are science. Our science is a PART of Biblical Creationism, not the same thing as Biblical Creationism (in the same sense as Mathematics is a part of Epistemology, not the same thing as Epistemology). Additionally, Biblical Creationist science is not the same 'science' as that of the Materialist or yours. The Biblical Creationist science is more encompassing and is based on a different set of presuppositions from that of Materialism. Your 'science' is restricted to the material domain and, as such, is limited, incomplete and, therefore, more prone to error.

No charge for the lesson.

Jorge

When I asked you to give the Biblical "Scientific" Creationist interpretation of the first few verses of Genesis -- you refused, saying you could but you wouldn't because we weren't worthy.

Then you admitted the above, that Biblical "Scientific" Creationism wasn't a "science" just like "materialism" isn't a science.

Didn't make sense then. Doesn't make sense now.

You DO know what science is, don't you?

And using the Hamas terrorist's quote as some kind of "proof" of God's protection of Israel in a Biblically "scientific" manner is simply risible.

The "naturalist, materialist" explanation is far more realistic. 1) Hamas incompetence + 2) the IDF's "iron dome" defense.

Well, at least you tried another tack for a change.

K54

klaus54
07-24-2014, 01:19 PM
Apparently "Biblical Creationist Science" can throw in miracles as explanations whenever the need arises.

Far out!

K54

Quantum Weirdness
07-24-2014, 02:13 PM
Just as an aside - tangentially connected to 'science' - I found an interesting headline this morning.

My (Biblical Creationist) science is easily able to explain this event - one just has to know what God says about Israel. The 'science' of the Materialist would have no explanation for this event and would likely pooh-pooh it as "irrational superstition". Yet undeniable is the fact that the people saying this are there, in person, observing the actual events first-hand. So which science is superior ... who shall we believe? :hehe:

“As one of the terrorists from Gaza was reported to say when asked why they couldn’t aim
their rockets more effectively: ]“We do aim them, but their God changes their path in mid-air[/B].”"


FROM: http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/their-god-changes-path-of-rockets-in-mid-air/#YLQ2SyZBdYtD3Z7G.99

Interesting stuff! :read:

Jorge

Wouldn't that be the result of Israel's Iron Dome (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XbDDE35lF8)?

tabibito
07-24-2014, 02:16 PM
Wouldn't that be the result of Israel's Iron Dome (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XbDDE35lF8)?

No reliable source for the story seems to exist. It's just another of those net traps for the gullible.

Jorge
07-24-2014, 02:35 PM
Wouldn't that be the result of Israel's Iron Dome (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XbDDE35lF8)?

Not if you ask Hamas. Iron Dome has had success but the defensive results appear to be statistically greater than what Iron Dome is able to account for (hence the remark "... God changes their path.").

Jorge

Jorge
07-24-2014, 02:39 PM
No reliable source for the story seems to exist. It's just another of those net traps for the gullible.

Assuming that you are right about there not being a reliable source, it's then up to each of us personally to decide whether to grant it some validity or not. From what I know, I choose to grant it some validity just as I choose to grant zero validity to Eastern philosophies (again, based on what I know). You choose not to grant this story any validity. Fine, have a nice day.

Jorge

Jorge
07-24-2014, 02:42 PM
Apparently "Biblical Creationist Science" can throw in miracles as explanations whenever the need arises.

Far out!

K54

That is an absolutely ridiculous statement and you know it.
There is ample reason for me to avoid any discussions with you.
You seem to be fond of reminding me of this at every opportunity.
I guess I ought to thank you for those reminders. :smile:

Jorge

Roy
07-24-2014, 03:02 PM
Not "a" science but a scientific theory supported by consilient scientific evidence from hundreds of different scientific fields.

That makes it science. Period.It does. But it doesn't make it "a" science. Likewise, Brooklyn being part if the City of New York doesn't make Brooklyn "a" city; and Valentine steak braised with paprika and diced onions is definitely lamb, but not "a" lamb.

Klaus and you are misunderstanding Omni's serendipitous invocation of the fallacy of division.

Roy

HMS_Beagle
07-24-2014, 03:06 PM
It does. But it doesn't make it "a" science. Likewise, Brooklyn being part if the City of New York doesn't make Brooklyn "a" city; and Valentine steak braised with paprika and diced onions is definitely lamb, but not "a" lamb.

Klaus and you are misunderstanding Omni's serendipitous invocation of the fallacy of division.

Roy

I didn't say evolution was "a" science. In fact I said just the opposite. I think you didn't read Klaus' and my posts very well.

Roy
07-24-2014, 03:36 PM
I didn't say evolution was "a" science. In fact I said just the opposite. I think you didn't read Klaus' and my posts very well.I didn't say you said that.

Omniskeptical said evolution is not "a" science. You are now saying that evolution is not "a" science. Can you explain how that makes Omniskeptical stewpid, but you not stewpid?

Roy

HMS_Beagle
07-24-2014, 03:48 PM
I didn't say you said that.

Omniskeptical said evolution is not "a" science. You are now saying that evolution is not "a" science. Can you explain how that makes Omniskeptical stewpid, but you not stewpid?

Roy

AFAIK you've never had reading comprehension issues before. First time for everything I suppose. :ahem:

klaus54
07-24-2014, 05:20 PM
Wouldn't that be the result of Israel's Iron Dome (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XbDDE35lF8)?

How about this interpretation?

"God USED the Iron Dome to protect Israel."

This points out one of the major issues with Jorgian Theology. If God works THROUGH nature, this mediation is still God's work. E.g., origin of species via evolution (Let Earth bring forth life) or natural star formation or ....

I'm not asserting that's what's happening, rather that Jorge dismisses the possibility of intermediate divine causes.

And how on Earth would he consider direct divine intervention as "science"???

K54

klaus54
07-24-2014, 05:24 PM
Not if you ask Hamas. Iron Dome has had success but the defensive results appear to be statistically greater than what Iron Dome is able to account for (hence the remark "... God changes their path.").

Jorge

How is this Biblical "Science"???

Where did you get the statistic that the Iron Dome can't account for the paucity of Hamas missiles striking a strategic target?

You've really pulled a boner this time...

K54

Roy
07-25-2014, 02:37 AM
AFAIK you've never had reading comprehension issues before. First time for everything I suppose. :ahem:You're employing the :chicken: technique?

Roy

Jorge
07-25-2014, 09:14 AM
"Not that I expect any retractions or apologies from the TWeb howlers
referred to above - they'd rather chew off the hind foot caught in the 'trap'."

Prediction fulfilled!!! :bravo:

WOW!!! :dizzy:

I just finished reading the responses to my post above. Talk about REVISIONIST HISTORY! I'm certainly not going to waste my time seeking the many posts (if the old TWeb posts were still here, these would number into the hundreds) where historical vs. operational science was ridiculed and called a "Creationist invention". Now, as if by magic, that never happened ... now it has to do with OTHER things that I've talked about.

Yes, of course, now why didn't I think of that? :doh:

I have indeed spoken of other things here such as 'evolution' vs. 'Evolution' and others. I've always made considerable efforts to make my meaning clear on these things - hundreds of posts. That you people refuse to accept the truth is your problem - don't try to make it mine.

Your childishly-transparent revisionism is hereby identified and exposed for all to see.
.
.
Time for another "break" from you people - I can only take so much. :no:

Jorge

Another issue that I have posted about here on TWeb a number of times is that of "Junk DNA". In many previous posts (including the old TWeb) the RHH (Revisionist History Howlers) here either denied or revised the actual history of "Junk DNA". Then came the ENCODE results and the denials/revisions continued. Points for consistency, I guess.

Today I came across this study from Oxford University that should put an end to the denials and history revisions since the Oxford researchers flat-out, explicitly say what I had been reporting, namely, that Evolutionists use "Junk DNA" as evidence for the Evolutionary history of all species. Below is the article link with a few excerpts.

I won't even try to imagine what sort of backpedaling, distortions and concoctions will follow. :no:

DNA mostly 'junk?' Only 8.2 percent of human DNA is 'functional', study finds...
"'We found that 8.2% of our human genome is functional,' says Dr Lunter ... The rest of our genome is leftover evolutionary material, parts of the genome that have undergone losses or gains in the DNA code -- often called 'junk' DNA ... He adds: 'The fact that we only have 2.2% of DNA in common with mice does not show that we are so different. We are not so special."

"We are not so special" -- talk about religious ideology passing for science! :no:

In summary: these "intellectuals" are explicitly telling the world that 91.8% of the human genome is 'non-functional junk' that was left over from its Evolutionary history. Okay you deniers and revisionists - be sure to remember that.

Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140724141608.htm

Journal Reference: Chris M. Rands, Stephen Meader, Chris P. Ponting, Gerton Lunter. 8.2% of the Human Genome Is Constrained: Variation in Rates of Turnover across Functional Element Classes in the Human Lineage. PLOS Genetics, 24 Jul 2014 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004525

Jorge

phank
07-25-2014, 06:37 PM
I don't know if this noise even deserves any attempt at clarification.

--The term "junk" is widely regarded as an unfortunate selection, when "purpose as yet unknown" would have been much better.

--The notion of "function" has been used in wildly different contexts, from one extreme where "no function" and "unknown function" are equated, to the opposite extreme where "transcribed at all" is regarded as a "function" even if it can be shown to play no other role (that was the ENCODE definition of "functional"). Some genes build proteins, some carry messages, some throw switches, some DNA "functions" as spacers to line up chromosomes during replication to prevent frame shift errors. But the jury is pretty well in on pseudogenes, and on short sequences repeated millions of times.

--One measure of the utility of a DNA sequence is how well it is conserved over time. Big chunks of the genome are regarded as essentially nonfunctional since these chunks are not conserved, and mutations degrade them fairly rapidly without influencing the phenotype. A related measure is the fitness of offspring lacking some specific large chunk of DNA, which is quite common. If the offspring (and their offspring, for multiple generations) show no visible effect of any kind, chances are good the missing DNA sequence(s) served no useful function.

Jorge
07-26-2014, 03:35 AM
I don't know if this noise even deserves any attempt at clarification.

--The term "junk" is widely regarded as an unfortunate selection, when "purpose as yet unknown" would have been much better.

--The notion of "function" has been used in wildly different contexts, from one extreme where "no function" and "unknown function" are equated, to the opposite extreme where "transcribed at all" is regarded as a "function" even if it can be shown to play no other role (that was the ENCODE definition of "functional"). Some genes build proteins, some carry messages, some throw switches, some DNA "functions" as spacers to line up chromosomes during replication to prevent frame shift errors. But the jury is pretty well in on pseudogenes, and on short sequences repeated millions of times.

--One measure of the utility of a DNA sequence is how well it is conserved over time. Big chunks of the genome are regarded as essentially nonfunctional since these chunks are not conserved, and mutations degrade them fairly rapidly without influencing the phenotype. A related measure is the fitness of offspring lacking some specific large chunk of DNA, which is quite common. If the offspring (and their offspring, for multiple generations) show no visible effect of any kind, chances are good the missing DNA sequence(s) served no useful function.

Just as I had said (/ predicted) in my previous post:

"I won't even try to imagine what sort of backpedaling, distortions and concoctions will follow." :no:

Jorge

oxmixmudd
07-30-2014, 01:47 PM
Just as I had said (/ predicted) in my previous post:

"I won't even try to imagine what sort of backpedaling, distortions and concoctions will follow." :no:

Jorge

Pointing out your misunderstanding or general ignorance is not 'backpedaling', nor is it a 'distortion'. Although IF one is naive enough to believe that necessarily they understand everything correctly, then it will appear that way.

IOW, to simplify down to your level: Your own conception of the concept is flawed. Howver, given you believe that to be impossible, any corrections appear as distortions.

Imagine a fellow that believes himself to have perfect vision yet actually he sees at 20/400. Give him a pair of glasses, and he complains that the eye-ware is 'distorting' his world and presenting a 'false' version of reality.




Jim