Good news - evolution now accepted by majority of Americans!

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Obviously fossils cannot be dated by the carbon-14 method; never have been and never will; the point is that at one time it was claimed that evidence of dinosaur fossil age was proved by that method and I don't know whether it was bad science, bad scientists, bad science article writers or bad science textbook writers, but there it is, or was, and that's what the public believed.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Obviously fossils cannot be dated by the carbon-14 method; never have been and never will; the point is that at one time it was claimed that evidence of dinosaur fossil age was proved by that method and I don't know whether it was bad science, bad scientists, bad science article writers or bad science textbook writers, but there it is, or was, and that's what the public believed.
I am not sure where you are getting your example. You have a citation? It sounds like this is something you are misremembering from school.

Anyway, you haven't yet answered my question about the example above, which is an example of contemporary practice, and where it is incorrect in method or inference. If you are going to critique science, you have to get down to the specifics.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
You're a scientist and you don't understand how a single flaw in an empirical process faults the entire process result? That should be logical.

Right. That is exactly correct. If a scientist once made a mistake (which is common), then it was revealed and corrected by a later scientist (also common). That is how science works - it is inherently self-correcting. So, no, a single error does not invalidate the entire process because it is not constructed as a logical modus ponens. Science is an empirical process, not a logical structure that can topple because of some error.

That, incidentally, is another significant logical difference between science and other forms of knowledge, which typically are subject to logical collapse if underlying facts are falsified.
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
.... If you are going to critique science, you have to get down to the specifics.
1) No answer for the conflict between the evolution hypotheses (universal, not just species) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
2) No answer for the conflict between the Big Bang hypothesis and the accelerating expansion of the universe.
"Can't account for the conflict" is as specific as science can get? Well maybe how about "the observed conflict is real therefore there may be a flaw in the proposed hypothesis". As far as evolution goes science has descended into rigid ideology and is no longer in self-correcting mode. I'd call that bad science.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
1) No answer for the conflict between the evolution hypotheses (universal, not just species) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
2) No answer for the conflict between the Big Bang hypothesis and the accelerating expansion of the universe.
"Can't account for the conflict" is as specific as science can get? Well maybe how about "the observed conflict is real therefore there may be a flaw in the proposed hypothesis". As far as evolution goes science has descended into rigid ideology and is no longer in self-correcting mode. I'd call that bad science.

1. There is no conflict between the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and evolutionary biology in any form. What makes you think there is? Just because someone from the Discovery Institute said so?

2. The Accelerating Universe is acknowledged as an open question in astrophysics. Lots of questions were at one time unanswerable that later discoveries, theories, or technologies allowed us to understand. This is how it should be.

You still haven't offered a cogent critique of evolutionary biology, and also haven't addressed the question about the paleontological example above. Just calling evolutionary biology a 'rigid ideology' without a single specific example is not really a critique - just a vague accusation.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
1. There is no conflict between the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and evolutionary biology in any form. ....

You still haven't offered a cogent critique of evolutionary biology....
Your problem, @roscoe is that you're attempting to slide by the flaws in evolution in its broadest sense by trying to limit the critique you request to one very narrow branch of it. If the evolutionary fundamentals are flawed, then so is every little slice of it. I can't critique your little slice of evolution while ignoring its basic fundamental flaws. Doing such would be "bad science."
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
Your problem, @roscoe is that you're attempting to slide by the flaws in evolution in its broadest sense by trying to limit the critique you request to one very narrow branch of it. If the evolutionary fundamentals are flawed, then so is every little slice of it.

You have in no way demonstrated that the fundamentals of evolutionary science are flawed. You haven't even given a single solid statement about any specific aspect of it, other than some vague allusion to thermodynamics. I honestly don't know what your critique of it is. All I know is that you don't like it for some reason.
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
You have in no way demonstrated that the fundamentals of evolutionary science are flawed. You haven't even given a single solid statement about any specific aspect of it.
I've demonstrated two specific flaws and your mind is closed to them, therefore no point in any further discussion.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
I've demonstrated two specific flaws and your mind is closed to them, therefore no point in any further discussion.

I am honestly not aware you have demonstrated anything about evolution. Neither example really applies. Especially the one about the Expanding Universe. But you never showed how thermodynamics applies either.

It feels like you are avoiding getting into specifics; maybe, really, to avoid engaging the idea directly.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
It feels like you avoid getting into facts; maybe, really, to obfuscate the facts by engaging in ideas.

I listed multiple facts - genetics, radioactive decay, population variation, selection forces, geological superposition, among others.

What are your facts that I avoid?

Of course, I understand that you are being rhetorical to avoid engaging in the debate in any way that reveals your actual position. I put my cards on the table and explicitly showed the logic and facts I used. If you can't, then perhaps your position is suspect.
 
Last edited:

Airborne Falcon

New member
Science is not on the fence about this.

There are young-earth creationists, old-earth creationists, creationists who believe in micro-evolution, creationists who don't, etc., etc. And then there are Vedic creationists, Christian creationists, Hindu creationists, among many others, all of whom hold mutually incompatible origin beliefs.

And then there are the scientists, who all believe the same thing: evolution by natural selection.

You conveniently omitted Intelligent Design? Wonder why.

Or what about scientific evidence of simulation theory? Superintelligence? Have you read Nick Bostrom's book by chance?
 

roscoe

Well-known member
You conveniently omitted Intelligent Design? Wonder why.

Or what about scientific evidence of simulation theory? Superintelligence? Have you read Nick Bostrom's book by chance?
Intelligent design is a variation of creationism. They believe in micro-evolution and old Earth, normally, but there are different variations of it. Still, they are creationists because they believe that certain anatomical forms must have been 'designed' by an 'intelligent' creator. I am not sure of the 'convenience' of my omission of different schools of creationism, but there are really too many to discuss them all in detail. But if you are curious about one, pick it and and I shall.

Bogstrom has several books. Are you referring to his work on the 'Anthropic Principle'? I disagree generally with most versions of the 'anthropic principle'. They are a bit to teleological for me. All visible evidence suggests that life evolves to adapt to the conditions in the universe, not the other way around.
 
Last edited:

Airborne Falcon

New member
You're tap dancing Roscoe ... spouting the cliche definitions are not going to help you in this debate.

I mean you threw it out there and you knew some of us would probably not lay down for you ... so tap dancing is about to not work for you. Your claim that this new poll is a win for the U.S. of A is ..... telling.

And hold on a moment, lemme find it, I have it in my library.

:::::::::: pause ::::::::::

I'm talking about this book. You own a copy correct? You've read it (even though you spelled his name wrong) soooooo anyways, this is the book ....
 

Attachments

  • 16324473194872115698867099651891.jpg
    16324473194872115698867099651891.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 106

Airborne Falcon

New member
Intelligent design is a variation of creationism. They believe in micro-evolution and old Earth, normally, but there are different variations of it. Still, they are creationists because they believe that certain anatomical forms must have been 'designed' by an 'intelligent' creator. I am not sure of the 'convenience' of my omission of different schools of creationism, but there are really too many to discuss them all in detail. But if you are curious about one, pick it and and I shall.

Bogstrom has several books. Are you referring to his work on the 'Anthropic Principle'? I disagree generally with most versions of the 'anthropic principle'. They are a bit to teleological for me. All visible evidence suggests that life evolves to adapt to the conditions in the universe, not the other way around.

Oooooops, meant to give you an example that you requested; RE: "anatomical forms."

The human eye ... the human eye ball.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Oooooops, meant to give you an example that you requested; RE: "anatomical forms."

The human eye ... the human eye ball.

I think that you are a little mixed up on your arguments. That particular book I have not read, but on looking over its table of contents online, it is about the threat of Artificial Intelligence. It has nothing to go with evolution. His book on the Anthropic Principle conceivably does have something to do with the notion of a designed universe.

I do agree with him that AI is dangerous, since we would be unable to predict a machine's ethics, if it had any.

For questions over the evolution of the eyeball - that comes from a branch of intelligent design (itself a subset of creationism) called 'irreducible complexity'. That particular example has been trotted out occasionally by creationists unfamiliar with biology, and easily refuted. (In fact, Darwin spent quite a bit of ink discussing how the eye evolved in his first book, On the Evolution of Species, so this is not a new idea).

The eye has evolved several times over the history of the world, so we have lots of information about it. Read the links below, but before you do, look up the eyeballs of flatworms (planarians), nautiluses, and octopuses. See if those don't help you think about eye evolution.

And which clichés did I use? Tell me and I will certainly cast them from my lexicon pronto! They are a bane!

 
Last edited:
Top