wiscoaster
Well-known member
temporal disjoint..., "there was a time when it was accepted". It isn't.
temporal disjoint..., "there was a time when it was accepted". It isn't.
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.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.
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.
1) No answer for the conflict between the evolution hypotheses (universal, not just species) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics..... 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.
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."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've demonstrated two specific flaws and your mind is closed to them, therefore no point in any further discussion.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.
It feels like you avoid getting into facts; maybe, really, to obfuscate the facts by engaging in ideas.It feels like you are avoiding getting into specifics; maybe, really, to avoid engaging the idea directly.
It feels like you avoid getting into facts; maybe, really, to obfuscate the facts by engaging in ideas.
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.
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.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.
?????They didn't ask me...
Oooooops, meant to give you an example that you requested; RE: "anatomical forms."
The human eye ... the human eye ball.
I do not buy into Darwinian evolution. Humans have always been humans. Though Homo Sapien Sapien is relatively new, we did not evolve from the apes. Micro evolution absolutely happens. Everywhere everyday. Macro evolution is another matter entirely that I don't buy into.?????
What we need to do is stay calm, anticipate that third parties will register and post seditious material to justify shutting this site down, and REPORT THEM IMMEDIATELY.
Again, I know it feels like the Republic is lost. It may be. But for now, on this site, please for the love of God stay calm, speak rationally, and hope for .... better judgement from our leaders in the future.
The coming days and weeks (likely after the 20th) will be easier, but for now we need to be on the best possible behavior. Please. :)