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:
Top