|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
You never accepted the verdict.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
That was a miscarriage of justice. It will be overturned one day ... just like Roe v Wade was. Hey, we celebrated the Dover Verdict together, remember? The truth cannot be suppressed forever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Percy writes:
1.
Yes, you're absolutely right, scientifically we can't prove it.
Believe it or not, I am not a scientist, but it's my understanding that there's is a big difference between (a) a scientist claiming to "know" how such-and-such works, and (b) a scientist proposing a theory for how such-and-such works. (a) carries the burden of truth. I imagine that if a scientist publicly claims to "know" something, he is expected to prove to his peers that his claimed knowledge is in fact, true ... lest he be accused of intellectual fraud.(b) on the other hand, does not carry the burden of truth. If a scientist proposes a theory, he is not expected to prove to his peers that it's true. 2.If a scientist claims to "know" how evolution works, he must prove that he knows how evolution works in (a) real-time (the present), and (b) the past (the history of life as revealed by the fossil record). You admit that "scientifically we can't prove" that scientists know what process produced the changes evident in the fossil record. It follows therefore that since no scientist can satisfy (b), no scientist can claim to "know" how evolution works.
Scientifically we can't prove anything and never have.
That being so, how can a scientist claim to "know" how evolution works even in real-time if he can't prove anything?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
Like I said, a miscarriage of justice. Well, it stopped a group of religious fanatics from trying to indoctrinate other people's children. A sad day for truth, to be sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
providing an example of how the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor has contribted to the treatment of disease.AZPaul3 writes:
Tell me, good sir, is it
Because all life, as described and supported in the ToE, is of the same chemistry. That gives us a big insight into how and why disease, whether pathogenic or genetic, happens and may be treated.
(a) the genetic similarties between humans and other animals that have proven useful in medicine, or is it (b) the explanation for why those similarities exist (universal common ancestry) that has proven useful in medicine? It is my fervent hope that, upon reflection, you will come to the conclusion that it is (a) that has proven useful in medicine, and that that utility is indepedent of (b), which is actually useless and irrelevant.
You really are dumb
I completely agree.
God that has to suck.
It does ... but against all odds, I 've somehow managed to survive all these years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
The truth of divine creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
It's possible that your assessment contains an element of truth.
have no idea how courts work in the US do you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
If you take "due to universal common ancestry" out of that sentence, you are left with ... It's the genetic similarities due to universal common ancestry between humans and other animals that have proven useful in medicine. "It's the genetic similarities between humans and other animals that have proven useful in medicine." The "due to universal common ancestry" is irrelevant. Medicine doesn't need to know what produced the genetic similarities to make use of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Okay, well since science doesn't prove anything, how can a scientist claim to "know how evolution works"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Okay, well since science doesn't prove anything, how can a scientist claim to "know how evolution works"?xongsmith writes:
So if a scientist says "I know how such-and-such works...", he actually means "I know a theory for how such-and-such works"? If so, that sounds like a misuse of the word "know" to me. Please show me a dictionary definition of "know" that includes the word"tentatively" or "theory".
tentatively. holding the place for the way it happens until something better comes along. Einstein did not disprove Newton - he improved the Theory. a replacement theory has to completely describe what the former theory has already done, plus explain a little bit more.
Here's one dictionary definition of "know":
to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty Please explain how "tentatively" or "theory" can be reconciled with "fact ... truth ... certainty".
right now there is very left to explain about how evolution works.
Really? "evolution" includes the evolution that allegedly produced the history of life on earth as revealed by the fossil record ... so please explain how, for example, an amphibian's double-circulation heart (allegedly) evolved from the single-circulation heart of a fish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Percy writes:
It's a serious question. How can a scientist claim to "know how evolution works" if science doesn't prove anything?
I can't tell if you're joking or just being a troll or are just an idiot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Deleted
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
vimesey writes:
Who's conning whom? In future, whenever I hear a scientist claiming to "know" something, I will bear in mind that what he really means is, "I don't actually know ... but I'm pretty sure". I'm not aware of any dictionary that supports the "scientific definition" of that word. When we say scientists know something, we are not saying they've proved it - we are saying they have mountains of evidence to demonstrate the validity of the relevant hypotheses. You have nothing other than a conman's word games. And I suppose it's safe to assume that the scientific interpretation of "knowledge" is as misleading and unorthodox as their use of "know". I hope the law courts are aware that if a scientist takes the stand and says "I know the defendent stole my car", what he really means is, "I'm pretty sure the defendent stole my car".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Here's one dictionary definition of "know":to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty nwr writes:
To a scientist it must look like a terrible definition! That's a poor definition of "know". I mean, words like "fact ... truth ... certainty" are a world away from the scientific definition of "know" - which is something like "I"m pretty sure I know" or "I think I know" or "according to my theory".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
654
dwise1 writes:
Yep ... who the hell cares what the dictionary says or how 99.99999% of the population interpret a word, when you can hijack a word like "know" a put your own spin on it?
Argumentum ad dictionario is one of the stupidest fallacies committed by evil creationist trolls.
The moment that one starts to try to change reality by redefining (and twisting and distorting) the meanings of words, then we know exactly what kind of lying, deceiving low-life we're dealing with (eg, apologists, creationists, theologians, lawyers).
Oh, the irony!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024