|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 528 days) Posts: 5 From: Austin Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
Prove it or zip it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
Reverting to making false claims now, aren't you?
As to be expected from an evolutionist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
Where is your proof?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
Who asked you to explain science? You are a noob.
Just because you think it's the only way to do science, which is debatable, does not mean that you know how to handle it. You are full of ignorance if you think the methods are perfect and flawless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
You prove again that you are noob. Science is not flawless. That is fact. If you refuse to accept that, then you are noob.
We use the tools that we have. We should be aware of its strengths and weaknesses. You are such an extremist fool who fails to understand this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
I reject unsubstantiated claims that you make in the name of science. And I reject your misrepresentation of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
Einstein used thought experiments. Physicists build mathematical models for quantum fields and particle interactions. Are those methods not science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
You made claims that your model is correct because it is best fit. You seem to forget that a model is usually an estimate of some unknown. So even if you followed all the correct steps, which I doubt, it's still only a model.
Science does not work the way you present it here. We use models, and there is nothing wrong with that. But you take it too far, claiming that the models are absolute truth or something. They are not!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
I have nothing against using models and testing as tool. I have something against people drawing false conclusions from it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
Wrong. I reject your conclusions. Not the method of using models and predictions as one of the tools.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
You evolutionists seem to be doing it all the time here, claiming that the model is correct without doubt, because it fits data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
Wrong again. Your claim that a good fit means that the model is the best, that is poor logic.
Maximum likelihood estimates are not always best, for example. That does not mean that I'm against maximum likelihood methods in general. That means that I understand the methods and their strength and weaknesses, while you just make poor claims about them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
If you only said that for the specified set of data, this hypothesis gives the best fit, then that would be fine. But you go further and claim that evolution universal common ancestry is a certainty.
That is not science. That is biased tunnel vision. I reject that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
Wrong. You don't seem to care about truth. But we knew that already.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
This answers your message 377.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024