Can those outside of science credibly speak about science?

Mammuthus, Congratulations, couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Leaving European shores for good?Mark

Hi Holmes,I was educated in the UK to A level standard, taking chemistry, physics & biology. No degree. But biology was always my thang. I am simply very interested in evolution & read as much as I can on the subject.I am limited, as you put it, by the fact that people like Mammuthus or Quetzal simply knows a shedload more than I about the subject. I could possibly point to the odd area that I have sampled more than they, perhaps palaeontology, for example. But then that's dodging the question slightly, Mammuthus isn't a palaeontologist by trade, so why would anyone expect him to be an expert on the subject? Of one thing I am sure, however, that there is nothing I can tell him about molecular biology.I don't have a professional level of knowledge in the subject is the short answer, I suppose.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Holmes, Not necessarily, but mostly I agree. Wasn't the aquatic ape hypothesis perfectly good science yet formulated by a non-scientist? I know it's not accepted mainstream science, nor do I find it particularly compelling, yet it deserved a better hearing from the scientific community rather than the derision that it actually received, because it was good science in that it adhered to the scientific method & supported its own claims.Perhaps that turns it on its head a bit. Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Mammuthus, Don't.....hold.....your.....breath.....Europe is the mother of all beaurocracies.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Faith, The strange paradox you find yourself in, is that it is creationists that have the flimsiest grasp of it. I am forever pointing out randmans fallacious logic, it seems. This statement underlines my point, above. You guys just don't know what logic is.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-03-2006 07:40 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Faith, It's not a conversation about the flood, it's a place where you are supposed to show the "staggering" evidence in support of it, rather than ad hoc excuses. You haven't even bothered to address the OP that torpedos what you thought was evidence.And you accuse evo's of pulling BS!? Please don't judge us by your logicless standards.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Faith, That's all you ever do, but when you claim to have evidence, you will be called on it. Do us all a favour, Faith, if you can't play big-boy's science supporting your position with evidence: Shut up & say nothing at all. It isn't begging the question because you don't have to assume the conclusion in order to accept the premises. Who's the idiot, Faith? Me, who knows what it is, or you, who are so ignorant of logic you are still misciting circular arguments?Aren't you embarrassed?Your god-glasses doesn't allow you to grasp the rather obvious truth that all science that makes correct predictions should not be dismissed as irrelevent. Don't you realise the utter hypocrisy & self-defeating absurdity of making a test of anything & then dismissing it as self-validating? Are Faraday's, Newtons, Boyles etc. areas of science to be dismissed because they are self validating? That is, the predicted data actually does exist?That's why you don't use a television, Faith, because all the science behind it is self validating. That's why you never take medicine, because all the science behind it is self-validating. That's why you never ride in a car, let alone a train or an aircraft. Those silly scientists are using self-validated theories, & you aren't fooled, are you? No people made correct hypotheses that when tested were validated, only to be dissmissed as self-validating by you!Even your beloved flood evidence, if you had any, would be self-validating, if you had any, that is.What a stupid, stupid thing to say. What you need, Faith, is a sense of shame."Cladistics & stratigraphy" works just like any other science, a prediction is made that is then validated by the data.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Modulus,She called my position idiotic, where were the mods then?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-05-2006 12:31 PM

Modulous,I would, if I thought pointing out Faith's favoured position would help. That she can evade, dodge, claim evidence at the same time saying she doesn't need it, be a hypocrite, unashamedly illogical, insult their opponents position, & then their opponents get admonished when they do a fraction of that.But it won't, so I won't.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Faith, You truly are the queen of dogma.Try following this simple point, go on, try: Got it yet?Try this then:"Cladistics & stratigraphy" works just like any other science, a prediction is made that is then validated by the data.Easy isn't it?The evidence I have provided is arrived at via the same method as the rest of science that you don't deny. Your position is hypocritical if you deny one thing for being self-validating, yet accept another, despite it being self-validating (your criteria).With me so far?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Faith, How so?1/ Does evolutionary theory predict a correlation between cladistics & stratigraphy?2/ Does that correlation exist?The answer to both 1 & 2 is YES, so who's kidding themselves?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't