Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,911 Year: 4,168/9,624 Month: 1,039/974 Week: 366/286 Day: 9/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist scientific methods
Jester4kicks
Junior Member (Idle past 5525 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 06-17-2008


Message 29 of 31 (476163)
07-21-2008 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Syamsu
07-21-2008 3:36 PM


Re: In comparison: creation science and mainstream science
quote:
But I can ask you the same, is there any evidence whatsoever that natural selection occurs? Because natural selection as far as I understand Taborsky, does not take place except in the minds of Darwinists.
  —Syamsu
Nonsense.
Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia
Page Unavailable - ABC News
It should be noted that these are relatively-small changes. Major changes caused by natural selection take MUCH longer to become evident and truly distinctive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Syamsu, posted 07-21-2008 3:36 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Jester4kicks
Junior Member (Idle past 5525 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 06-17-2008


Message 30 of 31 (476166)
07-21-2008 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Syamsu
07-21-2008 4:19 PM


Re: In comparison: creation science and mainstream science
quote:
As before, your ideas about decisions / freedom, are proven false by science. Show some concern for having correct knowledge about fundamental things, why not?
  —Syamsu
I'm still trying to understand how you came to this conclusion. I've read your OP(s) several times, and I'm still not seeing through the haze of your distorted logic.
It seems you do have an unhealthy perception of science and the idea that things are explained "100%". Science certainly makes predictions about what will happen under certain circumstances... and when those predictions are not absolutely on the mark (which frequently happens), there is a process for examining the method and the data to determine where the error came from. It's not a matter of percentages though. Let's say one experiment produces a result that is 91% of the prediction... scientists don't say "ok, we have to account for exactly 9%". They examine the data, and look for areas where additional variables could have affected the experiment. If a variable is found, they will probably isolate and remove the variable to see what happens. This happens a LOT... it's expected and it's just part of the process.
Did you get that? We're talking about a field where error and multiple tests are simply an expectation. If science is anything, it is perfect because of its imperfection!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Syamsu, posted 07-21-2008 4:19 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024