Evolution is a Religion - VIII

Don't worry. I take your word for nothing as it is useless fabrications and misquotes.

You really ought to take the hint and disappear from these forums as no one believes anything that you erroneously claim.

 

Nope. You simply continue to deny the laws...

 

Nope. You link me to government agencies and pretty looking charts/graphs. Neither of those are science.

 

Nope, I’ve proven you have no ****ing idea what you’re talking about, and that your ignorance of science is intentional, as you’ve been given numerous links in an attempt to educate you.

 

Like I said, don't believe me, believe science.

You don't get to dictate which forums I participate in, or what I post on said forums. You are not a dictator.

 

Nope. What I have done is directly refuted your hilarious bullshit, with direct links to actual science.

 

Inversion Fallacy.

 

Hahahahaha hahahahaha it’s ****ing hilarious when you throw out terms and you have no ****ing idea what they mean

 

No, I am not a dictator. That appears to be a post that you desire.

As such, you have been relegated to the dustbin.

 

The law of gravitation did not come from "formalizing a theory". The laws of thermodynamics didn't come from formalizing a theory.

Laws and theories do not have the hierarchical relationship that you clearly stated earlier. They are two different things.

 

Who says ANYONE accepts this Pemba myth?

In fact, how many people have even HEARD of this nonsense?

 

You've probably heard of radiocarbon dating.

Well, there are numerous isotopes that decay and do so at different rates. Those interested in using them can select an appropriate radioisotope based on they type of material, surroundings, etc., as some work better than others for different date ranges, sample and site type. In the end, dates can be found with totally sufficient accuracy when used for purposes such as investigation of evolution.

There are world wide events that happened at dates that have been identified. For example, large volcanoes lay down a layer of identifiable and unique ash across the entire world. Those layers can be identified.

Dates of ice layers can be identified. Cores contain trapped air that can show air chemistry during ancient times.

This is just off the top. I'm sure others exist.

Plus, scientists do NOT depend on just one methodology. All methodologies plus broad site analysis can be combined to narrow and validate date ranges. An understanding of age, rock, strata, etc. can be built up for wide regions, making a likely date range evident even before serious analysis takes over.


One could disprove evolution if dating showed an order of life forms that did not conform with the requirements of evolution.

That is, every single fossil find is a test of the theory of evolution. If anyone could show that evolution is false, they would be more famous than Einstein. But, before you join the ranks of paleontologists, remember that gigantic stacks of fossils have been found, and they conform to the requirements of evolution.

 

An Inversion Fallacy is essentially projection.

 

Yes, they did.

I think you're confusing me with someone else.

Correct.

A theory is an explanatory argument. A law is the formalization of a theory.

The power of prediction does not exist in science. To gain that power, science must turn to a closed functional system (such as mathematics or logic).

This means that, in order for any theory of science to gain the power of prediction, it must be converted into a closed functional system. That process is called "formalizing" a theory. The result is called a "law".

A law is not the theory itself. The theory itself still exists and remains a theory. The law is simply the formalized representation of the theory into a closed functional system. The whole purpose is to give the theory the power of prediction.

 

Hilarious when you throw out terms you don’t k is the meaning to. Lol

 

I take issue with radiocarbon dating as well. It is based on nonscientific theory. It is also based on the assumption that particular decay rates are, and have always remained, constant.

It's just another example of humanity thinking they know more than they actually do...

 

Show me the theories you say were formalized.

No, this is NOT true. Evolution is a theory that is a foundation of all biology. Yet, no theory can be proven to be true. In the natural sciences, there isn't a way to prove a theory to be true.

The theory of evolution and the theory of relativity are highly powerful predictors and are used as such, yet no theory may be proven to be true.

In general, nature doesn't provide closed systems.

 

Well, I certainly don't accept any of that.

First, please note that carbon dating is not the only dating system based on decay. So, when you say you don't like THAT one, you are ignoring that there are many and that carbon is not being used outside of ranges where it does work.

Also as I pointed out, using a single dating mechanism to date an object is NOT how it is done.

And, I don't know why you think it isn't science.

 

In the case of the laws of thermodynamics, they come from the formalization of various theories relating to heat and work.

Unrelated to theory vs law.

 

All other similar methods have the same issue of being based on similar assumptions.

It isn't science because it isn't falsifiable.

 

My biggest point, the one I intended to make, was that noncritical acceptance of evolution despite its problems amounts to the same faith as any fundamentalist places in the Bible. I'm sorry I got diverted into other arguments.

 

Scientific law vs. theory and facts
Many people think that if scientists find evidence that supports a hypothesis, the hypothesis is upgraded to a theory and if the theory if found to be correct, it is upgraded to a law. That is not how it works at all, though. In fact, facts, theories and laws — as well as hypotheses — are separate parts of the scientific method. Though they may evolve, they aren't upgraded to something else.

"Hypotheses, theories and laws are rather like apples, oranges and kumquats: one cannot grow into another, no matter how much fertilizer and water are offered," according to the University of California. A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon; a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon. A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept, according to Kennesaw State University.

"There are four major concepts in science: facts, hypotheses, laws, and theories," Coppinger told Live Science.

Though scientific laws and theories are supported by a large body of empirical data, accepted by the majority of scientists within that area of scientific study and help to unify it, they are not the same thing.

"Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon; for example, Newton's Law of Gravity or Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment. These laws simply describe the observation. Not how or why they work, said Coppinger.

Coppinger pointed out that the Law of Gravity was discovered by Isaac Newton in the 17th century. This law mathematically describes how two different bodies in the universe interact with each other. However, Newton's law doesn't explain what gravity is, or how it works. It wasn't until three centuries later, when Albert Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity, that scientists began to understand what gravity is, and how it works.

"Newton's law is useful to scientists in that astrophysicists can use this centuries-old law to land robots on Mars. But it doesn't explain how gravity works, or what it is. Similarly, Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment describes how different traits are passed from parent to offspring, not how or why it happens," Coppinger said.

Another example of the difference between a theory and a law would be the case of Gregor Mendel. Mendel discovered that two different genetic traits would appear independently of each other in different offspring. "Yet Mendel knew nothing of DNA or chromosomes. It wasn't until a century later that scientists discovered DNA and chromosomes — the biochemical explanation of Mendel's laws. It was only then that scientists, such as T.H. Morgan working with fruit flies, explained the Law of Independent Assortment using the theory of chromosomal inheritance. Still today, this is the universally accepted explanation (theory) for Mendel's Law," Coppinger said.

The difference between scientific laws and scientific facts is a bit harder to define, though the definition is important. Facts are simple, basic observations that have been shown to be true. Laws are generalized observations about a relationship between two or more things in the natural world. The law can be based on facts and tested hypothesizes, according to NASA.



For example, "There are five trees in my yard" is considered a fact because it is a simple statement that can be proven. "The apples fall down from the tree in my back yard and not up" is a law because it describes how two things in nature behave that has been observed in a certain circumstance. If the circumstance changes, then the law would change. For example, in the vacuum of space, the apple may float upward from the tree instead of downward.

 

Sorry but a totally invalid comparison. Fundamentalists continue to believe in things that a demonstrably untrue.

And still waiting for your list of the problems with evolution.

 

Already put them out in this thread. Find 'em and read 'em. I'm done here.

 

Here is the deal. Those who believe in "Evolution" have no proof. They have "FAITH" that whomever told them about evolution was telling the truth.

My proof. There is the Scientic Method to prove a hypothetical brain fart comes to a theory and then fact. Evolution has not done this. Therefore. By conclusion, evolution is only faith. A hypothetical situation.

I don't mind if you believe it, just know what it is. If you think different, show any evidence - from science that has past the Scientific Method. Or...

You are just as religious as a man that walked on water, BECAUSE both are equally ridiculous...