Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's invalid because it is subjective evidence and not objective evidence.

Evidence, is an interpretation, which is always subjective. Then there is strong or weak evidence...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Just because you can find a smart guy or three to agree with you doesn't make you necessarily correct.

Congratulations, you've just described the peer review process.

a reply to: cooperton


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

Well you fixed the "unsourced" part. Awesome, that still doesn't make it valid evidence though.


What makes it invalid? These are nobel prize winners. Is it invalid because it doesnt fit with your material reductionist worldview?
edit on 11-3-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)


"Valid" evidence, or hard evidence, is research that's repeatable by another scientist. You never post citations so no one can actually determine what your "valid" evidence is. The scientists received the Nobel Prize based on repeatable experiments and not on their opinions.

You never post citations on any topic which leads me to believe that you simply wash over the literature and draw your own conclusions without actually understanding the material. Post some citations which support your position and then everyone can discuss it.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's invalid because it is subjective evidence and not objective evidence.

Evidence, is an interpretation, which is always subjective. Then there is strong or weak evidence...

False. There is a clear difference between objective and subjective evidence.

Difference Between Objective and Subjective

Definition of Objective and Subjective
Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.
Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Just because you can find a smart guy or three to agree with you doesn't make you necessarily correct.

Congratulations, you've just described the peer review process.

Nice try, but no.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
False. There is a clear difference between objective and subjective evidence.

I've never heard of this distinction, so if you wouldn't mind explaining what you mean, that would be nice.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Read my edit.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Okay, you made the edit after my reply to show the difference between objective and subjective. There is no objective that we can know for certain, only an agreed upon interpretation based on the parameters set forth. Call it the "rules" if you will.

Even mathematical formulas can be fudged to reveal desired results.

a reply to: cooperton

The double slit experiment demonstrated that the conscious observer causes a particle that normally would behave like a wave (light) into behaving like a particle. Without the observer consciously analyzing the quantum moment, light continues to behave like a wave. Schroedinger simplified this observation with his cat analogy. If a cat is in a box with radioactive poison, is it dead or alive? Quantum physics tells us that the case is neither, but rather, the cat exists in a probabilistic wave-state until the conscious observer makes an observation inside the box.

The wave nature of light causes the light to behave as it does in the experiment. Please consult a proper physics book.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Okay, you made the edit after my reply to show the difference between objective and subjective. There is no objective that we can know for certain, only an agreed upon interpretation based on the parameters set forth. Call it the "rules" if you will.

Even mathematical formulas can be fudged to reveal desired results.

It's certainly FAR more reliable than any subjective evidence and not to mention has produced considerable amounts of results using that evidence. All of modern society is built up because of science and objective evidence. So clearly it isn't as flawed as you are trying to make it out to be. It isn't perfect, but nothing is perfect and trying to pretend like imperfection means it isn't worth anything is logically dishonest.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Strawman much?
Do you normally make it a habit of putting words in people's mouths?
Who said anything about "flawed" or that the lack of perfection as you said makes the scientific endeavor not worth it?

Stop being so sensitive.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Strawman much?
Do you normally make it a habit of putting words in people's mouths?
Who said anything about "flawed" or that the lack of perfection as you said makes the scientific endeavor not worth it?

Stop being so sensitive.

Ok. So why are you splitting hairs over objective evidence also being possibly flawed then if not to question its usefulness?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Nobody defines what science is

Then how does anyone know what it is?

If I am to believe in evolution, I need a key part of life establishing itself answered

Who cares what some nasty little green frog on the internet believes? Not I.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

...see those twinkly things in the sky? They are dead. They burned out long before the last of their rays reached our planet. Do we influence those stars by watching them? Interesting hypothesis.

That isn't exactly true. Almost all the stars we see in the sky are within a sphere of about 1,000 light years, with a few up to about 8,000 light years distant +-.

The stars we see are probably almost all still there, just not in exactly the position we see them at.

Of course it has no bearing on the argument, just correcting a small point.

a reply to: Jonjonj

The discussion fell off track a while ago anyway. Probably because the title itself is fallacy and bait. The deal here is quite simple: those who understand the evidence or want to educate themselves, dont need convincing. Those who do not, will never be convinced and may make a game out of it (like this thread).

But I guess if you have the time to waste...

a reply to: TzarChasm

I have seen those threads, took part in one or two. Backed out quickly as there is nothing to be gained. You can not help someone who doesn't want help.

I mentioned the stars thing because it is a common internet misconception, that is all.

a reply to: Raggedyman

The truth of evolution is not a monkey or a fish, ultimately our common ancestor was dirt and water

Correct; hydrogen and oxygen make water; carbon, mixed with water, nitrogen, and a dash of phosphorus (when mixed with silicon) make mud. Just shake together, expose to ultraviolet radiation for a few million years and voila! organic life. After that, the molecules do their thing, are subjected to environmental stresses and evolution kicks into full gear. It's almost as if there is some sort of God who designed it all. (Or not.)

originally posted by: Phantom423

"Valid" evidence, or hard evidence, is research that's repeatable by another scientist.

Such as the double slit experiment? It's been repeated countless times. Fact: observing light waves at the quantum level cause it to behave like a particle. Follow-up experiments found the conscious observer even has an effect on the interference pattern of the light (wave):

The Effect of Consciousness on Light Patterns

Consciousness is the basis of reality. I am, and so are you.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
There is a clear difference between objective and subjective evidence.

It is an objective truth that light-waves collapse into particles upon observation. My subjective opinion is that light is the foundation, whereas the workings of the 3D are like shadows resembling the higher workings of the 4D light: The preassembled creation is eagerly awaiting the awakening of the children of light.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

"Valid" evidence, or hard evidence, is research that's repeatable by another scientist.

Such as the double slit experiment? It's been repeated countless times. Fact: observing light waves at the quantum level cause it to behave like a particle. Follow-up experiments found the conscious observer even has an effect on the interference pattern of the light (wave):

The Effect of Consciousness on Light Patterns

Consciousness is the basis of reality. I am, and so are you.

Actually, it is an interesting topic. Certainly worth delving into. As a bench scientist, I tend to think in terms of verifiable evidence - you don't bring a new drug to market without a lot of testing, data analysis and statistical studies. But I see your point.

originally posted by: cooperton

The Effect of Consciousness on Light Patterns

There is something to the idea of consciousness. I firmly believe that, as I use it to type this sentence...

But you're citing a paper supported by the Institute of Noetic Sciences. Don't a lot of folks consider this to be a less than credible organization?

originally posted by: cooperton

The preassembled creation is eagerly awaiting the awakening of the children of light.

What does this mean, scientifically speaking?

a reply to: cooperton

Sorry Coop, that's a common misconception about quantum mechanics. It is not consciousness itself that changes anything, it's the electron microscopes that observe it on that level that interfere with some of the particles causing them to behave that way. Did you honestly believe that it was the mere act of looking at it with the naked eye?