Debate still rages over Darwin

Originally posted by Aermacchi

making them up? I tell you what noob, how much would you like to bet me that I will debate macro evolution with you and if I win, YOU leave this forum never to grace us with your hair splitting line by line convoluted facts again. If I lose, Ill leave, never to point out your garbled mis-quoted, attempts to malign creationists again.

ok we use a deffintion of macro evolution we both agree on and is currently scientifically accurate for more then jut palentology. The first one to stray into misinformation, general nonsense or gish-galloping off topic loses

.....hmm can i trust you to leave and never return though .....

Originally posted by noobfun


well as im sure everyone here would love nothing more for this to become a

"Noobfun broke my bad science and keeps pointing out the stuff i make up so im gonna whine like a bitchy little school girl and demand attention so i can feel supperior" thread, the simple truth is this thread already has a title and is dedicated to somthing else

maybe you should go make your own thread and send us all invites to come and enjoy it and let this thread get back on track

beside mod dont like people derailing threads an making entire pots of personal attacks, I am rather fond of this account and dont feel like making a new one. but carry on if you really feel the need your already on your second ..or is it third account ?

Hence the reasons I am wise to your suggestions giving the mods a reputation to live up to about off topic posts, but again, I remind you noob, inspite of calling me a bitch and all that other "stuff" you said.

I think you underestimate the Mods Noobfun, and I have taken pains to avoid having you bait me into degrading this thread into an emotional tit for tat argument. If you notice, my posts were addressing your statments, when I don't, you claim I am too afraid to engage you in debate and when I do you claim I am trying to derail the thread. I( suggest if you don't like off topic posts coming from me, you stop making off topic personal attacks. It is pretty simple really.

I see your last post to me was just one HUGE personal attack again, having nothing to do with the thread and that isn't my fault.

I offered to take you on in a more formal setting where your immature and manipulative suggestions to Mods won't get in the way. I even offered to relinquish my account if I lose. I think it would be interesting to see you debate me in such a strict forum arena where the tenets of your Darwinism can be debated without all this sillyness.

Does the thought of having to treat someone with a modicum of civility and a measure of respect cause you to to think twice or may I set this up with the Mods so we can see just how smart you really are when you can't resort to this kind of devisive tact.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
I offered to take you on in a more formal setting where your immature and manipulative suggestions to Mods won't get in the way. I even offered to relinquish my account if I lose.

failure to read?

look up

and by relinquesihing your account do you also mean no longer returning to post on anotehr account or by the anon account?

or just giving up that account and making a third?

and i can happily provide links to two threads where you idea of civility and decorum are calling everyone stupi ignorant and misrepresenting what they say in order to pile on more personal attack

civility and decorum towards others are not a problem for me, wasting much of it on those who's main tactics are to ignore it and roll in with the names, abuse and something i made up earlier argument style is a problem for me though, i view it like honour somthing to be granted at firt withdrawn when you screw up and require you to earn it back

p.s. Luke 6:41-42,


[edit on 22/2/09 by noobfun]

I am seeing something very interesting here, and it is diminishing the proper decorum of what a 'debate' should be!

My opinion, take it or leave it....the 'debate' about what Darwin did is NOT REALLY a 'debate'.

Darwin observed, and wrote about what he observed.

HE saw speciation, (Natural Selection) in action....not in Humans, but in OTHER species.

The 'inference' to every other species on the Planet, that, I think, came along later....AFTER Darwin's death.

Ya see....SINCE we have the lifespan that we have, WE cannot see our speciation, NOT in the same way we can see a fruit fly mutate....since they live for only a few days!!!!

Birds....a few months' lifespans....etc, etc, etc.....

A normal, intelligent individual would naturally come to the rational conclusion, that EVEN though we cannot see the pattern, in OUR species....by recognizing and observing patterns in OTHER species, it stands to reason, the policy of Nature affects us, in a similar fashion.

THIS is what others, building on the work of Darwin, began to realize.

Darwin gets the blame, apparently, from the critical "creationists".....while rational people attempt to put out the 'flames' of ignorance......

Sad....so sad......

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I am seeing something very interesting here, and it is diminishing the proper decorum of what a 'debate' should be!

My opinion, take it or leave it....the 'debate' about what Darwin did is NOT REALLY a 'debate'.

Darwin observed, and wrote about what he observed.

HE saw speciation, (Natural Selection) in action....not in Humans, but in OTHER species.

The 'inference' to every other species on the Planet, that, I think, came along later....AFTER Darwin's death.

Ya see....SINCE we have the lifespan that we have, WE cannot see our speciation, NOT in the same way we can see a fruit fly mutate....since they live for only a few days!!!!

Birds....a few months' lifespans....etc, etc, etc.....

A normal, intelligent individual would naturally come to the rational conclusion, that EVEN though we cannot see the pattern, in OUR species....by recognizing and observing patterns in OTHER species, it stands to reason, the policy of Nature affects us, in a similar fashion.

THIS is what others, building on the work of Darwin, began to realize.

Darwin gets the blame, apparently, from the critical "creationists".....while rational people attempt to put out the 'flames' of ignorance......

Sad....so sad......

Id like to know why Noob isn’t jumping all over Weed here (and all the other times and other ppl) for using blatant non sequiturs, ergo;

True for Species 1, then true for all species
1 is true
Then all is true

Absolute fallacy. Total assumption on your part. What you have done in scientific circles is assume 'Face Validity' or 'natural rational conclusion' (which is based on a gut feeling and no real hard evidence).

You and others seem to throw around the scientific method with no real understanding of what it actually is and does.

As I previously stated;

especially the pro-evo ppl who throw it constantly at their opposition with no basis or in general a sound knowledge of what they are defending. Most ppl that say Evolution is 'Science' are mixing up Historical Science and Operational Science... the latter is the one that is used for break through in technology for the NOW.. Historical science is an educated guesstimate at best.

There is no way you can manipulate an independent variable to provide evidence of something in the past. It’s a leap of inference or dare I say.. a leap of faith?

again using Noob’s penchant for Taxonomy, logic fallacy, etc etc

True for Operational Science, then true for Historical Science
Operational Science is true
Then Historical science is true

Again absolute garbage, but a position I see virtually every evo defender taking when they call on science.

So how does Operational Science work? (in easy terms)

1. State a working or null hypothesis
2. Apply working definitions for the important terms (hence zero ambiguity when repeating the test)
3. Formalise the independent variable(s) you wish to test
4. Ensure a baseline is present
5. Formulate the experiment free from confounding
6. State the Confidence level (alpha) for variance
7. Establish a significant/reliable and valid sample
8. Perform Test
9. Analyse data
10. Draw conclusions
11. Reject or accept the null hypothesis
12. Re-examine hypothesis/testing procedures
13. Re-test if necessary

That is a very basic breakdown of the Operational scientific method that ppl are alluding too. Problem is… They confuse THAT with Historical. Operational is indeed about the facts, zero leaps of inference, provable and re-testable experiments.

Historical on the other hand is about probability/best guess/assumptions/inference etc. Oh if you read up on the Historical method you may come across ‘observable data’, but this is NOT in the same context as the above Operational method. Also Historical has huge sections of ‘eyewitness evidence’…


No straw man or fallacies there, just facts on reliability and validity.

reply to post by Fundie


Not sure what kind of gobbledy-gook you are trying to spout.....seems not very 'scientific' to me.

Fundie.....I am NOT a molecualr biologist, nor am I a DNA scientist....I flew airplanes for a living.

WHICH means I have a fairly analytical mind....and, I can see BS when it is presented to me.

'creationism', as presented to me....is pure 'BS'.

The 'bible' story of the 'ark'???? Ludicricous to anyone with half a brain, when they look around at the full complexity of our planet.

Speaking of that.....in Darwin's time, people STILL thought the Earth to be only a few thousand years old.....

This so-called 'debate' isn't about Darwin, it is about other people's stupidity, in the face of overwhelming evidence that they just can't 'cope' with.

Not referring to you, of course.

BUT, imagine OUR lives if not for science!!!!

No cars, no airplanes, no modern medicines.....just mentioned three things, there are thousands more!!!!

Again you miss the point. What I stated IS scientific methodology.
You state overwhelming evidence but provide none. I answer with HOW supposed evidence is NOT Operational science but Historical... which has ZERO, NIL, NADA, ZIP to do with scientific method and exploration for the modern breakthroughs you mentioned; including the science behind the plane you fly.

That gobbly-gook you have so readily spurned is THE science you are trying to rely on. Everything else you are spouting is a red herring and again using emotion/gut feeling and face validity. Not very objective or scientific.

You actually prove my case;

'doesn't seem scientific to me'.

well.. iit IS science. Thats the point.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Fundie]

reply to post by Fundie


Allright, 'Fundie'...I read your post too quickly, at first.

I'll agree with you on the 'hypothesis' part. Because a 'theory' will not become a theory until it is first an hypothesis.

Your other 13 steps....well, I'd like to hear from others, so I won't comment on that.

Except.....and I'm a 'layman' at this science thing, so bear with me.....once an hypothesis becomes a theory, it continues to undergo rigourous testing, correct?

Because, a theory, as established, cannot survive if ANY thing that undermines that theory is discovered....however, the beauty of a theory is it will live, and grow, and can be modified, because new discoveries help to flesh it out.

I want to use two examples, if I may. One, the 'theory' of Gravity. Two, the 'theory' of flight.

"Gravity" is still considered a 'theory', because it is not completely defined. I doubt anyone would deny the existence of Gravity.....it is the full understanding, the 'description' that is, mathematically, lacking, as yet.

It is observable, it is measurable, it is undeniable.....but, still falls into the 'theory' category, for reasons that go well beyond the range of this discussion.....

Now, Part two....flight. Something I tend to know something about.

I'll not waste time, nor space....but gravity is a factor, obviously, when it comes to flight. I could bring up kinetic energy, potential evergy as well....

Thrust, Lift, Drag and Weight (gravity), but you can look that up.

We have Bernoulli, we have theories and theories about WHY flight is possible. Some are condradictory, but the fact is, airplanes fly.

That is undeniable, observable, and repeatable.

Point is, just because something is called a 'theory', doesn't make it impossible.

Same with Darwin....one man, one lifetime.....others work on his shoulders.

THAT is progress!!!!!!

reply to post by weedwhacker



Guess what, I agree with nearly all you said. You seem to have a good grasp of what operational science (OS) is (not being condescending nor facetious), ergo the need for hypothesis and observable and repeatable methodology.

So lets take your flight theory as an example (Im no pilot just bear with me please)

Ollie and Wilbur while making a bicycle watched the birds and said we can fly (hypothesis). They had a rough idea of what to do and drew up blueprints (Independent variable- IV). They then made the plane and tested it. After nearly breaking their neck a few times and manipulating the design… hey presto it worked. Hence the hypothesis was not rejected and flight was born.

Later, all the terminology was formalised.. yar rate, lift, thrust etc etc. A perfect example of OS in action.

So here’s the problem and my point. The above is OS not Historical Science(HS).

Darwin postulated that all species had a common ancestor (Hypothesis). How do you assign an independent variable of something supposedly millions of years in the past? How can you observe and retest an IV?

That is equivalent of having the Aeroplane in the first place and reverse engineering. You know that is all Evolutionists AND creationists can do. There is no way to test things millions of years ago. Sure they have radiometric dating mechanisms (which rely on assumptions), theory of say light, and possibilities of how things were supposedly billions of years ago.. but its all assumptions and all untestable. It ends up with assumptions presupposing assumptions. Now that is NOT reliable and valid, it is not OS.

Here’s an example that I learnt in my first year on the scientific method;

An astronomer creates a hypothesis that a black hole exists in region X. His mathematical calculation dictates so. He attempts to observe the Hole and can not see it. He postulates that gravitational forces are obscuring the equipment and recalculates for this.. Still no hole. He nearly gives up but is adamant its there… his calculations say so! So he further postulates that a nebular is interfering with the nuclear forces and the gravitational dialation is once again a problem. He recalculates – no Hole. However, technology has caught up with his theory and he now boldly utilizes it with his calculations . And hey presto… no Hole

The point of the story. Even when all data indicates the theory is flawed to begin with, they still cling to it with an argument of – technology hasn’t caught up with it yet. That is intellectual and scientific dishonesty and is not OS. But unfortunately, it sways the impressionable and even the ones who sees common rational logic to it.. but under it all.. no evidence.

Evolution is NOT Operational Science yet people and you Weed have assumed it is. The real question is whether something is RELIABLE and VALID.

You may have some ‘evidence’ but is it reliable (ie can it be tested and retested and is the result due to the IV), and is it truly valid (ie not based on a fallacious hypothesis).

Again I totally agree with you on the way science has progressed for modern things we take for granted. But that’s ALL Operational Science, and not Historical.

Originally posted by Fundie

Id like to know why Noob isn’t jumping all over Weed here (and all the other times and other ppl) for using blatant non sequiturs, ergo;

maybe becasue i havnt read hi post up until now

id like to know how you think i am psychic enough to read posts and reply on them prior to even knowing they exist ...

and in the spirit of turn about ... Id like to know why fundie is nt jumping all over him self for not already knowing my reply?

HE saw speciation, (Natural Selection) in action....not in Humans, but in OTHER species.

The 'inference' to every other species on the Planet, that, I think, came along later....AFTER Darwin's death.

thats not a none sequitor,

First line

he oberved several species and studdied the change betweeen them, the finches mollucs bee's, paraitic wasps, pidgeons and insects and drew from that

so the first line is accurate he wa able to observer and formulate how the many change came from common ancestors and speciation

which is correct as he did not give an account for human evolution in his 'Origins'

Second line

this is a personal statement of opinion, partially right partially wrong

in Origins Darwin made very little mention to human evolution imply aying omthing along the lines of 'on human history light will be shon later' dont remeber the exact phrase and dont feel like looking it up

so while Origins said expresly it applied to all animals and skipped past humans with a wink a knowing smile he left it for others to raise that point of human evolution

he never mentioned common descent from apes, it was known 100 years earlier we were apes by taxonomic deffintiton and no one had been able to work out why it applied if we were gods special ones, Linneaus asked many prominante scientits of his day to find somthing about humans that would elevate our taxonomic status above primate ..they failed

homo sapien officially classed as a primate late 1700's

so Darwin rather then say it just left it for others to raise the point, he had found out why we were apes, he never said my new book says were apes, we already were 100 year earlier clasified by a great creationist scientist

the reason Origin kicked up such a storm was becasue reading was becoming a common past time it wasnt just the rich that could read and afford books where as Linneasus's findings were known to science but not your common man origin was known to all


so it fail as a none sequitor he didnt say it applies to animals so must apply to humans ... which still really isnt a none sequittor we are animals so it would be a pointless statement

its a statement about Darwins research he looked at some animal but not humans, which is true

A normal, intelligent individual would naturally come to the rational conclusion, that EVEN though we cannot see the pattern, in OUR species....by recognizing and observing patterns in OTHER species, it stands to reason, the policy of Nature affects us, in a similar fashion.

and well that not really a none sequitor either ... wel it is in the way it is stated but not in the way the facts pan out

follow the fossil trail, go back to the earliest known homo sapiens sapiens and what d you find? its overlapped lightly with homo apien and several other homonids, go back to the earliest known homo sapien and you will see that it i slightly over lapped by an earlier similar but not quite the same homonid, and the homonids running parrelele you ee the same thing line running back beomeing less avanced lightly overlapping earlier less advance homonids that were imilar but not wuite the same

when you can track it back over 7 million years for several lines of homonids ands none homonid apes not just our own line you have a distinct pattern showing speciation and evolution in primates (which includes us)

then throw in genetic research on shared Erv's 20,000 shared Erv's on the exact same locator with chimps, even if all the Erv's used specific areas of attachment as some do (a small percentage) its still a higher then 1:1000 for each shared locator, but its not just chimps some of those we share with himps are shared with gorilla, and orangutan and other primates .... you can actually draw a phylogenetic tree based on the hared Erv's we have with other primates and they accuratley math upto the taxonomic trees of primate relkationships, and the cladiograms of primate relationships

so when your phylogenetic, taxonomic, taxonomi and fossil evidence all agree and no evidence goes againt those findings then it a reasonable conclusion that its accurate

[edit on 23/2/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


I think you misread what I stated about ‘jumping on Weed’. Its nothing psychic to apply the same zeal you do against Aerm to other people’s clear non sequiturs.

And congratulations, you cleverly bypassed all I stated about the difference in Scientific Methodology and not even addressed the points raised between Operational and Historical Science.

Again you defended pedantics. You can try and play your clever oratory games, but I’m not buying. All evidence you have provided has been Historical Science and as thus is subject to presuppositions that are unreliable and possibly invalid.

And for all your posturing. You still abide by the great non sequiturs

True for Operational Science, then true for Historical Science
Operational Science is true
Then Historical science is true

And

True for Species 1, then true for all species
1 is true
Then all is true

There are no ad homs there nor straw man. Again I am questioning the ‘science’ and methodology involved.

Originally posted by Fundie
Evolution is NOT Operational Science yet people and you Weed have assumed it is. The real question is whether something is RELIABLE and VALID.

excellent but your analogy is not historic science based, if it were it would be based on an observation that has implications for an historic event, he would then set about trying to test this. Or if it was unable to be presently tested (and even if it could be) it MUST be able to make accurate predictions, predictions that can be looked to validate the idea before it can even dream of becoming a theory

the starting observation for the big bang, the universe is expanding, hypothesis the universe was once much smaller posibly small enough to be a singularity, what can account for the expansion, a massive release of energy, if that were true what would we be able to observe now to validate it, a massive release of energy would also consist of radiation, that radiation will be measurable (they went a step further, they actually had a model of what that expanding radiation field should look like if they got it right). we found the background radiation it matched almost exactly what was predicted, no evidence ran contrary to this .. so it worked

same with evolution, let use the finches we all love those, observance finches on the Galapagos carry out life styles vastly different and their beaks are dynamical altered to suit these job, on a main land location these varied jobs would be done by differing order of birds not just different species within the same Genus .... and it went from there

it's not a case of saying well i think this is there so I am going to cling to it for all eternity, its based on explanations for present day observations that have historical ramifications, they are then tested if possible (as it was with evolution) and then make predictions which also must be accurate and must account for all the evidence, the big bang became a theory based on it's proven prediction and yes their is stuff we do not yet understand it there are unproven hypothesis inside it which are being worked on and if better hypothesis come along they get to replace the older ones or the unproven if they cover the same ground

You may have some ‘evidence’ but is it reliable (ie can it be tested and retested and is the result due to the IV), and is it truly valid (ie not based on a fallacious hypothesis).

yes and yes

it's a twin nested hierarchy its checked upwards by both taxonomy and claddistics, its then checked downwards by phylogenetic testing

it using historical and operational science to test its accuracy and findings and they are supporting one another

but your right evolution is not an operational science because it to slow and we have had our own unnatural selection that provides the exact results we want in a much faster time then leaving it to the purely natural which may give us a wide variety of results over a much longer period of time

it may not be a OS, but its understandings have helped many fields of OS such as medicine, genetics etc etc its helped them work faster and better to improve our lives and to continue to improve our futures

Don't buy the distinction between 'operational' and 'historical' science (or origins science as is the normal label), it's just creationist handwaving.

It's mainly creationists who make such a distinction. Science involves numerous methods and approaches, from 'true' experiment to correlation, from observational to quasi-experiment. Using prediction and postdiction.

I have never seen such a distinction outside of creationist babbling - although you might find it in some POMO guide to being irrelevant. The day when creationists get to define science is the day it becomes pseudoscience.

Originally posted by Fundie

I think you misread what I stated about ‘jumping on Weed’. Its nothing psychic to apply the same zeal you do against Aerm to other people’s clear non sequiturs.

and i think you missread my reply im unable to jump on weed with any zeal until i had read his post, there was nothing to support the position that i had read his post as i had not replied to it or made a reply after it

effectivley it was what appears to be a shot acros the bow to suggest i only jump on the creationists based on no more evidence then i had not written a reply to somthig I very well may have not read

And congratulations, you cleverly bypassed all I stated about the difference in Scientific Methodology and not even addressed the points raised between Operational and Historical Science.

congratulatiosn for again jumping the gun

i refered to your statemnets about myself and those of weedwacker in one posts and your comments on historic/operational science in another post

Again you defended pedantics. You can try and play your clever oratory games,

yes its a terribe habbit of mine i comment on what is said not what i want it to infer wether it aludes to it or not

and accuracy of statement are not pedantics which the lack of accuracy has implications on the understanding and implications of the reply

such as animals and people - they are the same thing but these statements can be read to seperate them as if people were not animals

or any statement with ceolcanths or fruit fly in - they are nonsemse umbrella terms that have no real meaning but which the user is trying to infer and in the case of anti-evolutionary post the inferance is one with no accuracy and very little if any honesty in the statement if the user understands that or not

but I’m not buying. All evidence you have provided has been Historical Science and as thus is subject to presuppositions that are unreliable and possibly invalid.

www.pnas.org... OS supporting the historic conclusions ... hows that?

True for Operational Science, then true for Historical Science
Operational Science is true
Then Historical science is true

hitorical science make a prediction that prediction is accurate
operational science tests somthing that supports the historical science's conclusion

...wheres the none sequitor?

its a none sequitor if i assume one validates the other without them in any way doing so, as the phylogenetics(OS) support the findings of taxonomy and claddistics (HS) they are both howing the ame conclusion to be accurate

that not a none sequitor that multi source evidenciary support

its a double nested heirachy its the equivalent of

(historic)1+1=2 2-1=1 (operational) conclusion confirmed 2 is a combination of a pair of 1's

True for Species 1, then true for all species
1 is true
Then all is true

nope not really, as i stated 1 gave one example of a group of species, all primates in this case to show how primate evolution for all those looked at how a commonality of pattern, and that that pattern can also be compared to the conclusion of other branches of science to form and found to match

now i agree jsut becasue we looked at human and some other primates evolutionary evidence from the twin nested stack of evidence doent prove that woodpeckers evolved .. they ahve thier own little evidence pile, ame for certaitions etc etc

infact i dont think there i a genus of animal or plants known to science that do not have htier own little ile of evidence or break the pattern predicted by evolutionary thoery

so to say with 100% certainty it applies to all life would be a small leap of faith, to say it applies to all known earth based life wouldnt however

there may be things at the bottom of the sea we have no evidence for thier evolution and thier genetics may not match anything known, and they are so foreign a life form they fail any knwon claditic or taxonomic classification effort, there may be alien life that do not use DNA and are the reult of a process not of Darwinian actions but that lead to complexity

so yes while we cant say all life conforms to the predicted patterns of evolution, all known life currently does

reply to post by melatonin


i know

some science however does only deal with historic events, and its in that way i am uing them and showing how

just becasue somthing happened in the past doesnt neccesarily mean they just make an answer to fit they HAVE to be based on current observations ans still HAVE to be tested and or make accurate prediction before even bieng considered in the running

and well evolution deals with both historic and present events and ues both ciece working on historical records (fossil record) and acurrent operational sciences (genetics)

and both confirm the predictions of evolution as accurate

reply to post by noobfun


Aye, it's just more creationist fail, basically an attempt to express 'you weren't there!' in a different fashion.

reply to post by melatonin


i did like the parable of the scientist who could though that was quite a lovely story

he decided somthing must be there based on no evidence and no matter what happened clung to the belief it was there and just moved goal post when he had to, to keep his imaginary belief alive

....reminds me of somthing nothing to do with science ... cant put my finger on it though...... ahh yeah thats it ID and creationsim ...

[edit on 23/2/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by melatonin
reply to post by noobfun

 

Aye, it's just more creationist fail, basically an attempt to express 'you weren't there!' in a different fashion.

Yes DON'T LISTEN TO THAT!!




Yeah but Mel, the FACT is,, YOU WEREN'T THERE AND THAT IS

THAT FACT!

Mel tell me Genius, who the hell are YOU to tell anyone, anyone at all who gets to say what IS science and what is NOT?

Let me guess godless wonder, you called noobfool and he the Judge for the Dover trial and HE decided! I can only hope noob doesn't speak like he writes. Are you honestly going to go with that cop out it's just more creationist word tactics? I mean if anyone would know about word games it would be evolutionists. You got to get your story straight I have seen evolutionists call us primates then say we didn't come from apes then say we came from a common ancestor that were cousins because our DNA is 98% the same when that is NOT a primate. That their is no distinction between them? Let me ask you Mel, when you got your last peer review, was there an explanation of a specific scientific method YOU used or was it the standard "atheist" Sly and tific mythod. Noobfun throws out the Scientific method like he knows what it is! He actually believes this crap when I doubt,, no,, I KNOW, neither one of you, can hold a candle to this guy. You aren't even in the same league!

But you go on mel,, inspire your liliputians with lies about Science. I mean I understand, I would do the same thing and just use the "Don't listen to that man behind the curtain" argument but the last thing you are going to do is explain why so I will.

You see the reason Mel doesn't want you to believe fundie is because fundie is RIGHT and it takes away a major portion of the sales psychology or the "shtick", the dog and pony act that is so much of this area of science depends on as it keeps it from riding the coat tails of more legitimate science. That is if you even believe evolution is science at all.


Evolution is so desperate to stay alive they insist on using the most outrageously spectacular reach of the imagination to force this consensus science NOT because of any new discovery but to explain away the mechanisms that have already been debunked as just more "just so" fables. Then they say it is because as more discoveries (sujectivism) is manufactured in the form of more twisted propaganda passed off as Scientific fact by the consensus masters, they have another gear to shift to and another stretch of the imagination so far fetched it is getting so one would have to believe in the supernatural just to believe that BS anymore.

You come on here telling them not to listen to fundie? That he doesn't know what he is talking about? HA HA HA HA Oh man YOU SHOULD BE SO UN-EDUCATED about Science! Here Mel, let me help you with this since your Atheist Bias seems to be clouding your capacity for honest objectivity, Did it ever Occur to you, the REASON you never hear about what Fundie is saying is because IT DOESN'T HELP YOUR CASE!


Yeah, Mel, Hell, if I was believing in a theory so full of lies and deceptions so full of a history of manufactured monkeymen by the misfits of darwittian time travel when so many of the debunked ideas and missing links were proven wrong before by using this same argument by evolutionists NOT creationists. The Scientific method is a load of CRAP and you KNOW IT! If you deny it, then I know you are no more a student of Science then a kitchen cosmetologist studying astrology taught by sylvia brown. Here is your Scientific Method Mel and THIS by the way is REAL Science! This is not meant as a Joke but as a real illustration and irony of what YOUR So called Science uses as it's Scientific Method.



The Way it is.

The Real Scientific Method


by Taner Edis

It's time someone composed a slightly more realistic version of Ye Olde Scientifick Methode. Therefore, here it is, refurbished to reflect modern realities:

1 Think up some project that has a good chance of attracting grant money.

2 Devise a radical hypothesis to explain the (yet unobserved) data, and highlight how it is extremely important to support your work since it has such important implications.

3 Repeatedly emphasize how your hypothesis alters our perception of Life, The Universe, and Everything. Even better, hint at how it can lead to immediate corporate applications.

4 Using the grant money, buy expensive equipment, and hire some grad students and postdocs to continually tell you how brilliant you are. Hope they will do some actual work.

5 Get some results which look promising, but are inconclusive enough to justify turning this project into a long-term research program.

6 Go back to step 3 and continue refining until you have a solid
proposal to extend your grant for another year.

7 Publish often during this process. Preferably, every small and incremental "advance" deserves a paper of its own. Be repetitious -- the number of publications is what counts, not their quality.

8 If others repeat the same sort of experiment, and get vaguely the same sort of results, band together to form an interest group.
Organize conferences where you invite and praise each other. Cite each others' work in your papers. Call your general results "___'s Law", where "___" is the most influential member of your group.
Lobby for more money, making sure to point out that your field is "hot," emphasizing that scientific revolutions or commercial products are just around the bend.

9 If new observations or experiments come along which don't fit your law or theory, attack them as obviously wrong. Don't invite researchers who disagree with your interest group to your conferences.
give dissenting papers bad peer reviews in the anonymous review process. Praise their grant proposals as "good" when advising granting agencies, knowing full well that only "excellent" projects stand a chance of getting funded.

10 If political winds shift and you find yourself defending an unpopular theory, make a virtue of it. Read Charles Tart, and sell your project as such a revolutionary idea that we must redesign stagnating orthodox science to accommodate it. Find a senator who will try and create a new government agency dedicated to your interest group's work.

11 While doing all this, go back to step 1 whenever you feel inspired.

www2.truman.edu...

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

I have this deja-vu thing going down, taggle teams or something...

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Yeah but Mel, the FACT is,, YOU WEREN'T THERE AND THAT IS

THAT FACT!

Hmm, cool. Nice observation.

Mel tell me Genius, who the hell are YOU to tell anyone, anyone at all who gets to say what IS science and what is NOT?

The genius might be applied without the big 'G', but thanks anyway.

Originally posted by noobfun
....reminds me of somthing nothing to do with science ... cant put my finger on it though...... ahh yeah thats it ID and creationsim ...

[edit on 23/2/09 by noobfun]

Heh. Perhaps the conmeister should read the book Taner Edis cowrote:

"Why intelligent design fails: A scientific critique of the new creationism".



The amazon e-mail could even inform con that 'your shipment of fail has been dispatched'...

[edit on 23-2-2009 by melatonin]