Charles Robert Darwin

[Jimmy D]

He gives the example Chemistry "growing" out of Alchemy, for one.

Maybe modern chemistry did have origins in alchemy, so what?

That does not mean that chemistry is "being driven by pseudoscience", does modern chemistry not follow the scientific method?

Given the scant information you have offered I think that we can safely say that your statement....

he makes a really good point that much of science is driven by pseudoscience.

..... is not true at all and can be filed away as yet another shallow creationist attempt at discrediting science and all it's findings.

 

[AV1611VET]

... will you help me to form a testable hypothesis?

You're not asking academians to take their own medicine, are you?

I already made up a test for one (to build a corral), and he just laughed.

Also, some time ago I made up a Mariana Trench challenge thread, in which I demonstrated that Internet scientists operate on faith.

In other words, they accept the facts and figures that are presented to them on paper from those who were actually there in the trench.

They don't feel they have to actually go there themselves.

Their comrades did it, reported it, and that's good enough for them.

But then they'll ridicule us for the same thing.

I also pointed out about scientists building a boomerang without using any machines or technology and got a standard "we could do it if we wanted to" reply.

Then people wonder why I say SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE in big letters.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"stupid"...there's that word again...no worries...I get it all the time...

Playing stupid means that you are acting as if you were stupid. I am assuming that is not the case. It was a plea for you to try to post honestly. So far you have failed to have a proper discussion. People that know that they are wrong quite often behave in this manner.

 

[Tone]

Playing stupid means that you are acting as if you were stupid. I am assuming that is not the case. It was a plea for you to try to post honestly. So far you have failed to have a proper discussion. People that know that they are wrong quite often behave in this manner.

Ha ha, I just heard a good one:

"Everybody knows what a law is right? A law according to hard empirical science is something that always succeeds and never fails.If it's a law...in order for us to call it a law, its gotta always succeed and never fail...then we call it a law. If it fails even once it's a theory, if it fails a whole lot it's a hypothesis, and if it never worked in the first place it's...[wait for it]...[*looks at watch*]...evolution."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ha ha, I just heard a good one:

"Everybody knows what a law is right? A law according to hard empirical science is something that always succeeds and never fails.If it's a law...in order for us to call it a law, its gotta always succeed and never fail...then we call it a law. If it fails even once it's a theory, if it fails a whole lot it's a hypothesis, and if it never worked in the first place it's...[wait for it]...[*looks at watch*]...evolution."

That is inaccurate. A "law" is always observable under limited conditions. And no, a law that fails is not a theory. If anything in the world of science theories are higher in the hierarchy than laws are. Essentially a law describes something that is consistently observed. A theory describes something that is always observed along with an explanation. And a hypothesis is an idea that is in the stage of development. It may be altered a bit, but if it fails it is no longer a hypothesis. As usual you got every single claim wrong.

And evolution is one of the strongest theories in the world of the sciences. There is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity. Yet we know from how you ran away that you would not jump off of a cliff. Yet you deny a stronger reality.

 

[Tone]

That is inaccurate. A "law" is always observable under limited conditions. And no, a law that fails is not a theory. If anything in the world of science theories are higher in the hierarchy than laws are. Essentially a law describes something that is consistently observed. A theory describes something that is always observed along with an explanation. And a hypothesis is an idea that is in the stage of development. It may be altered a bit, but if it fails it is no longer a hypothesis. As usual you got every single claim wrong.

...ummm...did you get the part about..."ha ha"...as in...a joke...

As a side note, is my hypothesis about humans keeping the world together falsifiable?

And evolution is one of the strongest theories in the world of the sciences. There is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity. Yet we know from how you ran away that you would not jump off of a cliff. Yet you deny a stronger reality.

You and your cliff...maybe we can do @Subduction Zone's Cliff in the vein of Occam's Razor!

Is that what your point is--that if I fell from a cliff, the idea of evolution is just as true? That doesn't even make sense. The force that pulls us to the earth is there, but can be overrode with energy. You believe that evolution is progressive, but is it a force...is it speaking about some forward moving force? If so, does exertion of energy work against it? If so, then your evolution is entropy. Entropy is unnatural--creation was not originally designed for it. And any "science" working for it is a non-science, since true science works to restore things to order for the propagation of life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

...ummm...did you get the part about..."ha ha"...as in...a joke...

As a side note, is my hypothesis about humans keeping the world together falsifiable?



You and your cliff...maybe we can do @Subduction Zone's Cliff in the vein of Occam's Razor!

Is that what your point is--that if I fell from a cliff, the idea of evolution is just as true? That doesn't even make sense. The force that pulls us to the earth is there, but can be overrode with energy. You believe that evolution is progressive, but is it a force...is it speaking about some forward moving force? If so, does exertion of energy work against it? If so, then your evolution is entropy. Entropy is unnatural--creation was not originally designed for it. And any "science" working for it is a non-science, since true science works to restore things to order for the propagation of life.

You objected to evolution yet you do not object to gravity. That displays that you cannot reason consistently. That was the point of the cliff.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.

How do you know?

A lot more things fall in a day's time than people are born.

I just dropped a penny eighteen times, my wife hasn't had any children in 64 years.

Gravity: 18
Evolution: 0

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know?

A lot more things fall in a day's time than people are born.

I just dropped a penny eighteen times, my wife hasn't had any children in 64 years.

Gravity: 18
Evolution: 0

Obviously we are discussing scientific evidence here, which means that one must have a scientific test. Repeating a test of known results does not add new evidence. So once you drop a penny dropping it again does not really provide new evidence it only reconfirms and old test.

 

[Tone]

You objected to evolution yet you do not object to gravity. That displays that you cannot reason consistently. That was the point of the cliff.

I haven't experienced evolution...there is no comparison...at all...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I haven't experienced evolution...there is no comparison...at all...

Individuals don't evolve. You are the product of evolution. And one cannot refute that which one cannot understand. If you don't start at the basics of science it is doubtful if you will ever understand how you are the product of evolution. All you will ever be able to do is to deny reality.

 

[TBDude65]

I can give a short synopsis of some of his life from the various sources I've read. I can try and dig up specific references as needed, but one is something like "4 southern voyages" or something like that. It deals with Darwin', Hooker', Huxley', and Wallace's trips to the southern oceans (all independent of one another, but all would become colleagues later in life and shared a common bond).

First, Charles Darwin wasn't the best student or pupil in school, but like a lot of other kids it was because he was easily distracted from being taught and liked instead to be outdoors. His father (a physician) initially wanted him to take up the family trade (again, wanted Charles to become a physician), but eventually realized that this wouldn't work because Charles had no interest in medicine and his father believed he lacked the discipline to do it. So, a deal of sorts was apparently struck and Charles was sent off to college to become a member of the clergy (a respectable profession in his father's opinion). Charles went to college and found himself drawn primarily to the natural sciences (especially naturalism classes) and spent much of his time collecting beetles.

As college was coming to an end for Charles, he needed to find something to do afterwards. An uncle of Charles came across an opportunity for his nephew, a voyage aboard the HMS Beagle. The position was not for naturalist, but for a companion to the captain. The captain was a man by the name of Fitzroy, and because officers were considered upper class and the crew lower, it was not allowed for the captain to fraternize with the crew. This could result in one going mad, as had Fitzroy's father and the previous captain of the Beagle (both ended their own lives). Fitzroy was concerned he would get bored without someone to interact with, and thus Charles eventually ended up on the Beagle.

Eventually, he did assume the role of naturalist, but only after he [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off the ship's official naturalist so badly that he got off the ship in South America early in the voyage. He "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed him off" because he spent time collecting samples too, and that was only something for the official naturalist to do.

 

[Tone]

And one cannot refute that which one cannot understand.

Well...well...pot...kettle...black...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well...well...pot...kettle...black...

Wrong, and making false claims about others. Since you repeatedly demonstrate no understanding of the sciences at all would you like to start with the basics? To date you have demonstrated that you do not even understand such simple concepts as hypotheses, theories, and laws. So to begin here is a simplified flowchart of the scientific method:

Let's go over this step by step. Do you see the first step? It is "Ask a question".

 

[Tone]

Wrong, and making false claims about others. Since you repeatedly demonstrate no understanding of the sciences at all would you like to start with the basics? To date you have demonstrated that you do not even understand such simple concepts as hypotheses, theories, and laws. So to begin here is a simplified flowchart of the scientific method:

Let's go over this step by step. Do you see the first step? It is "Ask a question".

Here's my question:

Is my hypothesis (you know which one I'm talking about) falsifiable?

 

[AV1611VET]

Obviously we are discussing scientific evidence here, which means that one must have a scientific test. Repeating a test of known results does not add new evidence. So once you drop a penny dropping it again does not really provide new evidence it only reconfirms and old test.

And once an allele changes, does that not do the same?

You've seen one allele, you've seen'em all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's go over this step by step. Do you see the first step? It is "Ask a question".

How many times has this flowchart changed over the years?

Seems like every time I see it, it's different.

 

[Tone]

How many times has this flowchart changed over the years?

Seems like every time I see it, it's different.

That's cause it's evolving, man...

 

[HitchSlap]

That's cause it's evolving, man...

It's hilarious the arrogance you're willing to display for us, when you absolutely haven't the first clue of what ToE actually is. Unfortunately, TrueTrumpChristianConservatives don't consider humility to be virtuous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's my question:

Is my hypothesis (you know which one I'm talking about) falsifiable?

You are not ready to ask questions yet.