Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[DogmaHunter]

The evidence of life forms appearing to be designed for a purpose is not faith based but scientifically proven. It is a faith based belief to deny this is evidence of design and to claim it is an illusion.

"x looks like y" is a subjective, opinionated claim and cannot be scientifically be proven or even supported.

What looks like A to you might not look like A to me, you get that right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You have that backward, there is evidence that life appears to be designed for a purpose.

And that "evidence" is: "hey, it looks that way!"

Just like my girlfriend looks lie Hayden Panettiere.

There is no evidence that confirms it is an illusion.

Except, off course, an entire scientific field called biology, which explains in ridiculous detail why living things seem to fit their environment like a glove.


So on the one hand we have "it looks like it"
And on the other hand we have an entire field of science explaining why things look the way they look...


What do you do? You go with "it looks like it".

Great

 

[sfs]

a) You are speaking of a date determination sample, but those are not the samples used to establish the rate of radioactive decay.

b) Analysis of radioactive decay is not normally done via counting current decays going on but by analyzing how many isotopes of what elements are present in the sample, to determine how many decays happened in the past.

Many, probably most, decay rates were determined with counting experiments. For example, in the reference RickG provided, decay rates for U, 87Rb and 40K all came from counting experiments, although 87Rb had a competing decay accumulation experiment as well.

Your attempts to refute the science continue to backfire and are about as effective as pelting the enemy with cotten balls.

I think you have me confused with someone else.

 

[sfs]

Just really goes to show how much you actually understand of the physics. You just know words, but not how they relate to the physics involved.

Hmm. My PhD thesis was a study of electroweak decays. Somehow I doubt you're the person who should be lecturing me on electroweak physics.

All radiation is electromagnetic. An atom decays when it looses binding energy and is no longer able to hold onto protons, neutrons or electrons. It is the energy released in the process or the particles themselves.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/5680/Radioactive-Decay.html

http://science.jrank.org/pages/5636/Radiation.html

Only in Fairie Dust land where reality isn't real unless we are observing it - can electromagnetic processes be ignored. Only in Fairie Dust land where a cat in a box is neither alive nor dead until the box is opened can electromagnetic processes be ignored. I say test that theory. Put a cat in the box with poison, food and water for a year. If after a year we open the box and the cat is dead and stinking we will know the falsity of those theories. If on the other hand the cat is freshly dead or alive - then the theoretical ideas have merit. For the sake of science - are you willing to climb into the box if the poison has a fast acting antidote available - so that when the box is opened and reality for you begins again - we can keep you from dying if the atom decays?

Oh that's right, since you understand science it would skew the test. It is only cats that do not understand science that do not observe reality, so they can be used.

Interesting rant -- too bad it has nothing to do with radiometric dating. Dating requires that you know the decay rate and the decay products. Nothing else. And those are determined empirically, not from theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hmm. My PhD thesis was a study of electroweak decays. Somehow I doubt you're the person who should be lecturing me on electroweak physics.

Hmm. My forté is creationism. Should I doubt you're the person who should be lecturing me on the creation events?

 

[RickG]

Hmm. My PhD thesis was a study of electroweak decays. Somehow I doubt you're the person who should be lecturing me on electroweak physics.

He also claims Fermi's theory has never been updated which is completely false.

Interesting rant -- too bad it has nothing to do with radiometric dating. Dating requires that you know the decay rate and the decay products. Nothing else. And those are determined empirically, not from theory.

Exactly, even if Fermi's theory had not been updated the fact still remains that beta decay occurs and it can be measured.

 

[sfs]

Hmm. My forté is creationism. Should I doubt you're the person who should be lecturing me on the creation events?

Depends. Does your expertise consist of anything besides things your pastor told you and things you made up yourself?

 

[RickG]

Hmm. My forté is creationism. Should I doubt you're the person who should be lecturing me on the creation events?

And with a belief that Noah built the Ark in New Jersey, God cleaned up after the flood, and age is embedded, you expect to be taken seriously as an expert?

 

[AV1611VET]

Depends. Does your expertise consist of anything besides things your pastor told you and things you made up yourself?

Yes.

Does your expertise consist of anything besides things your professor told you and things you hypothesized yourself?

 

[AV1611VET]

And with a belief that Noah built the Ark in New Jersey, God cleaned up after the flood, and age is embedded, you expect to be taken seriously as an expert?

And if someone's thesis is a study in electroweak forces, you expect him to be taken seriously as an expert on Advanced Macramé 201?

 

[RickG]

And if someone's thesis is a study in electroweak forces, you expect him to be taken seriously as an expert on Advanced Macramé 201?

We all know your expertise, disrupting threads and getting them off topic.

 

[sfs]

Yes.

Does your expertise consist of anything besides things your professor told you and things you hypothesized yourself?

Yes.

I promise not to lecture you on the tenets of your particular brand of creationism, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

We all know your expertise, disrupting threads and getting them off topic.

Ya ... you'd like to believe that, wouldn't you?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Worse - he was proven not even wrong, which is considerably worse for a scientist. It was shown that his hypothesis was fundamentally unfalsifiable and untestable, and led to no increase in knowledge. How do you test whether something could not possibly have evolved? How do you test whether an intelligent entity (whose existence we have not established yet) designed it? Behe could provide no legitimate falsification criteria.

You have while claiming that Behe's hypothesis was fundamentally unfalsifiable and untestable just proven that evolution is unfalsifiable and untestable. If one can not test whether something could not have possibly evolved how can one claim that something evolved? The fact that you are claiming that it can't be falsified or tested means that the evolutionary conclusion is based on dogma and is untestable and unfalsifiable.

You fail also to understand that the existence of an Intelligent Designer has been established for billions of people, far more than those who lack that knowledge.

He was also proven wrong, to whatever reasonable degree was possible. In every case thus far, when ID proponents have proposed a system as irreducibly complex, biologists have found intermediate steps, showing quite clearly that irreducible complexity is no barrier to a system having evolved.

On one hand you claim that ID is unfalsifiable and untestable and then you shift and claim that it has been tested and found false. Which is it?

He admitted in public that he was using an "expanded" definition of science, and the judge ruled firmly that intelligent design was simply creationism in a lab coat, and not science. This mirrors what you'll find in societies like the NAS or NCSE, in universities, and in the peer-reviewed literature.

The trial involved so many side issues that it is hard to determine just what determining factors were at play at any give time. There were political, ego, YEC and other things that all came together.

Not really.

You can essentially build the flagellum part by part. This video is based on a model published in 2003 - before the Dover trial. The fact that this pathway is hypothetically possible destroys the argument that the flagellum is "irreducibly complex" - it obviously isn't, you can build it piece by piece, each step giving an advantage to the organism. What's more, out of the 42 proteins involved in the flagellum, 40 have been found to have clear homologues. That's a pretty sure-fire sign that something is up. Now, whether that actually happened just like that is another story, but at that point we're not in the realm of "could it have evolved", we're in the realm of "did it evolve". And given that no other mechanism beyond evolution is known, and given that this particular model of flagellum evolution makes numerous predictions, of which so far none have been refuted and several have been confirmed, it makes a very good case for the evolution of the flagellum.

I didn't see anything in your video that shows each step would be advantageous to the organism? I will look that up on my own.

What do you mean by "purpose"?

The tasks a system does to provide certain functions in an organism. The tasks of the inner cell for instance.

 

[RickG]

Ya ... you'd like to believe that, wouldn't you?

I would like to not believe it, but the record speaks for itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would like to not believe it, but the record speaks for itself.

Perhaps you need another bookkeeper?

 

[RickG]

Perhaps you need another bookkeeper?

Your last several posts confirm that you are off the threads topic as you are in every thread you participate in the CF science forums.

 

[Astrophile]

If life forms are designed by an intelligent agent they should appear as if they were designed. Design predicts that if life forms were designed they should appear that they were and that purpose and planning were used. That is what we find in life forms. Science tested this and found it to be true.

Isn't this the fallacy of affirming the consequent?
'If life forms were designed by an intelligent agent they should appear as if they were designed.'
Life forms do appear as if they were designed.
Therefore life forms were designed by an intelligent agent.

 

[bhsmte]

Isn't this the fallacy of affirming the consequent?
'If life forms were designed by an intelligent agent they should appear as if they were designed.'
Life forms do appear as if they were designed.
Therefore life forms were designed by an intelligent agent.

Sounds like an argument from Willy Craig. Make assumptions and off we go.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sounds like an argument from Willy Craig. Make assumptions and off we go.

There's nothing so intellectually fatuous as a presuppositional approach to a discussion.