Prove it or remove it challenge

[RedPonyDriver]

I would like to hear one say that ToE a fallible theory which has many problems. That's all i want. It would revive my respect for science.

Keep hoping. Scientists are not going to kowtow to you...if you have no respect for "science" at all, then maybe you'd prefer things like faith healing and old wives tales instead of scientific knowledge to cure illnesses.

 

[lasthero]

When you get to the point of saying the odds are less than 1 in N (N being the number of atoms in the galaxy), you look for a different solution.

How did you determine how many atoms were in the galaxy?

 

[HitchSlap]

I would like to hear one say that ToE a fallible theory which has many problems. That's all i want. It would revive my respect for science.

There are no problems with ToE. It's as robust a theory as they come.

You would have an easier time poking holes in the germ theory of disease.

 

[Gene2memE]

I would like to hear one say that ToE a fallible theory which has many problems. That's all i want. It would revive my respect for science.

The ToE is not only fallible, but acknowledged to be so.

Its also falsifiable.

Until you can come up with a better explanation of why biological diversity exists though, complete with predictions that are falsifiable, it will remain the best explanation available to us and the prevailing scientific answer.

All science is tentative. All of it is there to be challenged. When you write a scientific paper, you are as much justifying why you are not wrong as much as why you are right. Its an experience that almost requires you to assume that you are wrong and then provide evidence to show that you're right about this one little thing.

Science works to a degree by being open to constant challenge. When better explanations of the evidence that make more accurate predictions come along, the old explanations are either modified or gotten rid of.

 

[Extraneous]

Keep hoping. Scientists are not going to kowtow to you...if you have no respect for "science" at all, then maybe you'd prefer things like faith healing and old wives tales instead of scientific knowledge to cure illnesses.

I never said i had no respect for science, obviously the word "revive", which i used, indicates that i once had respect for it. ToE theory however has diminished that respect. I dont believe in faith healing either. I believe its possible, but i read scripture differently than people who follow faith healing doctrine. Anyway, look, we are not going to agree. If you are so much more enlightened than i am then you should see this. Please just take the ball and run with it friend. Its not like i can stop you. Please, allow me to exit the game now. Thank you.

 

[joshua 1 9]

View attachment 170111View attachment 170112

Wow, Cars evolved from Ferris wheels...... Had to have been this way. Look at all the similarities and you can follow the steps in it's evolution from Ferris wheel to dolly, to airplane to grocery buggy to child stroller to tank to car. It's amazing.

The wheel did not change much from the beginning for almost 4,000 years. There was no slow gradual change over time. Then Harvey Firestone came along and he was riding on his tractor and he was not comfortable He ended up inventing the rubber pneumatic tire and than the wheel began to change in a hurry.

 

[Extraneous]

The ToE is not only fallible, but acknowledged to be so.

Its also falsifiable.

Until you can come up with a better explanation of why biological diversity exists though, complete with predictions that are falsifiable, it will remain the best explanation available to us and the prevailing scientific answer.

All science is tentative. All of it is there to be challenged. When you write a scientific paper, you are as much justifying why you are not wrong as much as why you are right. Its an experience that almost requires you to assume that you are wrong and then provide evidence to show that you're right about this one little thing.

Science works to a degree by being open to constant challenge. When better explanations of the evidence that make more accurate predictions come along, the old explanations are either modified or gotten rid of.

I believe its been refuted, however science wont admit it. Its mans arrogance which is at fault here. He thinks hes smarter than God. God will prove otherwise however.

 

[essentialsaltes]

View attachment 170111View attachment 170112

Wow, Cars evolved from Ferris wheels...... Had to have been this way.

I was answering a particular question: "so wings just majically appear, with no transitions. No half grown wings?"

I showed a half grown wing.

Now, if we take your absurd remarks at face value, I could ask "so carburetor scoops just majically appear, with no transitions. No half grown carburetor scoops?"

So show me your Ferris Wheel with a half grown carburetor scoop.

 

[VirOptimus]

Wrong about what exactly? Man is an animal so if science wants to classify him an ape that fine with me. We must call him something i suppose.

See your post #271. You said;

Its not fallacy, its just opinion. Those mutations you mention dont cause people to turn into Apes, just for example.

As we already are apes, your post is simply wrong.

 

[USincognito]

You're arguing silly and obscure semantics that have no practical meaning, not concepts or understanding. Its a waste of time and unproductive.

Actually, no. It's important to get people who ostensibly wish to engage in a scientific discussion to actually keep the discussion within the parameters of science and the scientific method.

 

[Extraneous]

See your post #271. You said;



As we already are apes, your post is simply wrong.

Ok, allow me to rephrase, i meant a gorilla, chimpanzee or another kind of ape. I was simply wrong, as you pointed out.

 

[Paterfamilia]

I think it's a very salient point. You say information conveys meaning, but that's dependent on our ability to decipher it.

It is a salient point - just not the point of our previous discussion, which was your claim that I was exhibiting a fundamental lack of understanding about what information is.

What you are talking about now is the communication process.

Generation-transmission-detection-translation-cognition.

We can stamp "information" of the forehead of the message at the generation step. Breakdowns in the following steps don't change that.

 

[USincognito]

All of the things you have mentioned can be the result of downward, or change in existing organisms (well formed features loosing function).

There is no direction to change in evolution. It just is.

What I am talking about is the creation of new random features. And I am talking about randomness, evolution if by random mutation would litter the fossil record with bizarre features,

Well, there's part of the problem. You don't understand evolution. New features aren't completely random. For the most part they develop from existing features. In all terrestrial tetrapods, there is no truly novel limb. Everything is just a variation on the earliest legs. In some cases those legs have been lost giving rise to new body plans like snakes, caecilians and whales. In is only in Creationist ignorantistan that a new body plan and environmental niche is a "loss".

How is it that every feature that is show in animals had a purpose? Surely a truly random process could not develop bursts of amazing useful function.

Eyes in cave fish or benthic fish are do not have a purpose or function. Same with eyes on moles. The star-nosed mole has evolved a completely novel way of "seeing" it's environment, but still retains vestigial eyes and optic nerves.

 

[HitchSlap]

I believe its been refuted, however science wont admit it. Its mans arrogance which is at fault here. He thinks hes smarter than God. God will prove otherwise however.

Speaking of arrogance; Extraneous thinks ToE has been refuted, but science won't admit this.

Oh, the ironing.

 

[Paterfamilia]

I would like to hear one say that ToE a fallible theory which has many problems. That's all i want. It would revive my respect for science.

Hitchslap is right about this generally, although there are glaring exceptions (can we say "Dawkins"?)

The ones actually doing the research do acknowledge the problems, again, generally speaking. They may be ideologues, but not completely stupid about it.

 

[The Cadet]

What did I say that you conclude I don't understand the difference? I think I have been illustrating the difference all along.

I will clarify - the first string of characters I listed are complex, BUT CONVEY NO INFORMATION.

Actually, my alien friend says you just insulted his mother.

Seriously, how hard is this to get? Information is not a thing. Information is a mathematical construct we read onto things. There is no inherent information in the phrase "Your house is on fire"; rather, we have social conventions that help us read the information into that phrase. If we lacked those conventions, then it would be utterly meaningless to us, but just like you can say that a computer chip is meaningful to

The second string has the exact same likelihood of occurance, but differs in that it's complexity is SPECIFIED TO COMMUNICATE INFORMATION.

How does this help your case, exactly? We know humans do this; who else? Are we aware of any being that specifies complexity in tightly-packed molecular structures? Do we have any reason to believe that DNA is "specified to communicate information", rather than simply a set of complex organic molecules with self-reproducing properties?

Seriously, we can have a repetitive, tedious, totally boring discussion about the nature of information, but really it's just a red herring.

No, it isn't. It's sort of the lynchpin of the argument you're bringing up.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I would like to hear one say that ToE a fallible theory which has many problems. That's all i want. It would revive my respect for science.

Of course it's fallible. If someone manages to falsify it, they'll be a scientific legend.

The problems it has it that there are still a lot of unknowns which we'e reasoned should be there but haven't found yet.

Of course, the great thing about science is that not finding something isn't so much a "problem," as it is the next assignment.

There you go... now, can we take you at your word?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, allow me to rephrase, i meant a gorilla, chimpanzee or another kind of ape. I was simply wrong, as you pointed out.

And the theory of evolution will tell you that a population of people cannot evolve into a chimpanzee or into a gorilla, or that they could evolve into us. But we do share a common ancestor that was an ape. Evolution is a "one way street" there is no going back in evolution. And there are no goals in evolution. People were never a goal, they were simply a result. Flight for animals was never a goal, again it was just a result. We can reconstruct the pathway and as we find more and more fossils we can become even more sure of how flight evolved. We have dinosaurs with "half a wing". The "wings" at that point had a different function. But as they developed that function a new one, flight, arose and that is part of how birds evolved.

 

[Paterfamilia]

There are no problems with ToE. It's as robust a theory as they come.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

That's a good one!

 

[USincognito]

Thank you dogmahunter you want me to talk about dogs. Let's do it. According to evolution once there was a lizard that over millions of favourable mutations formed a wing.

Actually, it was a dinosaur and a particular clade of dinosaurs who happened to be bipedal.

Now back to dogs... Will it ever regrow a wing ... According to evolution.

No, according to evolution, dogs will never regrow a wing because neither they nor any of their ancestors had wings.

You according to evolution have to say yes, why do I say that ...

I hope it's because you weren't paying close attention to what you wrote and missed the fact that you asked if dogs will ever "regrow a wing".