Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[Skreeper]

Real ignorance of anything is denying the obvious. To say science has not proved there is more than one blood type is the poster child of ignorance. It is truly sad when some find it necessary to try to discredit real science to protect a lie.

Scientific inquiry does not deal with proof. Any decent scientist could tell you that.

 

[jardiniere]

Scientific inquiry does not deal with proof. Any decent scientist could tell you that.

I agree with this. However, this is not how it is taught in grade school. Science really is taught as if it deals with 100% proof from at least kindergarten to most of high school-it's not until upper grades that the field broadens in how science's explanatory powers are actually arrived at. I remember the two high school science classes I had that never went into how science arrives at its conclusions. It's simply presented as a fait acompli, and woe the student that decides to ask why. On the whole, US schools really do a terrible job teaching science.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Real ignorance of anything is denying the obvious. To say science has not proved there is more than one blood type is the poster child of ignorance. It is truly sad when some find it necessary to try to discredit real science to protect a lie.

Well then, it'll be a snap to -prove- me wrong, right?? Go get the peer reviewed scientific research article that "proves" there's more than one blood type. I'll wait.

 

[omega2xx]

Well then, it'll be a snap to -prove- me wrong, right?? Go get the peer reviewed scientific research article that "proves" there's more than one blood type. I'll wait.

Now you are just being silly. You KNOW for a fact that there is more than one blood type. I bet you know your type. Do you believe what you have?

 

[omega2xx]

Scientific inquiry does not deal with proof. Any decent scientist could tell you that.

Is there more than one blood type?

Why do you think there is or is not?

Any decent scientist will tell you there is and it has been proved by testing.

To deny the obvious affirms their indoctrination of you has been successful.

Learn to think for yourself.

 

[Skreeper]

Is there more than one blood type?

Why do you think there is or is not?

Any decent scientist will tell you there is and it has been proved by testing.

To deny the obvious affirms their indoctrination of you has been successful.

Learn to think for yourself.

It has been confirmed that there is more than one blood type based on the currently available data. Confirmed does not equal proven since science does not deal with proof. Proof is for math and alcohol.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Now you are just being silly. You KNOW for a fact that there is more than one blood type. I bet you know your type. Do you believe what you have?

....so, you're not going to cite that science then? This is an exercise to help you understand how Science works so my knowing my bloodtype is inconsequential for this exercise. Again so you might have a better understanding of how Science works, Please quote the peer reviewed scientific research paper that "Proves" blood types.

 

[Speedwell]

Is there more than one blood type?

Why do you think there is or is not?

Any decent scientist will tell you there is and it has been proved by testing.

To deny the obvious affirms their indoctrination of you has been successful.

Learn to think for yourself.

It has been confirmed by testing, not "proved."

 

[USincognito]

Science neither denies or affirms the existence of God.

Science is not about religion or the supernatural. God created all the processes science works woth.

Science has disproven that God exists.

 

[USincognito]

Originally evolution included the origin of life.

No it didn't. I know this is a Quixotic endeavor, but in the first edition of Origin Darwin wrote this:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.​

In the second and subsequent editions he changed it to this:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.​

When they had no answer that didn't people smile they abandoned.

Lack of understanding on the part of a scientifically illiterate public has never caused a change in scientific propositions.

Have you never heard of the primordial ooze?

Yeah. It's a straw man term that didn't accurately describe abiogenesis 70 years ago, much less today.

 

[USincognito]

Real ignorance of anything is denying the obvious. To say science has not proved there is more than one blood type is the poster child of ignorance. It is truly sad when some find it necessary to try to discredit real science to protect a lie.

This has been explained to you so I don't know why you're having such trouble understanding. Here is the article I posted the last time:

No such thing as scientific proof.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.


Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.​

So, let's take the blood type example you're tenaciously holding on to. That there are four blood types is an observation. It is not a prediction or a hypothesis. That said, where the "proof" aspect comes in is that it is not proven that there actually are four blood types or that there are only four blood types because, and I'm bolding for emphasis, future observations might show that to be incorrect. Again, the lack of "proof" in science has ZERO to do with what we know now and everything to do with what we might learn in the future.

 

[omega2xx]

This has been explained to you so I don't know why you're having such trouble understanding. Here is the article I posted the last time:

No such thing as scientific proof.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.


Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.​

So, let's take the blood type example you're tenaciously holding on to. That there are four blood types is an observation. It is not a prediction or a hypothesis. That said, where the "proof" aspect comes in is that it is not proven that there actually are four blood types or that there are only four blood types because, and I'm bolding for emphasis, future observations might show that to be incorrect. Again, the lack of "proof" in science has ZERO to do with what we know now and everything to do with what we might learn in the future.

What a sad commentary on science.

That it has been proved scientifically that there is more than one blood type is so simple and obvious, even a cave man with a low 2 digit IQ could accept it.

Of course it is an observation. Observation and repeating something are necessary to PROVE a statement. The is the nail in the coffin of evolution. It can observe or repeat what it needs to to prove is fantacies.

You need to put on your thinking cap if you still have one. Future observations might show there are more than 4 blood types, but that there is more than one will never be changed.

 

[omega2xx]

It has been confirmed by testing, not "proved."

DUUH. If something is confirmed, IT HAS BEEN PROVED.

 

[omega2xx]

....so, you're not going to cite that science then? This is an exercise to help you understand how Science works so my knowing my bloodtype is inconsequential for this exercise. Again so you might have a better understanding of how Science works, Please quote the peer reviewed scientific research paper that "Proves" blood types.

Please tell me how we KNOW there is more than one blood type.

 

[Speedwell]

You need to put on your thinking cap if you still have one. Future observations might show there are more than 4 blood types, but that there is more than one will never be changed.

That there is more than one blood type as been confirmed by scientific experiment, not proven. I don't know why you want to use the term "proof" incorrectly.

 

[omega2xx]

That there is more than one blood type as been confirmed by scientific experiment, not proven. I don't know why you want to use the term "proof" incorrectly.

Get a good dictionary. If the definition of proved is to difficult for you, I will be glad to explain it to you.

 

[Speedwell]

Get a good dictionary. If the definition of proved is to difficult for you, I will be glad to explain it to you.

I find this explanation sufficient, thank you:
Formal proof - Wikipedia

 

[Jimmy D]

What a sad commentary on science.

That it has been proved scientifically that there is more than one blood type is so simple and obvious, even a cave man with a low 2 digit IQ could accept it.

Of course it is an observation. Observation and repeating something are necessary to PROVE a statement. The is the nail in the coffin of evolution. It can observe or repeat what it needs to to prove is fantacies.

You need to put on your thinking cap if you still have one. Future observations might show there are more than 4 blood types, but that there is more than one will never be changed.

We have observed that there are four blood types just as we have observed the gradual change in genetic variation that occurs in biological populations over periods of time.

This gradual change has been observed many, many times, do you deny it? Even a cave man with a 2 digit IQ could accept it.

Now, if only we could come up with some sort of theory to explain how and why this change occurs.

 

[Jimmy D]

P.S

Not this nonsense again, "I refuse to look at evidence, I WANT PROOF!"

Give me strength.

 

[USincognito]

That there is more than one blood type as been confirmed by scientific experiment, not proven. I don't know why you want to use the term "proof" incorrectly.

This monumental display of obstinacy is growing tiresome. He may have to go on my ignore list.