Why evolution isn't scientific

[Ophiolite]

Distances to stars and to anything else in the far universe are based on time being the same.

The lack of your scientific education shows up in the imprecise wording of your assertions. Once again I don't understand what you are trying to say. Repeated attempts to parse the sentence achieve nothing but throw up contradictions and chaos. If you wish have another go. (This time aim for precision of terminology.) However, its irrelevant to the discussion of evolution: no aspect of evolutionary theory is contingent upon stellar distances.

No, if we want to get back down on earth what is important here, is that science claims a same nature in the past, and has used the present nature to model the past..including evolution.

You use the word nature without defining what you mean by nature. The term has a variety of colloquial, cultural, metaphorical and historical usages. If you do not clearly, concisely, yet comprehensively define the term then your statements using it become flatulence echoing in an empty cavern.

Science has gathered a variety of evidence that point to a consistency in several aspects of the character of the universe. Such consistency is apparent in the fundamental forces and particles, and certain of the universal constants. What has changed over time is that the matter has "evolved" (in a non-biological sense), forming galaxies, changing the proportions of the elements, creating new elements, producing planets, initiating geology and eventually establishing a biosphere.

Consequently your simplistic claim that science asserts "nature" is the same today as it was in the past, is so simple as to be meaningless. (Kudos for your consistency!)

Prove it.

That was in reference to my assertion that "the laws and forces in the early days of life were no different from those in effect today". I am not required to prove it. That assertion is the current scientific consensus based upon abundant evidence. If you wish to deny it the onus is on you to disprove it. I don't have to expend energy supporting something already so very well supported simply because of a mindless objection.

And all of those could be related to a different nature in the past. So? Are you suggesting any of these things prove nature was the same?

I believe you have been previously told that science does not prove things. It determines the most probable explanations.

What the points I made suggest (very strongly, to the current exclusion of alternatives) is that the scientific laws, the fundamental constants and particles, the principles of chemistry and physics were practically the same on the Earth 3.5 billion years ago as they are today. As I pointed out many of the details (e.g. atmosphere composition, global tectonics) differ. The fundamentals not.

If you want to pursue that evidence take some undergraduate courses in geology. Without having properly studied the evidence you have no right to express unsupported opinions on the matter. (Well, truthfully, you are completely free to express those views. And those of us who have studied the evidence are free to laugh at you.)

 

[dad]

No. Old myths do not count as history.

Since you rule out all records of ancient history, where would we think history does start, in the Cuban version of the Vietnam war, or?

Bit rich of you to claim that I am narrow minded when you refuse to learn about science because you'd rather hold on to your ideas, yet think you know enough about science to claim they are wrong.

You have opportunity to teach all here what you think we lack in knowledge about your religion.

If you know so much about science as you claim, how do you get it so wrong?

Example?

So you know so little about science you can't even recognise it.

I recognize your posts. We llok for science in them. Instead it seems more of an emotional blatherathon.

It's like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn't know the rules, so you can't even play, and it just struts around, poops on the board, knocks the pieces over and flies off thinking it did quite well...

Speaking of chess...checkmate.

 

[dad]

The lack of your scientific education shows up in the imprecise wording of your assertions. Once again I don't understand what you are trying to say. Repeated attempts to parse the sentence achieve nothing but throw up contradictions and chaos. If you wish have another go. (This time aim for precision of terminology.) However, its irrelevant to the discussion of evolution: no aspect of evolutionary theory is contingent upon stellar distances.

Sorry if you thought your religious constructs were the defining essence of education. It may be true that I didn't stoop to explain things well to you. So now I will. The reason time is involved in distances to stars in cosmological measurements is because in the first rung of the cosmic distance ladder, Parallax what they use is actually time and space in the solar system here. Example, two measures to a star six months apart, using the distance the earth travels around the sun as the base line. Those hundreds of millions of miles involved happen to contain more than just space. This solar system, in every mile of it, involves time also. You cannot simply pretend it only represents space. The lines we draw to stars from the baseline are all meant to represent just distances, and assume that space and time are equal st all points. Let me know if you need it broken down further.

You use the word nature without defining what you mean by nature.

Fair enough. I use the term to represent all the forces and laws that are in effect in our natural world right now. The laws, for example, that determine how atoms work.

Science has gathered a variety of evidence that point to a consistency in several aspects of the character of the universe.

I suggest it is circular and belief based interpretation of evidence NOT evidence itself.

Such consistency is apparent in the fundamental forces and particles, and certain of the universal constants.

The only place you ever saw a particle was here. You can't say the universe is the same based on the way it looks to you here.

What has changed over time is that the matter has "evolved" (in a non-biological sense), forming galaxies, changing the proportions of the elements, creating new elements, producing planets, initiating geology and eventually establishing a biosphere.

I disagree. Galaxies were created. Nor do you know the size of galaxies or stars or any distances!

Consequently your simplistic claim that science asserts "nature" is the same today as it was in the past, is so simple as to be meaningless. (Kudos for your consistency!)

False. You have much to learn.

That was in reference to my assertion that "the laws and forces in the early days of life were no different from those in effect today". I am not required to prove it. That assertion is the current scientific consensus based upon abundant evidence.

Great. So I say it was different, and am not required to prove it by your standards.

If you wish to deny it the onus is on you to disprove it.

Same to you.

I don't have to expend energy supporting something already so very well supported simply because of a mindless objection.

Same here. You only thought your position was solid. It is actually unsupportable.

I believe you have been previously told that science does not prove things. It determines the most probable explanations.

No. It cannot tell us what is probable at all. It uses beliefs that it chose in a narrow minded way and calls things probable ONLY when they can fit it into their religion.

What the points I made suggest (very strongly, to the current exclusion of alternatives) is that the scientific laws, the fundamental constants and particles, the principles of chemistry and physics were practically the same on the Earth 3.5 billion years ago as they are today.

You can't support that, so cut the fairy tales telling. Or support it.

As I pointed out many of the details (e.g. atmosphere composition, global tectonics) differ. The fundamentals not.

Says you. Of course the air and other things would be somewhat different in a past with a different nature! So? Why pretend that helps your religion you call science??

If you want to pursue that evidence take some undergraduate courses in geology.

I am familiar with geology, thanks. One needs to put that belief set firmly in it's little place of course.

Without having properly studied the evidence you have no right to express unsupported opinions on the matter. (Well, truthfully, you are completely free to express those views. And those of us who have studied the evidence are free to laugh at you.)

Your opinion of what 'properly' is frankly irrelevant.

 

[Kylie]

Since you rule out all records of ancient history, where would we think history does start, in the Cuban version of the Vietnam war, or?

You have opportunity to teach all here what you think we lack in knowledge about your religion.

Example?


I recognize your posts. We llok for science in them. Instead it seems more of an emotional blatherathon.


Speaking of chess...checkmate.

Your attempts to defeat me are laughable.

Let me know when you have something of value.

 

[dad]

Your attempts to defeat me are laughable.

Let me know when you have something of value.

Your attempts at pretending you were not defeated are laughable.

 

[Kylie]

Your attempts at pretending you were not defeated are laughable.

Your attempts at pretending you defeated me are even more so.

 

[dad]

Your attempts at pretending you defeated me are even more so.

The proof is in your posts.

 

[Kylie]

The proof is in your posts.

And the proof of your failure is in yours. You ever see anyone agreeing with you? I've never seen anyone here support your claims of a different state past or your claims that science doesn't know. And yet, many here have posted, like me, that your claims are without merit.

 

[dad]

And the proof of your failure is in yours. You ever see anyone agreeing with you? I've never seen anyone here support your claims of a different state past or your claims that science doesn't know. And yet, many here have posted, like me, that your claims are without merit.

None have posted that the past spoken of in history and the bible was without merit in any way except a religious way, belief based way, and a way that is devoid of support or even so far a cohesive defense. Work on that.

 

[Kylie]

None have posted that the past spoken of in history and the bible was without merit in any way except a religious way, belief based way, and a way that is devoid of support or even so far a cohesive defense. Work on that.

You should work on producing evidence to support your position instead of wasting my time.

 

[dad]

You should work on producing evidence to support your position instead of wasting my time.

No problem, take some time to try and get support for your beliefs, and then get back to the forum here and show us what you are made of.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Why don't you two get a room?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

They place the time that the KT layer was formed at 65 or 70 million years ago. I currently accept that the flood was about that time.

In other words their 70 million years is about 4400 actual years. If they said 180 million, well that might be something closer to 5000 years ago! If they say 4 billion years that is something like 6000 years. They go wildly wrong soon as they get to the boundary of when this nature started. Why, because they use only this nature and the assumption of the same nature in the past for dates.

Ah. You just declare they're wrong and that settles it in your mind.

Some of us think that's kind of wacky.

 

[dad]

Ah. You just declare they're wrong and that settles it in your mind.

Some of us think that's kind of wacky.

Regardless of what you think about the flood or what time in history it occurred what matters is whether you can prove radioactivity existed and that nature was the same. Otherwise your dates lose validity.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Regardless of what you think about the flood or what time in history it occurred what matters is whether you can prove radioactivity existed and that nature was the same. Otherwise your dates lose validity.

What's so special about your claims that they do not require support but apparently only require you to assert them? All your claims have zero validity without support, yet in your delusion you seem to think otherwise.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Regardless of what you think about the flood or what time in history it occurred what matters is whether you can prove radioactivity existed and that nature was the same. Otherwise your dates lose validity.

Some of us think that denying the existence of radioactivity in past ages and denying the constancy of the laws of nature over the time of the universe is . . . . wacky.

It's easy to consider tests for consistency of laws of physics in the past as well as the present. Those tests have been applied. Do you know what tests for consistency have been applied? Do you know the results of those tests?

 

[dad]

What's so special about your claims that they do not require support but apparently only require you to assert them? All your claims have zero validity without support, yet in your delusion you seem to think otherwise.

My claim is that science doesn't know what nature existed in the far past on earth. You have one option: support your belief in a same nature in the past, or admit you have no support for it.

 

[dad]

Some of us think that denying the existence of radioactivity in past ages and denying the constancy of the laws of nature over the time of the universe is . . . . wacky.

I cannot confirm nor deny that radioactivity was part of the former nature. Now if you can prove radioactive certainly did exist, why then I would look at that. So, let's see you do that.

It's easy to consider tests for consistency of laws of physics in the past as well as the present. Those tests have been applied. Do you know what tests for consistency have been applied? Do you know the results of those tests?

Well, why not just tell us what you think you are talking about. How do you expect me to have target practice when you will not lift up some target??

 

[Bungle_Bear]

My claim is that science doesn't know what nature existed in the far past on earth. You have one option: support your belief in a same nature in the past, or admit you have no support for it.

You have been given evidence and reasons for why it makes sense to think that nature was the same in the past. Your claim IS NOT that science doesn't know this - your claim IS that nature in the past was different to now. You need to support that belief or admit you have no support for it. You haven't provided a single line of reasoning in support of this spurious assertion.

 

[Kylie]

No problem, take some time to try and get support for your beliefs, and then get back to the forum here and show us what you are made of.

Demanding that I support my beliefs does not count as you supporting your beliefs. You make this mistake often, and considering that you have been corrected on this many times yet you still make the same mistake, I can only conclude you are trolling.