Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000
A fact is a fact; science consists of theories supported by facts and observations.
Dear Lord, give me strength! He has an observation; he has a hypothesis to explain that observation; he's going to do research to see if his hypothesis is correct or if he needs to modify it. That is science, but you wouldn't know that, would you, Mr. "A circle is not an ellipse, the planet's have wildly elliptical orbits, 'strong evidence' equals 'absolute proof,' and 1720 is a really big number."
Actually, now your misrepresentations of science make a lot of sense. You consider science like a religion -- complete and not in need of constant revision. The fact that researchers are constantly doing research is an insult to your sensibilities -- they should "know" the answers already.
One more time, Mr. "I can't understand what's in front of me." Evolution is science. It is a theory supported by facts. Nothing has come along to "disprove" evolution, regardless of your plaintive bleatings.
Nothing, that is, except for everything science has accomplished in the last 150 years.
</flaming idiot creationist mode>
No it is not a lie. In fact, if you notice post#659, it is I who posted the whole article. In addition, almost invariably when I post a quote, I give a link to the whole article. What more can anyone ask for?
It is interesting that you can only call me names, but cannot refute my scientific quotes. The reason is that my statements are true. You are showing yourself to be a loser. You have been proven wrong and like almost all the rest of the ideologues of evolution you ungracefully and ungletemanly insult the messenger for daring to tell the truth.
Exactly what I said. Right now it is an ASSUMPTION. When he finds proof for that assumption, get back to me. He will not. The scientific facts both these scientists under discussion discovered show the impossibility of evolution.
One more time, Mr
One more time I gave strong evidence for my position, I gave FACTS. You said science cannot prove anything. When I called you and told you that then evolution is nonsense, you went back on what you said and repeated the moronic mantra which neither you nor any evolutionist can back up that evolution is facts. I disproved any sort of materialism in my article and in post# 652 - with facts, with scientific facts. You could refute them so you lamely went into skeptical mode. Okay, here's my post again. Let's see you refute it with facts instead of with the 'science can't prove anything' garbage:
There is such a theory and it has been discussed many times on this site, it is called intelligent design. It has been proven many times to be true and it at the same time proves evolution to be false. The bacterial flagellum is the most famous proof, however there are many more. The story in the article about Newton is one. In fact it has been proven through since then, that is why atheists are proposing an infinite amount of universes as the explanation for our universe. Another proof is the impossibility of abiogenesis which I show in the above article. Another proof is that biologists call the developmentat process whereby one cell multiplies into 100 trillion cells in exactly the correct place, of the exactly correct type during development a program. That is a trifecta against materialism and no one can refute it.
Repeating the mantra and offering no proof. Repeating the mantra and not refuting anything I have said in my posts or in the article above. When are you and your evolutionist friends going to show us how those species in the article evolved? What's the matter my statement that they could not evolved is true? What's the matter, you and your friends cannot find a refutation for my NUMEROUS PROOFS against materialistic evolution????????
Yes, nothing that science has accomplished in the last 150 years has tended to prove evolution. In fact, the very year in which the Origins was published, Pasteur disproved materialistic spontaneous generation which only some 10 years later Huxley 'wrote out' of evolution. A few year's later Mendel showed that Darwin's 'melding' theory was totally false. In 1953 DNA was discovered and it showed that creating new functions was virtually impossible. By the year 2000 when the genome project was being completed, we found that genes were just factories and did nothing on their own. That they needed a vast support system for which Darwinian evolution could never account for. So yes, the statement I made some months ago has not been disproven:
You gave erroneous conclusions, not facts. That you conclude bacterial flagella are too complicated to evolve through random mutation and natural selection is not a "fact" simply because you claim it is. Neither are any of the other "facts" you purport. What you have presented are conclusions based solely upon, "golly gee, I can't figure out how it happened, so it must be too complex to happen naturally, duh huh."
One of these things is not like the other. How is this not blatant dishonesty?
Because there are no "proofs" in science. Proofs are found in mathematics, and one cannot prove a negative (i.e., you cannot prove evolution is wrong mathematically). A proof also follows a set order: If A, then B; if B then C; therfore if A then C. Your arguments follow the order "I cannot understand how something is done so it is impossible."
That you cannot grasp simple concepts makes me wonder how anyone can possibly take you seriously when you spout off about subjects you know absolutely nothing about (geometry, astronomy, paleontology, biology, etc.).
Whatever you call it you cannot refute it. Your opinion is irrelevant, prove me wrong.
Because there are no "proofs" in science.
Going back and forth again. So refute my facts, my interpretation whatever you call it. I have posted scientific facts. You cannot refute them. Science does not support evolution, it supports Intelligent Design. Evolutionists do not have a single example of a mutation that has made an organism more complex. Evolution does not have a single clear example of a species that has evolved into a more complex species. Evolution does not even have a single clear idea of how evolution could have arisen. Evolution cannot even describe how complex functions could have arisen gradually. Evolution cannot explain the species I have posted in the article. Materialism cannot explain how an ordered Universe, how life could have arisen at random. In other words Junior, what you and your evolutionist/materialistic/atheist friends have to support your theory is just a big fat ZERO.
But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.
Do you have to hide behind other people's words?
THE COMPUTER PROGRAM IN APPENDIX E IN "UPON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS" BY RICHARD HARDISON 10 REM 1984 R. HARDISON 11 PRINT "RANDOMIZING ALPHABET" 12 PRINT "WRITE HAMLET, KEEPING" 13 PRINT "SUCCESSES." 14 PRINT :; REM N-COUNTER: # OF TRIALS 15 REM T=COUNTER:REUSE "TO BE" 16 PRINT "SUBROUTINE TO 17 PRINT "RANDOMIZE AND SELECT" 18 PRINT "LETTER" |
We have a Nobel-class Freeper with us! I refer you to Gore3000's post 715 to this very thread. Behold:
I know better what his discovery proves than what Dr. Baltimore said.
Shall we repeat that again, to help it sink in? I'll try increasing the font size, too.
I know better what his discovery proves than what Dr. Baltimore said.
Wow! This should really be in "Breaking News," doncha think?
And as we say in advertising, "But wait, there's more!" Check this out:
I supported my position, Dr. Baltimore did not support his view of how the discovery backs up evolution.
It apparently needs to be re-stated, for those of us compelled to post in blue, that in no place, at no time, did Dr. Baltimore ever claim his discovery "backs up evolution."
The whole extent of the evidence is against evolution and Dr. Baltimore did not say anywhere how his discovery proved evolution.
Your assessment of the evidence against evolution remains unconvincing.
Baltimore didn't say "how his discovery proved evolution," because he a) Wasn't trying to prove evolution, and b) He probably understands, as you obviously refuse to, that one does not prove theories.
In consecutive sentences, you've asserted that Baltimore has failed to either "back up" or "prove" evolution. Using the same distortion twice did not make it any more convincing. It is possible, given your somewhat eccentric view of mathematics, that you might believe something of zero credence would double its effectiveness in the second stating, but most of us believe that 2 x 0 = 0. (That would be a "zero" on the right side of the "equal" sign with the same numeric value as the "zero" on the left side of the "equal" sign.
In fact both he and Hartwell said that they had to see how it might be possible to show that their discoveries were in accordance with evolution, nowhere did they say that they had proof that they were explainable by evolution.
Make that three times.
It's a thrill just to lurk here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.