Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[Condorman]

Context. But I grow weary of your stupid reindeer games. Annoy someone else for a while.

[AndrewC]

but a scientific theory is always subject to disproof.

So new evidence does not come in. Old evidence is not determined to be in error. Again you are choosing your definition of proof. I use "proof" with that common meaning, so something can be proven scientifically and can also be disproven scientifically.

proof    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (prf)
n.

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2. 1. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
   2. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3. 1. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
   2. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

Thus, you use definition 2 to hide Darwininian evolution behind the rigors of mathematical proof and use definition 3 to allow for disproof. Sweetikins.

[AndrewC]

Context. But I grow weary of your stupid reindeer games. Annoy someone else for a while.

537 votes.

[Condorman]

537 votes.

A partridge in a pear tree.

[AndrewC]

537 votes.

A partridge in a pear tree.

6212,6213,6214,6263,6259

[PatrickHenry]

silly test

[Condorman]

Now look, Sugarlump, don't take you frustrations out on li'l ol' me.

Mathematical proof is confined to mathematics. For scientific theories, it is simply not practical--or, in most cases, possible--to exhaustively isolate and test every conceivable outcome of every conceivable situation. Only in that case can one be said to have "proven" a theory, but we simply don't have the time or resources to do so. So we substitute confidence level.

Theories are retained because the evidence supports them. Theories are discarded because evidence is uncovered which shows them to be wrong. Newton failed on the orbit of Mercury, for example. The theory of evolution has not been proven and never will be. It is a theory which is strongly supported by genetic and fossil evidence, however, and thus gets a high confidence rating. But tomorrow we might uncover and categorize a fossil which collapses the whole thing. And if not tomorrow then the day after. Or the day after that.

Every single subsequent fossil may disprove evolution, and for this reason, evolution can never be conclusively proven. And if there was a theory proposed which explains the fossil record better, makes unique predictions borne out by evidence and observation, and does it better and cleaner than evolution, then I and, I suspect, most evolutionists here will cheerfully abandon the current theory of evolution and ride the new horse as far as it will take us.

In the meantime, however, there are no other contenders. Heredity, variation, and selection do a fine job of getting us where we're going.

[Condorman]

Silly test? How many questions? Are they multiple choice? Do we get a crib sheet? Is this a POP silly test? Can I study during lunch? WHERE'S MY RED STAPLER?! Oooh, I'm no good under pressure!!!

[PatrickHenry]

Brace yourself. This test will determine your grade for the whole course:

If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

[AndrewC]

Well, Babs, I'm just relating your hackneyed, proprietary, Darwininian definitions. Mathematical proof, by definition, is mathematical proof. Proof as a word is allowed, except by Darwininians, to be used when convincing evidence has been given for a subject.

And heredity, variation, and selection do a fine job at generating just-so stories, such as flapping perfectly good hands to surmount inclines, instead of using them in their functional manner to grasp and balance in climbing the same incline.

[AndrewC]

If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

To help write new Darwininian theories.

[AndrewC]

We can demonstrate that without a particular axiom (e.g. the validity of sensory evidence), no reasoning can be conducted.

Without citation.

The workings of the inner ear, visual illusions, false skeletal senses are  all explained.

Explanations of why a vertigo or spatial disorientation accident results in a 90% fatality rate for all the occupants in the aircraft, and why the aircraft is usually totally destroyed, not just substantially damaged!

This two-hour presentation makes it simple to understand why vertigo really is a killer!

[longshadow]

imaginary placemarker

[Condorman]

Mathematical proof, by definition, is mathematical proof. Proof as a word is allowed, except by Darwininians, to be used when convincing evidence has been given for a subject.

Why would you use the word "proof" to describe "convincing evidence"? Especially when new evidence is pouring in every day, and some of it might just turn out to be contradictory. The evidence is pretty good. The confidence level in the theory is pretty high. But there's an outside chance we're modelling or describing the wrong thing. Sort of like the theory of gravity. All mathematical proof will do is tell you is that your theory is mathematically sound, not that it's right. For example, I have a theory that says the best measure of IQ is a person's height divided by the circumference of their skull, normalized to 100. Mathematically prove my theory right or wrong.

And heredity, variation, and selection do a fine job at generating just-so stories, such as flapping perfectly good hands to surmount inclines, instead of using them in their functional manner to grasp and balance in climbing the same incline.

Neat. So what does your theory do, Honeylips?

[Condorman]

If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Umm... Because without monkeys, Congo 2 will have to depend on Pauly Shore for comic relief!

[PatrickHenry]

Wrong, ape breath! We still have monkeys in order to staff the creationist websites.

[AndrewC]

Why would you use the word "proof" to describe "convincing evidence"?

Well, Molasses brain, maybe that is due to the fact that the dictionary places convincing and evidence in one of the definitions of proof.

The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

[Condorman]

I never really enjoyed dictionary roulette, but thanks for the offer, Stickybuns. For some reason, confusing common usage with discipline-specific never held any appeal for me. But I know how much you get off on it, so I tell you what, why don't you, gore and effdot hold a convention, invite the troops, rent a convention center or a hotel ballroom or an auto body shop waiting room or something, and you guys have a blast!

In the meantime, I'm showing variation, heredity, and selection. What do you have?

[Condorman]

Wrong, ape breath!

Blast! And I got that answer FROM a creationist website!

[AndrewC]

I never really enjoyed dictionary roulette,

Well treacle breath, your abhorrence of dictionaries may be the reason you come up with a lame excuse of discipline-specific (AKA as Darwininian Dictionary -- anything useful for just-so stories) confusion for your inattention.

You, the threesome and the hand flapping bird have your own colonic event.