Replies

"OK, I'll bite. You've repeatedly talked about proof. Tell me about something in science that you know to be proven (outside pure fields like number-theory or geometry) and explain how that applies to your job. I'll wait"

Please don't tell me your that stupid. You profess to be superior intelligence and you want me to show one example that shows proof of science? How about the field of electro magnetics. It's just this minor field of science that dictates every facet of your life .... or should I say normal peoples lives.

Electro magnetics is something that can not be seen or touched yet it's proven to exist through experimentation and the applied sciences. From the ordinary electric generator to the highly comples MRI (which both are the result of the applied science of elector magnetics)

You wrote:
"You haven't read very much about biology then. Perhaps your knowledge of biology is as limited as your knowledge of the scientific method. The theory of evolution has survived 150 years of accumulated data collection since it was first publicly proposed, any of which had the potential to falsify it"

I've only read two or three books on evolution. Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the basic premise/theory of evolution that the beginning of all life started in a pool of primordial ooze somewhere? From that the spark of life came into existence and the first gems / bacteria developed. That in turn led to the first single cell organisms which developed into multiple celled organisms and so on and so forth. Eventually complex animals developed into four legged creatures which eventually started to walk on 2 feet dragging their hands on the ground. ect. ect. ect. until man as we know him today ... came to be. (simplistic I know, but isn't that the theory of evolution?)

You talk about fossils as if there were know ever found that contradict the facts of evolution. I can think of two such examples. The feet of man fossilized in the same mud as that of dinosaurs and the bones of a common everyday house cat, dead approx. 1000 years (a tomb in Egypt I believe - no I don't have the reference) that were carbon dated to be over 400,000 years old. And there is one one, the dig that showed fossils that were from the beginning of time that were found above the bones of animals that die only a few thousand years ago.

you wrote:"(I am not a scientist by the way, but I know one when I see one; they know something about science)"

So by your definition "Real" scientist deal in theories that are the result of looking at pieces of a puzzle and developing a theory that is refined over and over again. There is no way to disprove it because it's based upon subjective reasoning based upon "hypothesis", and "evidence". That's real science and those who deal with that a real scientist.

So your right, I'm wrong. I'm not a real scientist because I deal in theories that have proof through practical applications. As another poster put it, and I'll phrase it based upon they're definition, I'm just a technologist. Using magnetics to see inside the human body, that's not real science, that was just technology. Never mind that someone had to develop a theory about how magnetics works and how the human body is effected by it. never mind they then had to perform experiments to see if their theory could be put into practical application for the benefit of all mankind. No those aren't real scientist, they're just technicians.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the basic premise/theory of evolution that the beginning of all life started in a pool of primordial ooze somewhere?

You are wrong. Evolution describes the changes of life, not the beginning.

Electro magnetics is something that can not be seen or touched yet it's proven to exist through experimentation and the applied sciences. From the ordinary electric generator to the highly comples MRI (which both are the result of the applied science of elector magnetics)

Yet at the fundamental level, the overarching (encompassing) physics is still and will always remain a theory.

A theory in science is the end point.

The feet of man fossilized in the same mud as that of dinosaurs

Paluxy River giant man tracks?

Please don't tell me your that stupid. You profess to be superior intelligence and you want me to show one example that shows proof of science? How about the field of electro magnetics. It's just this minor field of science that dictates every facet of your life .... or should I say normal peoples lives.

OK then, lets see your proof of something in electrodynamics. Not evidence, which we can all see everyday in applications of electrodynamics, but proof. You just don't get it, do you?

I've only read two or three books on evolution.

I'm guessing that they weren't very good ones, as your level of understanding of the subject aspires to "cartoon".

Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the basic premise/theory of evolution that the beginning of all life started in a pool of primordial ooze somewhere? From that the spark of life came into existence and the first gems / bacteria developed. That in turn led to the first single cell organisms which developed into multiple celled organisms and so on and so forth. Eventually complex animals developed into four legged creatures which eventually started to walk on 2 feet dragging their hands on the ground. ect. ect. ect. until man as we know him today ... came to be. (simplistic I know, but isn't that the theory of evolution?)

No, it isn't. The premise of evolution is that allele frequencies vary in populations over time as a result of natural selection, genetic drift, and random mutation. With genetic isolation the resultant variation in phenotypes leads to speciation of isolated populations. Common descent from a primeval ancestor is not a necessary part of the theory of evolution, but all the molecular and paleontological evidence that we have to date (and there is a vast quantity of it) suggests that all life on earth does derive from a single ancestor. Even the ID-proposing scientists accept that.

You talk about fossils as if there were know ever found that contradict the facts of evolution. I can think of two such examples. The feet of man fossilized in the same mud as that of dinosaurs and the bones of a common everyday house cat, dead approx. 1000 years (a tomb in Egypt I believe - no I don't have the reference) that were carbon dated to be over 400,000 years old. And there is one one, the dig that showed fossils that were from the beginning of time that were found above the bones of animals that die only a few thousand years ago.

The Paluxy dinosaur/human footprints aren't even accepted as genuine by most creationsts.

Please provide a citation of a cat being carbon dated to be 400,000 years old.

Overthrust is a known geological phenomenon, and is easily identified.

So by your definition "Real" scientist deal in theories that are the result of looking at pieces of a puzzle and developing a theory that is refined over and over again. There is no way to disprove it because it's based upon subjective reasoning based upon "hypothesis", and "evidence". That's real science and those who deal with that a real scientist.

No, that is not my definition of real science. You need to work on your reading comprehension. Real science starts with observation, proceeds via multiple hypotheses, weeds out the hypotheses using falsifications and successful predictions, and promotes the simplest hypothesis that survives falsification and achieves successful predictions to the status of theory.

that were carbon dated to be over 400,000 years old.

Carbon dating tops out at about 50,000 years. There has never been a carbon date of 400,000. An immeasurably old date might be shown as >50,000 or some such, but never something like 400,000.

The more you post the more errors we see. Its not engendering confidence in your accuracy.

How about the field of electro magnetics.

I have never heard of electro magnetics. Do you mean electricity and magnetism?