Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: From many - one.

Not had an opportunity to check out your link, but to the first request.

In an attempt to insure the edges are not smeared in this discussion, “reproducing gravity” was not what I was referring to. If I want to say that gravity and Common Descent exist, occur or are true scientifically, I should be saying that there exists reproducable experimentation which demonstrates that these phenomena happen reliably. With gravity, I can obviously say, “Watch me drop this egg and you will notice that there is an inherent attraction between masses.” But, with Common Descent, there is no experiment that says, “Watch this X & Y and you will notice that they prove that all other life forms in the world came from one original form of life.” That is deductive reasoning that I infer from structure, DNA, behavior, etc. It is not the same as seeing the thing occur in experiemtation. So, if you mean, “Make another thing like gravity.” I cannot. But, I can reproduce it effecting and affecting the result. Not so with CD. It is the description of what folks infer from data. And, they vehemently disagree with other folks who do the same thing, but come to different conclusions. So much so, that they claim the latter have no business even speaking. This seems slightly hypocritical.

Regards,


220 posted on 12/04/2007 9:57:31 AM PST by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies ]


To: Dutchboy88

All one gets from dropping things here on Earth, wherever one is standing, is the basic observation that things fall, plus some data on air resistances, etc.

The theory of gravity (analysis way above my pay grade) talks about the why and how.

Ditto evolution. The fact of different species populations over time is easily observed in the geologic record. The further facts of chemical relationships is observable in the lab. In both cases predictions can be made.

Are there reproducible experiments on novas?

Unfortunately, grade school “science” teaching talks about reproducible experiments and does demostrations, calling them experiments (in a real experiment you don’t know what the right anser is). In certain areas of science reproducible experiments are, indeed, necessary, but not all. Predictions are the more generally significant feature, but it takes until college science classes, usually the ones for science majors, before that message gets out.


221 posted on 12/04/2007 10:17:10 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies ]

To: Dutchboy88

Evolution is an experimental science. If you don’t know this, you’ve been misinformed. The evolution of adaptations can be reliably observed. It won’t be long before this is routinely demonstrated in high school advanced biology labs.

Speciation can also be demonstrated over a period of a few years. Perhaps not in slow breeding animals, but then no one expects speciation in just a few generations.

Common descent is inferential in the same sense that criminal forensics is inferential. If you don’t accept this kind of reasoning, you better be prepared to empty all the prisons.


222 posted on 12/04/2007 10:20:57 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson