Evolution through the Back Door

Various | 6/15/2003 | Alamo-Girl

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up to your post! Please accept my apology. I should have given you a heads up to post 52.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the placemarker, js1138! It also makes for a nice bump!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

Now I'm in a quandary. The phrase - "absence of evidence IS evidence of absence" - was coined from Hubert P. Yockey who is an expert. But I believe that you are an expert also. Hmmmm...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your correction to the professor's comment:

Ordinary experience provides no clue of this [Heisenberg's] principle.

The examples you gave were electrical engineers and mathematicians. The professor may not have been thinking of those experiences as "common."

Perhaps a footnote there would help clarify it in the final article!

[Doctor Stochastic]

"Evidence" isn't really a good term to used in mathematics. It more properly belongs to forensics. Mostly I have seen the denial: "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" used in discussions of UFOs.

On the other hand (paraphrased from "Punch"): In an emergency, absence of body is preferable to presence of mind.

[Alamo-Girl]

Aha! Great catch! Thank you, general_re! I'll reword that sentence. How about something like this?:

According to Sir Karl Popper, competing theories that are equally falsifiable ought to result in one or the other being true; when the competing theories are both true as in wave/particle duality, the undecidability itself must be accepted as an axiom.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! Thanks for the chuckle!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

I think you just identified the problem with terms used. Yockey's disciplines are information theory (a branch of mathematics) and molecular biology. I believe he also has a PhD in physics. I would imagine he has a different view of "evidence" than others.

[ALS]

"The cry of the anti-science crowd was ever thus."

Who is "the anti-science crowd"?

[MHGinTN]

^

[Nebullis]

Yockey's use of the phrase "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is used very specifically in relation to the "primaeval soup".

[Michael121]

To measure the date we use carbon dating. Yet can you answer with certainty the amount of carbon at any given time? As in, were the levels constant? The answer is no. So we can get approximate dates, but relative to how close in terms of the universe?

If we can take a leaf from a tree and date it as being 10,000 years old, yet it was just removed and is still green, then how can we rely on this?

Science goes out of its way to try to disprove the existance of God. More so than to try and prove evolution. Science lacks in both. To deny a "supreme being" without proving "his" non-existance conclusively, is a fundemental error. To prove "evolution" wihtout complete proof, such as all missing "links" is also an error.

Your glass is always half empty. Pick a faucet and fill the glass first before you drink. Or suffer for your lack of thirst. As science turns on the water more and more drops come. Some hot some cold some blue some clear.

Meaning that the evidence, as more is gathered seems in direct contradiction to itself. And arguments about the extiction abound. Science cannot agree with itself on global warming as the evidence suggests it is cooler than the dark ages were. And the measurment of the temp, has been altered to include the sea temp which was never before added into the equation. So it would seem to be warming when this is factored in, yet it messes up the numbers.

Leave politics out of science and deal directly with the fact found. Leave anit-religious agendas out of science and deal with the facts found. But sadly it seems most science attacks religion and a lot of science bases itself on some politically correct finding.

Truth is truth all else are lies. When you deal with truth only, you have all you need. When you make assumptions then are later proved wrong, you lose credibility. You as in science.

The Bible if nothing else, has proven things archeologically
and including the existance of Peter. His house, and his name carved upon a stone. In the fishing village he was from. When you use the evidence found in the pages of the Bible and things start to add up, more truth upon more truth it is hard to deny the "whole" when the sum of its parts turn out to be real.

Science has yet to find life on another planet. Yet they keep trying in this. So they seem to have their own faith. But have yet to prove it to the world.

[Rudder]

Science goes out of its way to try to disprove the existance of God.

No it doesn't...not at all.

[No Dems 2004]

Thanks for the link, Alamo-Girl. I really appreciate it. I'm also glad to hear that we agree on evolution. I'll look forward to running into you in the future!

[No Dems 2004]

"Those who are threatened by the concept of evolution are insecure in their religious faith."

Threatened by evolution? Lol! I just don't believe the stupid, unproven (and unprovable) fallacious theory. And neither does Alamo-Girl, from what she tells me.

Evolution is simply incompatible with the Biblical account of creation. Oftentimes, this simple, fundamental account of how it all began is just too much for the educated man.

[No Dems 2004]

"The cry of the anti-science crowd was ever thus."

Ehem. Evolution is theory - NOT science. Unproven theory at that.

[Rudder]

Evolution is simply incompatible with the Biblical account of creation. Oftentimes, this simple, fundamental account of how it all began is just too much for the educated man.

Not too much, too little.

[connectthedots]

"Evolution through the Back Door"

I would have chosen a different title for this thread. At least creationists and evolutionists can agree this is impossible.

[William Terrell]

Hah! Let me Solve It All with a theory.

A quark is the four dimensional pixel defining the resolution of reality. When it's "off" it's potential; when it's "on", it's material, and, depending on which are "off" and "on" in the matrix of all quarks, determines what element is present by determining which atom is represented.

Whether a quark is "off" or "on" is controlled by (not the conscious) mind. This is why it's impossible to measure measurements.

So there.

[Michael121]

I know you are but what am I?

Same kinda thing with your response. You can say no it does not. I can show countless shows, books, lectures that try to disprove the existance of a creator. And one scientific documentary that tried to explain away the miracles in the Bible. It was pathetic. Such as Moses was able to part the Red Sea not from some miracle but because it was really shallow and filled with sandbars and at the moment it was parted there was a wind anomaly that created a downward sustained gale that hit the surface of the water and pushed it to each side. This show aired on NBC. Just one example.

Religion does not cause science to not exist. Facts are facts. But science discounts religion, and faith is claimed to blind those to science. Yet that science cannot agree whether we are now as evidence suggests, currently in an ice age. Which has happened every 11,000 years give or take a few. Over 200 feet of ice and snow covering planes from WWII that should have been much closer to the surface suprised those looking for them. And an weather shack erected in the mid 50's was also buried under 200 feet of ice and snow.

No hole in the ozone. Hole in the ozone. Global warming, global cooling. Second hand smoke bad, not so bad.

Science cannot agree even with the same evidence available to those doing the studies. It is or it is not. It cannot be both. We are warmer or cooler. And a recent study proves we were hotter 1400 years ago with wilder flucuations in temp than today. So once again proof is disproved. Until the next study that is.