Posted on 11/01/2007 5:53:26 PM PDT by truthfinder9
“For example in reaction to learning the ice core records show that temperature change has consistently proceeded CO2 change by 200 to 800 years, climate *scientists* claimed that this only strengthened their theory.”
That’s the clincher for me. As hard as I try, I simply cannot understand how the effect could possibly precede the cause!
The scientific evidence is there. It is having a hard time being heard right now, but I think the evidence is winning out.
From my studies and reading: global warming is real. Man-made global warming is vastly exaggerated.
But they did indeed find a way to explain the observations in a way consistent with the theory. So it is possible that some part of the theory could be correct, in the same sense that some part of your horoscope could be. The adherents of both horoscopes and global warming will always incorporate any conceivable evidence into their theory. Neither set of adherents will take the risk of making a falsifiable prediction.
Second, one cannot assert that an event is improbable without knowing what the event in question is, and in what context it occurred. The event and its context must be described exactly and and fully before probability can be assigned. For example, on cannot say winning the lotto is improbable without knowing the conditions of the event, whether cheating might have been involved, and more importantly, whether it has already been won.
The last condition might seem trivial, but it is not. Nearly everyone on this forum agrees that life came from non-life. For believers, it is explicitly stated in the Bible. So the argument is not about whether non-living matter can become living, but rather, under what conditions.
If one could solve difficult problems in chemistry by assigning probabilities of molecules assembling themselves, I daresay research and development laboratories would be different from what they are. The chemical precursors to life are being studied in the conventional way by conventional science. At some point it may be possible to assign probabilities to a sequence of events. But until we have an actual sequence of events, it is irrational to assign probabilities.
Now that we can all see wht I posted several days ago, try going over my post point by point.
In the sense that the balance of evidence makes the theory implausible to an objective observer I agree with you here.
As a scientific theory its already dead. Early on it made predictions that failed. That should have been the end of it. The problem is that it has already become something else. Its adapted itself with what Popper calls "conventional twists" to where falsification is not reasonably possible. In such a state, it will be considered as "scientific" by those that wish to view it that way for much longer then it ought. And because it is "scientific" and can't be "disproved" they will give it undeserved credibility.
True. The theory of evolution does not make many predictions, but it is very good at “postdictions.” It postdicted the discovery of the “Cambriam explosion,” for example. Postdictions are not quite as risky as predictions.
Biogenesis, the current law of land, is definitely falsifiable.
However I don't see how the converse is true. Perhaps you'd offer up some criteria?
I also don't think that not be able to falsify abiogenesis casts that hypothesis outside the limits of science but that's just me. How about you?
Then you agree he did not "change the rules." I accept your retraction.
Now, about your new claims. His post was not "all noise" because I could read it and understand his point. Nor was it logically unrelated to your challenge. Finally, I didn't see any "assumptions presented as dogma," as you call it, in his post.
Some falsifiables do rely on that while others don’t- I can’t for hte life of me remember that site that is somehtign like darwinisdead or evolutionis dead or somehtign liek that- it’s a science site, and they had several falsifiable examples of ID and explained the difference between the science of ID and the personal opinions that aren’t a factor in ID science- the two are seperate issues- I’ll see if I can’t remember it- it was a good article.
Sure Bsharp right after you explain to my why a chance of 10 to hte 350’th plus power is concider all that is needed for trillions of ever increasingly complex mutational advances? When you do that then we’ll discuss what you like-The Wistar Symposium laid it out just fine- go and seek ye the truth. It was NOT a symposium of ID proponents, it was NOT a symposium of anti-evolutionists- it was a symposium of the toip scientists coming ot hte very logical conclusion that descent with modification is entirely impossible- As I said- NO- I’ve supplied you and others with thel inks many many itmes in the past, and All I get for hte efforts are foot stomping insistances that ‘it could happen because it isn’t absolutely impossible’ and get the same lame demands from folk like you time and itme again when new threads pop up- Not this time JS- You can belittle and malign all you like- it does NOTHING to make Macroevolution either a biological possibility OR a mathematical possibility.
Google wistar or don’t- I don’t care
I don’t care if Behe beleives in a fairy tail with no scientific evidence to back it up- That is of NO concern to me as I explained in previous post. Behe can ASSUME and GUESS and PRESUME all he likes- it does NOTHING to show Macroevolution- His dogmatic adherence to assumptions, presumptions and guesses is nothign to me- His work on ID IS of interest to me precisely because it DOES have evidence to back it up- not some convoluted assumptions that it ‘could have happened despite the complete lack of evidence and the mathematical impoosibiliteis surrounding it, and despite the fact that Macroevolution ABSOLUTELY violates the second law at EVERY SINLE step of the way- which would include not just one, or two- or even a couple hundred steps of defiance to the law- but TRILLIONS of steps of ever increasing benificial and more complex advances.
[[I suspect you haven’t a clue about either abiogenesis or information. I also suspect you haven’t a clue about probability.]]
Gee- how quaint- And I suspect you will ignore Demski’s upper tolorance limits and insist mutations can still account for the vast variety of changes in species despite hte fact that Behe was being VERY generous in the allowances and still even one mutation couldn’t produce anythign close to the numbers needed for chance random forces to progress even one single system or cell- But please- do keep insinuating we haven’t a clue- Behe ignores the fact also that ENORMOUS societies are needed to advance just one mutation to a progressive state, and not simply an innocous benign state, and yet we have NO scientific evidence of the enormous societies that MUST have been present to accomplish this- pointing to bacteria and showing rapid MICROEVOLUTION in NO WAY is a defense for MACROEVOLUTION nor is it an evidentiary reality for it. I think it’s not ID proponents that are clueless but rather ...
You recommended I read Denton. Have you read Denton’s latest book?
No, the question is do you. I shan't embarrass you by leading your hand. Here is your statement again.
Abiogensis does not require that a modern cell spontaneously arise, what it does require is an imperfectly self replicating molecule subject to some time consistent selection, even remotely.
Okay.., here.., Take any molecule H2O or any other molecule you might choose, or any imaginary mythical molecule which may have existed in the past. And using your statement there, demonstrate the veracity of your assertion.
Here is a Wikipedia version of the Classic definition
"A chemical reaction is a process that results in the interconversion of chemical substances.[1] The substance or substances initially involved in a chemical reaction are called reactants. Chemical reactions are usually characterized by a chemical change, and they yield one or more products which are, in general, different from the reactants. Classically, chemical reactions encompass changes that strictly involve the motion of electrons in the forming and breaking of chemical bonds, although the general concept of a chemical reaction, in particular the notion of a chemical equation, is applicable to transformations of elementary particles, as well as nuclear reactions"
Unless the fellow has a PHD in the paradigm, meaning that he bought into it, hook-line&sinker.
How about we don’t and look at your's on its own merits. When a person actually takes a look at it, it breaks down fairly fast.
Yes, every year for the last 150 years has been its last. Evolution is definitely in crisis.
But if it is to be challenged, it must be challenged by an alternative having greater explanatory power, which means the alternative must explain the how, when and where in greater detail.
Invoking ghosts as explanations won’t cut it.
Ok - the articles you pointed me to, as you probably agree, rely on Behe. When you remember the other examples, please post them to me.
I said Denton? If so I meant Demski- and yes, Demski is another that beleives Common descent- however, once again their mistaken beleifs are of no concern to me
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.