Re: Pseudo-science


DJT wrote:
mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
snip

Then why were we taught about the Law of Gravity?

We aren't. Gravity is a theory.

No wonder we can't trust you.

Who says I can't be trusted?

You did when you said science doesn't prove anything. If science
doesn't prove anything everyone can go home and relax.


Did something hit you on the head?
Perhaps gravity pulled it down and rendered your logic inoperable.

What problems are you having with my statement? It's completely true.



What you may be referring to is Newton's
Laws of Gravitation, which is a description of how gravity affects objects.
Again, theories are explanations, "laws" are descriptions.

No wonder we can't trust you. If gravity did not exist laws of
gravitation would not exist.

When did I say that gravity did not exist? The laws of gravitation
are descriptions of how object react to gravity. Gravity itself is a
theory.

They are called "laws" of gravitation because gravity exists. Science
proved that.






Isn't this
compromise in the definition of scientific method really a naturalist's
response to creationist's argument that macro-evolution cannot be
proven and therefore cannot be a law of science?

No, because science doesn't "prove" anything.

No wonder we can't trust you. If science doesn't prove anything then
it's a waste of time.

Science provides answers to questions, it does not provide 'proof'.

Interesting how evolutionists condemn engineers for participating in
the creation evolution debate. Because if an engineer gets it wrong and
doesn't have the proof then a lot of people can get killed and he could
be fired. Evolutionists engage in story telling, creationists in
actuality.




The creationist's "argument"
is plainly a misstatement of how science works.

If science can't prove anything then why do you fight creationists?

Because creationists are trying to subsistute their religious beliefs
for science.

But if you can't prove anything you can't prove that creationists are
trying to subsitute their religious beliefs for science.



You
can't prove them wrong.

Likewise they can't "prove" them right. Science is not about proof.


In your view science can't prove anything and
can't prove creationists wrong.

I can show massive amounts of evidence that creationists are wrong.
"Proof" is not something that science deals in.

Engineers don't think so. You cannot be trusted.







Macroevolution has been
observed, and is considered as a fact.

Just awhile ago you said science cannot prove anything and now you
state that Macroevolution is considered a "fact."

Both statements are true, and both statements are not in conflict.

No wonder we can't
trust you.

You'd do much better trusting me, than any of your creationist authors.
I don't lie, and I don't misrepresent science.

But you've told us that you can't prove anything, so you cannot be
trusted. You're imposing your ultra-skepticism into science. Next
you'll be telling us that the tomorrow gravity will roll around into a
ball or something.








The theory of evolution explains
that fact, and a host of other facts. Scientific theories do not become
"law" and never have.

Then why does the laws of gravitation exist?

Again, they are a description of how objects under the influence of
gravitation react. I've already pointed out that laws are
descriptions, theories are explanations.

They are called laws for a purpose. You keep contradicting yourself.



Because gravity is a fact
and there are laws based on gravity.

Gravity is a fact, and it's a theory. The fact of gravity is what's
described in the laws of gravitation. The theory of gravity explains
the fact. The theory of gravity never becomes a law.

A fact is an absolute truth. Therefore it cannot be a theory. Since
when do you get to tamper with words?



No wonder we can't trust you. You
don't know what a fact is.

On the contrary, I know what a fact is. You are mistakenly assuming
that you know.

But you can't prove anything and act as if you know.








Thus, since the
naturalists/athiests couldn't win according to the rules they've
changed the rules?

No, as has been pointed out to you before, scientist and atheist are not
synonomous. The "rules" have not been changed, it's the Creationists who
are attempting to change the rules to allow supernatural explanations.

No. The scientific evidence states that there are too many chemical
reactions and too many aminos that demand specific heat and cooling
times and that need to be put together in sequence in time to prevent
damage of aminos.

What 'scientific evidence' says this? Citation from the primary
literature, please. Even if there were such evidence, where is there
any allowance for supernatural action in any science?

Just a review of a talk.origin website article on the hopeful talk
concerning abiogenesis is enough to tell you, given the fact that life
hasn't been created, that there has to be multiples of sinks. This
information can be discerned merely by reading the countless claims by
evolutionists that life is extremely complex, the DNA is extremely
complex, and the numerous chemicals, their separate cooking rates and
the necessary cooling rate. Do a web search or go to a library. Most
evolutionists merely counter, "We are here, that's how we know it
happened." If I could throw up a catch phrase like that maybe someone
can also buy me a magic wand.



Besides, if you could put a billion of artificial
clay sinks with chance occurence of heat and cold water channels
leading one from a spring and another from a lava pit somebody might
come along and think that intelligence came along and put it there.

What someone might think is irrelevant. No one claims there were
'billion artificial clay sinks". You are just beating another
strawman.

But
what is to cause cold water to arrive just in time for each amino?

Why would it have to?

Billions of aminos. And this fact including the fact that scientists
cannot create life in labs proves a fundamental law that it takes
intelligence to produce complex things.

That makes no sense. We can observe complex things occuring by non
intelligent processes quite frequently. The fact that the
conditions under which life began are currently unknown is only
evidence that it's unknown. "Intelligence" still needs a physical
mechanism, or it can do nothing.

No we don't observe complex things occuring by non-intelligent
processes.

JM






>People operate on this law all
the time. There is no exception to the rule.

I pointed out a dozen exceptions to this "rule" in a previous post.
Why did you ignore it?


If someone wanted to produce computer programs he has to crack open a
book and provide input to his learning or he cannot produce the
software.

Do I have to remind you again that genetic molecules are not computer
software?

>If a man decided to produce software based on accident and
guesses he would never accomplish the feat.

Software is not produced by "accident and guesses". Neither is life
supposed to have started by "accident and guesses". Learn something
about the positions you oppose, before making up ridiculous strawmen.




There is no one in the world who believes that accidents and guesses
will produce software.

For good reason. However there is no reason to suspect that natural
processes could not have produced early life forms.

Everyone studies to fulfill the law of
intelligence.

There is no "law of intelligence". You are just plain wrong, for the
milionth time.


snipping ignored points below

DJT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Heres one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)
    ... Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, ... Newtonian gravity. ... By today's science. ... To prove His existence, yes. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Pseudo-science
    ... No wonder we can't trust you. ... Perhaps gravity pulled it down and rendered your logic inoperable. ... Again, theories are explanations, "laws" are descriptions. ... because science doesn't "prove" anything. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: LIGO.
    ... I use it only for General Relativity. ... Obviously you do not understand modern cosmology or astrophysics. ... I hope that by now you realise that I am very far from being ANTI science, but I do consider it my right to question some directions that science is apparently taking. ... As to " emotional reactions" to heterodox ideas well a year or two back a modified theory of gravity at very large distances was proposed which appeared to remove most of the "missing mass" problem. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Plate Tectonics and Earth expansion
    ... to acknowledge how little our modern science knows. ... I mean they still to this day teach in college that gravity ... at the point of emission and the point of detection. ... gravitational radiation is generated in ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Pseudo-science
    ... You did when you said science doesn't prove anything. ... Perhaps gravity pulled it down and rendered your logic inoperable. ... Again, theories are explanations, "laws" are descriptions. ... Because creationists are trying to subsistute their religious beliefs ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading