Re: No explanation

On 15 Apr, 19:56, b...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Sure. But remember that their target audience has already bought into
a doble standard. Mainstream science can never have enough evidence,
but alternative "underdogs" need only to point out a "gap" or 2, even
if they have to quote mine and redefine terms to do it, and they
"win." They don;t even need to make testable hypotheses these days,
let alone test them. Evolution is but one of many fields in which this
is the case.

When Einstein overthrew Nestonian Physics, he needed to only point out
a "gap" or 2, and then he "won." (Tell me, was Einstein relying on a
god-of-the-gaps style argument? LOL)

No. Einstein proposed a theory that offered a mechanism to explain
phenomena that were not explained by the Newtonian Theory. Einstain's
theory is parsimonious and falsifiable.
ID offers no explanation. It's just "Desingerdidit!". There are no
falsifiable predictions: an unspecified designer with unknowns motives
and powers could create anything, thus there is no way of testing ID.

So you see that your ridiculous, biased statement fails to understand
the basic methods by which science overthrows established paradigms.
Every single time a major scientific theory has to be revised, it is
precisely because somebody has noticed a "gap" or 2.

No. It's because something has found a new explanation that accounts
for both the facts explained by the previous theory and those not
explained by it.

As for "quote mining." Quote mining is not bad if the quote is taken
in context. The attempt by people on this newsgroup to tar "quote
mining" as automatically excluded from the debate, is just a defense
mechanism. Such defense mechanisms are to be expected of someone who
knows they can be beaten by a particular type of evidence, and thus
they try to make it seem like that entire class of evidence is
invalid.

There is a difference between quoting and quote mining.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: No explanation
    ... Mainstream science can never have enough evidence, ... People knew about the gaps before Einstein. ... The attempt by people on this newsgroup to tar "quote ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: No explanation
    ... Mainstream science can never have enough evidence, ... As for "quote mining." ... Quote mining is not bad if the quote is taken ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: No explanation
    ... Mainstream science can never have enough evidence, ... As for "quote mining." ... Quote mining is not bad if the quote is taken ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Open letter to Dr Mel Tonkin of SWT
    ... You stated that I had condemned the Wikipedia ... produce the evidence for that claim. ... You owe me an apology for making a lying claim about me. ... Please produce the quote relating to the Wikipedia ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Closed Debate Thread: Common Ancestry of Humans and Chimpanzees
    ... RAY MARTINEZ, previously: ... Your answer intentionally twists the quote to have said so called ... Leakey assumes hominid evolution is a fact but he is honest to report ... that the crucial evidence supporting the assumption is non-existent. ...
    (talk.origins)