Evolutionists are morons.

[The Barbarian]

Science doesn't do proof?

Right. All it can do is make inferences from evidence.

...Al promise me you will never attempt anything electrical.

Notice that physics infers (from evidence) that a specific amount of insulation well prevent wires from shorting out. Not proof. Just evidence.

This is what grieves us because true science is all about provable facts that work time and time again given the same conditions.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

That is what I said in my first post evolution is a theory and not scientific fact...but it is presented as a fact, that's what bugs us. So we agree, I am right and you are wrong.

In science, a theory is stronger than a fact. Scientific laws are facts. Theories, like laws, predict specific things. But laws can't explain why these things are so, while theories do explain them.

Hence, Kepler's laws predicted the motion of planets around the Sun, while Newton's theory of gravitation explained why, and thereby opened the issue to stars, comets, and even an apple falling from a tree.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Right. All it can do is make inferences from evidence.



Notice that physics infers (from evidence) that a specific amount of insulation well prevent wires from shorting out. Not proof. Just evidence.



Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof



In science, a theory is stronger than a fact. Scientific laws are facts. Theories, like laws, predict specific things. But laws can't explain why these things are so, while theories do explain them.

Hence, Kepler's laws predicted the motion of planets around the Sun, while Newton's theory of gravitation explained why, and thereby opened the issue to stars, comets, and even an apple falling from a tree.

You guys are mixed up, they don't send folks to the moon with a theory they hope will work. Rockets operate by known facts...it is evolution which is not a science but only a theory. It has never been anything else. We object because you class it with science.

That is why I say show your evidence...you have none. The science that enables space travel can be presented and demonstrated to work time after time.

 

[The Barbarian]

You guys are mixed up, they don't send folks to the moon with a theory they hope will work.

Right. They sent them to the moon based on a theory they knew would work. But no one every proved gravitation. We just collected enough evidence to be very sure that we understood it.

Rockets operate by known facts...it is evolution which is not a science but only a theory.

As you see, "theories" are the most solid ideas in science. Laws are somewhat less solid, because they don't explain anything. In science, an idea doesn't qualify as a theory until there is a great deal of evidence to support it.

It has never been anything else. We object because you class it with science.

Actually, evolution is better established than the theory of gravitation. We can observe and test both of them, but we understand why evolution works. We still aren't exactly sure why gravity works.

That is why I say show your evidence...you have none.

The evidence includes observed speciation, DNA analysis (which we know works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent) the phylogenetic tree worked out by Linnaeus without any assumptions of evolution, fossil transitionals, and much, much more.

The science that enables space travel can be presented and demonstrated to work time after time.

As can natural selection. But we understand why that works. Someday, gravity will be a certain as evolution.

 

[alwight]

Science doesn't do proof?...Al promise me you will never attempt anything electrical.

Nevertheless formal proof is for mathematicians and whisky. Scientific theories can only be falsified, they don't get formally proven, something, in theory, could turn up that would falsify any such theory, even the ToE. But the longer they stand up to scrutiny the less likely it is they will be. The Theory of Evolution, despite what you said before, still very much stands up and does so even more so since Darwin as new evidence is found, but it could still be falsified like any theory.

This is what grieves us because true science is all about provable facts that work time and time again given the same conditions.

Subjective proof for you and me is still not formal proof.
We might think that gravity is a proven fact but is it?:
http://ncse.com/rncse/27/5-6/gravity-its-only-theory

That is what I said in my first post evolution is a theory and not scientific fact...but it is presented as a fact, that's what bugs us. So we agree, I am right and you are wrong.

I agreed it isn't a scientific fact, even if scientists individually and subjectively are convinced and regard it as such. Personally I subjectively consider the ToE to be a proven fact because nothing has ever turned up in 150 years to falsify it and I don't think ever will.

 

[Stripe]

:mock: evolutionists.

 

[kmoney]

It's not OK to be a YEC.

 

[Stripe]

It's not OK to be a YEC.

Sure, it is. :idunno:

 

[freelight]

Theistic evolution is the more logical paradigm.....

Theistic evolution is the more logical paradigm.....

If evolution is so "incorrect" and the age of the earth is apparently only 6,000 - 10,000 years old then why is there no consensus among the scientific community on it? Why is creationism not taken even remotely seriously? Science isn't in the business of 'making stuff up'. A basic knowledge of how the peer review system works renders some bizarre conspiracy to suppress the 'truth' obsolete. An old earth and an evolutionary process doesn't negate the existence of God. People as far back as Augustine saw the genesis account as allegorical. It's only a problem to those who for some bizarre reason seems to think actual science threatens God or their faith. It doesn't.

lain:

:thumb:

Life evolves, and 'creation' is but the one universal life unfolding, adapting, evolving, progressing, expanding. Some of these processes may take millions of years.

More on 'creation' and 'evolution' here



pj

 

[Stripe]

:darwinsm:

:mock: freeblight