Evolution Theory is Error

sink

CDfm wrote: »

There is a lot of stuff out there that science tells us it has hypotheses for that is generally accepted as fact but is not testable.

I am just saying well volcanoes -hot stuff that comes from the earth.
Nobody knows for sure whats at the earth core. No one has seen or observed it.
All the planetary stuff -formation of planets - black holes and all that - its just conjecture.

On the construction of the pyramids in Egypt - archaeologists use conjecture.They assemble information and use conjecture to fill in the blanks.But dont know the contruction methods.

What I am saying is that a lot of what sciencists ask us to believe is pure hypotheses based on conjecture or mathemathical models.

Its very like medieval scholars saying the world is flat based on observation. Thats the tradition scientists operate in.

So essentially scientists know very little they are just scratching the surface of what they know about the universe. So when a scientist says "There is no God" what he is really saying is " My hypotheses is there is no God" and if you ask for further explanation the best you can hope for is "Huh, well thats the theory - I also dont know what lives at the bottom of the ocean or I havent tested whats at our own planets core"

Thats the reality isnt it?

What rubbish! We know what's at the planets core because of indirect observable evidence such as magma samples and seismic readings. We know that black holes exist because we can see their impact on the light from distance stars which travels close. We have a fairly good idea of how the earth and moon formed based upon the chemical compositions of each and other objects in our solar systems such as asteroids, meteors and comets.

We have absolutely no evidence direct or indirect to even begin to extrapolate a scientific hypothesis on god.

pH

CDfm wrote: »

Its easy to recreate Newtons Gravity experiment.However, there are plenty of other things you cannot recreat for scientific verification.

No there aren't. There are things you mightn't have the expertise, equipment or time to recreate and check for yourself, but that's an argument of "I'm too stupid/poor/lazy to recreate it for myself" - distinctly different from "I cannot".

Its very like medieval scholars saying the world is flat based on observation.

They didn't, but that's another argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

Thats the tradition scientists operate in.

They seem to do amazingly well considering it's all conjecture and hypothetical models, who knows one day when the evidence comes in things like transistors, penicillin and moon landers may be found not to work after all.

Thats the reality isnt it?

Is it?

If scientists except things on faith how come Fleischmann and Pons didn't get a Nobel prize for physics and why aren't Hwang Woo Suk's cloning techniques used in hospitals and laboratories around the world?

sink

What is more we know that we are only scratching the surface and there is a lot more to learn and the only way we are going to do so is to by looking for physical evidence extrapolate a hypothesis to fit that evidence and testing it sufficiently so it forms a well rounded theory. Not by reading a 2000 year old book.

Goduznt Xzst

CDfm wrote: »

Thats the reality isnt it?

What is it with you Christians and continually missing the point. There is a HUGE difference between saying "something is unknown and a hypothesis" and saying "something is unknown and a hypothesis, so GET ON YOUR KNEES AND PRAY TO THIS UNKNOWN BECAUSE IT MIGHT DENY YOU IMMORTALITY"

You aren't merely postulating that a God might exist CDfm, you are postulating that he might exist and that you already KNOW how it wants you to live. This is a pretty big step to make.

I have no problem whatsoever with you imagining that some omniscient being exist, I have a problem with you thinking that you know what it wants of you and humanity.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

AH there must be loads of stuff that cant be reproduced.

JUst say -volcanoes - thats observation .

A reproducible one. An independently verifiable one. We can't reproduce at will but it's not like there was only ever one volcanic eruption or one observer.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

All the planetary stuff -formation of planets - black holes and all that - its just conjecture.

No it isn't. That isn't how science works, you don't just start making stuff up (guessing) by looking at something (that is how Creationism works :pac:)

All theories of the formation of planets are models. It is possible to compare the predictions of these models against observations to determine how accurate these models are, and to refine them.

That is not "just conjecture"

As has been repeatable stated on this forum, science is not simply about looking at stuff and having a go at guessing what is happening.

It is about modeling stuff and comparing the output of these models against observation, then going back to refine the models until they produce output closer to observation.

It is possible to model something without having to directly observe it by comparing the output of this model with things you can actually observe. You don't need to see into the inside of the Earth to model it. It obviously helps to refine the model the more you can observe, but not being able to observe something doesn't mean you simply use conjecture.

CDfm wrote: »

What I am saying is that a lot of what sciencists ask us to believe is pure hypotheses based on conjecture or mathemathical models.

"based on conjecture or mathematical models" ... ???

Conjecture is nothing like a mathematical model (seriously, wtf??)

If you have a mathematical model (a theory) of something you are doing pretty well. The next step is to test the predictions of the model against observation.

CDfm wrote: »

So essentially scientists know very little they are just scratching the surface of what they know about the universe. So when a scientist says "There is no God" what he is really saying is " My hypotheses is there is no God" and if you ask for further explanation the best you can hope for is "Huh, well thats the theory - I also dont know what lives at the bottom of the ocean or I havent tested whats at our own planets core"

Well yes, if your "scientist" is a moron who knows very little about science ...

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

There is a lot of stuff out there that science tells us it has hypotheses for that is generally accepted as fact but is not testable.

In some cases perhaps not practically testable with current technology, but no hypothesis is valid unless testable. And as to hypotheses being sold as "fact"- that's crap. A hyopthesis is a hypothesis. Theory represents fact.

CDfm wrote: »

I am just saying well volcanoes -hot stuff that comes from the earth.
Nobody knows for sure whats at the earth core. No one has seen or observed it.
All the planetary stuff -formation of planets - black holes and all that - its just conjecture.

Conjecture is what you're throwing about. Hypotheses and theories based on evidence are not conjecture. You're almost sounding like the creationists now- as if we can draw no conclusions on a thing unless it is directly observed in an unbroken timeline.

CDfm wrote: »

On the construction of the pyramids in Egypt - archaeologists use conjecture.They assemble information and use conjecture to fill in the blanks.But dont know the contruction methods.

Is this just a semantic argument? Conjecture is a proposition based on unknowns, on non-testable foundations. I can assure you that no good scientist, and certainly no well-known scientist, uses conjecture. You are confusing hypothesis with wild speculation.

CDfm wrote: »

What I am saying is that a lot of what sciencists ask us to believe is pure hypotheses based on conjecture or mathemathical models.

A lot of scientists or a lot of science journalists, TV documentaries and pop science books? Please show me the unmarked speculation and conjecture in the primary or review literature.

CDfm wrote: »

Its very like medieval scholars saying the world is flat based on observation. Thats the tradition scientists operate in.

As I said before, the only person throwing around spurious statements here is you. The flat earth was never an accepted scientific hypothesis and hasn't been widely held as fact by the general population since long before the dark ages. Please for the love of your God do some basic research before making such sweeping statements with such assurance.

CDfm wrote: »

So essentially scientists know very little they are just scratching the surface of what they know about the universe. So when a scientist says "There is no God" what he is really saying is " My hypotheses is there is no God" and if you ask for further explanation the best you can hope for is "Huh, well thats the theory - I also dont know what lives at the bottom of the ocean or I havent tested whats at our own planets core"

It's not a scientific theory, nor a hypothesis. There are no scientific papers claiming there to be no God. We dismiss God on other grounds. Occam's Razor, utility, probability and then the evidence.

CDfm wrote: »

Thats the reality isnt it?

In the world where a flat Earth was a scientific theory, maybe. A parallel reality that you share with some people you'd probably rather not associate with.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

No, but I suspect you've decided it is.

Not me - it was Stepthen Hawking gave up on the Theory of Everything.

Even Einstein was prone to the odd illogical moment and his maths dont always add up

http://www.relativitychallenge.com/mistakes.htm

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Not me - it was Stepthen Hawking gave up on the Theory of Everything.

Even Einstein was prone to the odd illogical moment and his maths dont always add up

http://www.relativitychallenge.com/mistakes.htm

I knew there had to be a crack pot website behind all this :P

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Not me - it was Stepthen Hawking gave up on the Theory of Everything.

Even Einstein was prone to the odd illogical moment and his maths dont always add up

http://www.relativitychallenge.com/mistakes.htm

Mistakes in calculations equal speculation and conjecture now? As I understand it the errors he made have no real impact on his central theory nor the implications of it.

Can you even decipher that website you've provided as evidence for your argument? Seriously, back up this "conjecture" conjecture or just drop it.

sink

CDfm wrote: »

Not me - it was Stepthen Hawking gave up on the Theory of Everything.

Even Einstein was prone to the odd illogical moment and his maths dont always add up

http://www.relativitychallenge.com/mistakes.htm

The Theory of Everything is simply a theory explaining Gravity and the Electronuclear force. At the moment we don't have a verified theory to explain how both these forces operate together but we know that there must be one since they do. I don't know where Stephen Hawking is on the numerous possible theories but if he has given up it is not evidence of anything other than his stamina for solving extremely perplexing problems.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Can you even decipher that website you've provided as evidence for your argument?

Steven Bryant is someone who thinks he has discovered a whole lot of mistakes in the fundamentals of Einsteins relativity maths (not the ones everyone else found years ago mind, brand new ones!). And the internet gives him the ability to shout about it. Loudly.

In fact his work was so good he published a paper in a per-reviewed journal and went on to win a Nobel Prize ...

...I might have made the last bit up :pac:

AtomicHorror

sink wrote: »

The Theory of Everything is simply a theory explaining Gravity and the Electronuclear force. At the moment we don't have a verified theory to explain how both these forces operate together but we know that there must be one since they do. I don't know where Stephen Hawking is on the numerous possible theories but if he has given up it does not evidence of anything other than his stamina for solving extremely perplexing problems.

Yes. I have to say, the use of Hawking as an example in the same post as Einstein displays the classic confusion non-scientists often have between an actual revolutionary genius and a decent-ish physicist whose main skill is explaining physics to the common man. That Hawking cannot solve a problem is no significant indication of anything. The man is a fine scientist, but he's nothing like the best living physicist and certainly doesn't compare to Einstein.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

Not me - it was Stepthen Hawking gave up on the Theory of Everything.

If you can stretch your mind back as far as 10:40h this morning and this post, you'll find that you were misunderstanding the nature of scientific knowledge and drawing the wrong conclusion from your misunderstanding.

If you'd like to move onto Hawking, then I'll assume that you concede the point I made and happily admit that you don't know what constitutes scientific knowledge

.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Steven Bryant is someone who thinks he has discovered a whole lot of mistakes in the fundamentals of Einsteins relativity maths (not the ones everyone else found years ago mind, brand new ones!). And the internet gives him the ability to shout about it. Loudly.

In fact his work was so good he published a paper in a per-reviewed journal and went on to win a Nobel Prize ...

...I might have made the last bit up :pac:

I just did a quick Google Search and thats what came up - co-incidentaly what are your views on the scientists at the Blood Transfusion Board and the Hepititus C scandal -they are scientists.

Occrams razor is apt in one of the posts -but it seems to me that what scientists dont want to approach questions. Simply,because it exposes their lack of expertise in an area.

It seems to me

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

it seems to me that what scientists dont want to approach questions.

Quite a claim. Have you ever met or spoken to somebody working in science or seen something on the telly about science, made by scientists?

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

co-incidentaly what are your views on the scientists at the Blood Transfusion Board and the Hepititus C scandal -they are scientists.

They are? I thought they were doctors?

Which ones are you referring to specifically?

CDfm wrote: »

it seems to me that what scientists dont want to approach questions.

Yes, because scientists love being unemployed :rolleyes:

Without questions there would be nothing for scientists to do.

It is politicians and priests who need to pretend to have all the answers ...

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

They are? I thought they were doctors?

Which ones are you referring to specifically?



Yes, because scientists love being unemployed :rolleyes:

Without questions there would be nothing for scientists to do.


It is politicians and priests who need to pretend to have all the answers ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2001/oct/23/research.highereducation

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/nov/13/research.highereducation2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science


Scientists have a long history of blunders and an inability to admit they are wrong.

And when they are they can always blame the scientific journal for not being rigorous enough or the peer review system.

sink

CDfm wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2001/oct/23/research.highereducation

Scientists have a long history of blunders and an inability to admit they are wrong.

And when they are they can always blame the scientific journal for not being rigorous enough or the peer review system.

All of these blunders were uncovered by peer review and did not last very long or were personal failures. You fail to grasp the amount of research being carried out 24 hours a day 365 days year from every corner of the earth creating thousands upon thousands of new discoveries and inventions. A few blunders here and there are predictable using the mathematical laws of probability.

sink

CDfm This may be very direct but you seem to have very little grasp of science or the scientific process. I would advise you revist your entire understanding of how the scientific world works and what science is. Your school science teacher must have done a very bad job or perhaps you just didn't pay attention.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2001/oct/23/research.highereducation

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/nov/13/research.highereducation2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science


Scientists have a long history of blunders and an inability to admit they are wrong.

And when they are they can always blame the scientific journal for not being rigorous enough or the peer review system.

If the system didn't work you'd have no idea any of this had happened. Who do you think has the expertise to figure it out when a scientist screws up? Journalists?

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

Scientists Religious leaders have a long history of blunders and an inability to admit they are wrong.

There. Fixed.

CDfm

sink wrote: »

CDfm This may be very direct but you seem to have very little grasp of science or the scientific process. I would advise you revist your entire understanding of how the scientific world works and what science is. Your school science teacher must have done a very bad job or perhaps you just didn't pay attention.

I think you miss my point.

My science teacher didnt do a very good job of telling me how scientific research was funded.

It seems that scientists go to industry,governments and the military for funding and try to sell them applications of yet to be discovered ideas. THe self same companies employ lobbiests and PR people to lobby government agencies to promote and licence their products.

I know this will surprise you but sometimes professional scientists hide information on dangerous side affects. I myself was recently shocked to read that scientists working for tobacco companies have for years surpressed evidence of its harmful affects when smoked.

How about EliLilly and the Thimerosal scandal -they have know since the 1930s that this is unsafe.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4098385/Tobacco-Science-and-the-Thimerosal-Scandal

So you cant blame someone like me for assuming that scientists and their financial backers will surpress information etc for financial gain.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

CDfm wrote: »

I know this will surprise you but sometimes professional scientists hide information on dangerous side affects. I myself was recently shocked to read that scientists working for tobacco companies have for years surpressed evidence of its harmful affects when smoked.

those scientists had their lips sealed by the tobacco companies.

They were tied into NDAs and the companies did not hesitate to use any means to gag them.

sink

CDfm wrote: »

I think you miss my point.

My science teacher didnt do a very good job of telling me how scientific research was funded.

It seems that scientists go to industry,governments and the military for funding and try to sell them applications of yet to be discovered ideas. THe self same companies employ lobbiests and PR people to lobby government agencies to promote and licence their products.

I know this will surprise you but sometimes professional scientists hide information on dangerous side affects. I myself was recently shocked to read that scientists working for tobacco companies have for years surpressed evidence of its harmful affects when smoked.

How about EliLilly and the Thimerosal scandal -they have know since the 1930s that this is unsafe.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4098385/Tobacco-Science-and-the-Thimerosal-Scandal

So you cant blame someone like me for assuming that scientists and their financial backers will surpress information etc for financial gain.

This conversation is meandering way of topic so lets try to bring it back. There is a clear motive behind tobacco companies suppressing knowledge of the dangers of smoking, they were eventually found out by scientists who carried out independent studies. Who exactly do you propose is suppressing the field of evolution and what is their motive?

RossFixxxed

I wanted to write an intelligent reply, but I've read some of the OP's other threads and posts and I can only say Epic Fail.

It's just.... I... *facepalm*

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

I think you miss my point.

My science teacher didnt do a very good job of telling me how scientific research was funded.

It seems that scientists go to industry,governments and the military for funding and try to sell them applications of yet to be discovered ideas. THe self same companies employ lobbiests and PR people to lobby government agencies to promote and licence their products.

It seems? How about you go work out what it is rather than what it seems. The lobbiests and PR guys come from big pharma, big oil, the tobacco industry and various other crooks.

CDfm wrote: »

I know this will surprise you but sometimes professional scientists hide information on dangerous side affects. I myself was recently shocked to read that scientists working for tobacco companies have for years surpressed evidence of its harmful affects when smoked.

A scientist also figured out that they were wrong.

CDfm wrote: »

How about EliLilly and the Thimerosal scandal -they have know since the 1930s that this is unsafe.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4098385/Tobacco-Science-and-the-Thimerosal-Scandal

Your source fails in the first sentence. There is no evidence for a causal link between thimerosal and autism.

CDfm wrote: »

So you cant blame someone like me for assuming that scientists and their financial backers will surpress information etc for financial gain.

I can and do blame you for tarring us all with the same brush, for the assumptions you're making based on some random unverified sources and a load of half assed speculation. We know full well the big pharma companies and co. are bent. That's why we consider them to be proponents of crap science. That's partly why peer review exists. They can't falsify data- so now the only option open to them is submission bias. They take that option often. Which we know about too, because of scientists who do meta analysis and meta-meta-analysis.

CDfm

Sean_K wrote: »

those scientists had their lips sealed by the tobacco companies.

They were tied into NDAs and the companies did not hesitate to use any means to gag them.

Non disclosure agreements ?

Completely uninterested in the interests of their clients interested just the science or the source of their funding

So science is about truthiness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Scientists have a long history of blunders and an inability to admit they are wrong.

They certainly do, but then science is designed around human failing.

Which is why you will never (or should never) get scientists taking other scientists claim's on word or reputation only. They first question a scientists asks when another claims to have discovered something is where is the data, the model, the evidence.

CDfm wrote: »

And when they are they can always blame the scientific journal for not being rigorous enough or the peer review system.

well no, case with mistakes in peer review normally result because the scientist has falsified their data. The scientific community ask to see the data and the scientist makes it up and gives it to them.

Which is why a lot of emphasis is put on replication. If no one else can replicate your results then you aren't going to get very far.

BTW I'm sure you have a point in there some where CDfm?

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Non disclosure agreements ?

Completely uninterested in the interests of their clients interested just the science or the source of their funding

So science is about truthiness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

Prejudiced broad sweeping bigotted crap.

Every Christian is like Fred Phelps. Oh look we can play this game too.