Can you make assumptions in science?

Post Reply New Topic

THE FAILURE OF DARWINISM AND ITS FULLER IMPLICATIONS

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
(Adler and Adler: Bethesda, Maryland, 3rd ed. 1986) 368 pages, hardback $19.95.

reviewed by John F. McCarthy
Click here to buy Evolution: A Theory in Crisis from Amazon Books The central thesis of this book is that Darwin's theory of evolution has not been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since its publication in 1859. Denton succeeds in refuting Darwinian evolution in terms of the empirical facts as they are known to natural scientists today, yet, for emotional reasons, he cannot entirely give up the theory. Because of the irrational element of this attachment, some of the historical judgments that he expresses are unsubstantiated and contradictory.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt26.html

Here is a highly specific claim which you should back up with research links. What are the innumerable examples of fossils found in the wrong strata for current geologic knowledge?

yea... about that:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html



Rejecting science is not a mandatory part of being a Christian, as shown in my other link from a Christian geologist. You are rejecting science even while making the claim that I am the one doing so. It's not all tabletop experiments. (Although the Miller-Urey flask was an outstanding one). There must also be observation. Fossils are a key observation and they are not mixed about randomly in the strata.

I am not rejecting science. In fact, we Christians claim that unless the Universe is governed by intelligible and consistent Natural Laws any attempt at science is completely futile. It is your ideology that requires inconsistent or non-existent natural laws to make your impossible daydream appear to be workable. Your system is propagated with a plethora of vague and gratuitous assertions in defiance of observable nature.

Anyhow, regards the lethal inconsistencies in the supposed "geologic column", here is a short excerpt from a rather exhaustive book on the matter:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologic ... nformities

I think you can be pretty confident that I know a fair bit more about the excuses for the supposed "theory of evolution" than you do.

"Observable reality" would tell an unschooled person that there is no way on earth to fit a dozen or more encyclopedias onto a pinhead.

Observable reality is not the only reality - even deists believe this. So if you're going to argue "observable reality," you must be consistent. Miracles, virgin birth, parting the waters with a stick, pillars of salt, surviving for days in a whale stomach, raising the dead etc are not consistent with observable reality.

First cause is moot.
- If everything had to have a first cause, then so would any deity.
- If a non-eternal deity was first cause, then which deity?
- If a non-eternal deity was first cause, then why not multiple deities or even pan-dimensional beings?

Radioactive decay has an uncaused random quality.
Then there's the Hawking radiation and also the Casimir effect.

We also have Planck time, a boundary at which physics rules can no longer predict outcomes. Hence, all ideas prior to Planck time are the best guesses of theory, given the knowledge of those who best understand the nature of that boundary change.

Essentially what this means is, there is a point at which many things behave that is not intuitive to observable reality. This is all very similar to Clarke's third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The first cause fallacy neither proves nor disproves the need for a supernatural agent.

Having a non-eternal deity come first is very much like the idea that time came into existence with the universe, except that there is theoretical evidence for the latter.

Last edited by Narrator on 31 Jan 2015, 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

I thought you would be above pissing contests, David.

Janissy has to be one of the more level headed, knowledgeable people here, who consistently ignores your pejorative baiting. Or is it your "runaway ego" that prompts such comments?

AND perhaps the first assumption per non-eternal deity comes true in the other metaphor of the existence of the universe with theoretical evidence.

It's all semantics in reality AS IS.

AND ALL PERHAPS

OR ASSUMPTION NOW.

IN OTHER WORDS, MOST of this is basically mental masturbation, per the HUMAN flesh AND blood really hitting the road OF reality of LIFE IN NOW.

BUT NEVER THE LESS, masturbation can be fun..

And I for one enjoy life, as is, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO WORRY and all bliss.

So what's more important in life, life or science (systemization)......

I choose life, and use science for mental masturbation, occasionally, here and there....

But truly, getting addicted to 'masturbation', CAN be a very limited way of life......

Oh well done David you are folowing the creationist syllabus wonderfully

SO far we have had

Entropy - Busted
Evolutionists - Busted
Parroting Assertions - Busted
Assumptions are not science - Busted
Real World Observations - Busted
Chance and Random Canard - Busted
Conflating Evolution with Abiogenisis - Busted
Evolutions is a beleif/dogma Busted
Evidence from non scientific websites, posted in full because you don't understand the subject matter enough to put it into your own words - About to be Busted
Without God my life is meaningless, or words to this effect - So what this is your issue not natures
No Such thing as the Geologic Column - About to be adressed

Likely still to Come

Pasteur
Probability Calculations
False Postulates
Monkeys
no transitional forms
Hatred of God
Evidence from Design
Teleological Argument
Information Canard
HIstorical Science and Observed science
Static Species
Organisms don't evolve. Populations do.

You are very predictable, and essentially useless at debate, but please do continue.

You'd have to come around to this sooner or later... it's the second last defence of the indefensible.

It boils down to this: because we don't (or can't) know all about everything then we don't (or can't) know anything about anything; therefore, any convenient fanciful speculation is just as "valid" an expression of "truth" as any other carefully reasoned argument based on observation of reality (physical and metaphysical).

Secret and semi-secret organisations have been selling variations of this theme to gullible egotists for centuries.

I readily admit that Janissey presents himself as one who is honestly deceived and not as a dishonest deceiver. I will continue to respond to him as long as a semblance of reasonableness prevails.

Arty, if vague, but dogmatic, assertions can "bust" an argument then we are not talking science.

And a big laugh here.

I had a bet with myself that you'd respond with pejoratives and not address my arguments. Your "boils down to" defense is a dismissal that addresses nothing.
I guess I won the bet with myself and will have to pay up.

What was it you said a while back.. something about insults being the last resort of the indefensible? Yet that's how you respond, every time. ..."gullible," "egotist," "deceived"... and then you want us to be "reasonable".. LOL

I have to hand it to you... of all the pot-kettles you could find on a forum, you produce one almost every time you post. That deserves an award. Have a mug:

Thanks. None of your above has anything to do with science, though.

Neither do your pejorative replies. Again, pot-kettle. You're scoring well!

We're getting close to the last defence of the indefensible.

pot-kettle - Is that a hat-trick?