Can you make assumptions in science?

Post Reply New Topic

^^ impressive, as always

So David now that your entropy argument has been destroyed you are moving the goal posts to claim the input of energy cannot lead to increased complexity!! !! I suggest you look at the propensity for complexity and species numbers in relation to relatively high energy areas compared to lower areas. This is not only the case on the surface of the earth but but also true for the oceans.

Humans being per their own natural existence are perhaps one of the most fascinating examples of entropy overcome by mind over matter, at LEAST, DURING THE span of one lifetime.

Science suggests that the decline of strength and speed is inevitable after one reaches the age of 30.

Of course that empirical evidence is based on a sedentary population, moreover, after the age of 30.

NORMALLY animals REcreate themselves through the course of the lifespan through activities of rest and exercise to meet and adapt to the challenges of life.

l leg press 500LBS with my legs, per Nautilus Parallel leg press machine from the time I am 21 to just last year in the Spring Time frame.

I leg press 900LBS, just months later, as I simply find an adaptation through all natural challenge in martial arts and ballet dance to get almost twice as strong during that time period.

AND TO BE CLEAR, this is just one example in my life that I use here, as I can empirically prove it in videos and Hi-Definition photography evidence.

I come ARMED WITH FACTS, YES, in legs, as well.

I overcome what science suggests is inevitable entropy, in strength, among males at my age of 54.

I did it with mind over matter, WITH MIND AND BODY BALANCE.

Human mind and body balance, per mind over matter, IS the GREATEST ENTROPY BREAKER THERE IS, at least in human existence, as is.

OLDDavid, if you are weak now at your age, perhaps that colors your opinion of the entire Universe.

But nah.. Not me.. NOT ME who IS STILL MOVING Metaphorical mountains with the power of HUMAN WILL, FAITH, HOPE, AND simple belief IN ME with Trust in Mother Nature TRUE per ALL THAT IS.

All metaphorical and all literal MIXED where the FLESH AND BLOOD HITS the REAL ROADS OF LIFE.

YOU can dwindle away to entropy if you like, but I OPERATE with the Power of HUMAN relative FREE WILL, FAITH, HOPE, AND THE BELIEF IN ME WITH TRUST IN MOTHER NATURE TRUE, as something much more, than a frigging material reductionist science view.

MAGIC IS IN THE MIND AND SOUL, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS HEaRT.

Science is just a sketch, a black and white sketch, of what REAL INTEGRATED HUMANS WILL AND CAN DO in living COLOR.

While the pursuit of science is cool, the pursuit of human magicK AKA FULLER HUMAN POTENTIAL IS DIVINE.

And nah, while the New Testament has a few metaphors for it, there is NO EVIDENCE.. THAT I FOR ONE BRING to the table of flesh and BLOOD irrefutable EVIDENCE.

THE TRUE HUMAN FACT IS, if one believes in WHAT SCIENCE 'TELLS' 'us' alone THAT can kill what IS the true potential of HUMAN SPIRIT.

IN THAT Sense, SCIENCE CAN be an incredibly unhealthy tool.

HUMAN RELATIVE FREE WILL, FAITH, HOPE, AND BELIEF blows science AWAY, PER WHAT REALLY COUNTS AS A HUMAN BEING.

And nah, it doesn't have to be anything associated with religion OR culture either, as religion AND CULTURE tends to do even WORSE IN TRUE human effect and AFFECT BY oppressing, repressing, and subjugating human nature, through illusory fears, for materialistic gains.

I'm all about the flesh and blood, AS that's wHere REAL LIFE STARTS AND ENDS THE ROAD, of what we know now of 'OUR' realITy.

ALL these written words AND OTHER ABSTRACT SYMBOLS are NOTHING COMPARED TO REAL HUMAN BEING.

Ok so now that your attempts to fabricate science have been exposed we have the "i dont like it as it suggests morals are subjective" canard followed by the "evolutionism/evolutionists is/are a religion all to itself/themselves canard"

For the first one, well supply evidence that there is Objective morals. I know I can supply many examples of how morals change, Narrator has already suggested some of them.

Now for the asinine "Evolutionist" Canard. This word is used by creationists to suggest that anyone who understands and accepts Evolutionary BIology is subjegating themselves to a doctrine, and anyone accepting its postulates do so as a priori assumptions. To suggest this is bordering upon slander. Anyone who has read the scientific literature would understand just how false this "assumption" is. You are suggesting that there is some kind of symmetry between between valid, evidence-based, reality-based science and assertion-laden, mythology-based doctrine and you are completely wrong.

Evolutionary BIology has been tested, retested and subjected to every possible attempt to disprove it, and yet rather than being thrown in the bin as a crazy idea it has grown, matured, become ever more complex and marvelous, and right here is the difference between a scientific theory and doctrine, a scientific theory must be falsifiable. Evolutionary biology is so easily falsified, all it would take is the wrong fossil to be in the wrong geological layer and wam its finished. As J. B. S. Haldane is famously reported to have said when asked what evidence he would accept to disprove Evolutionary theory "fossil rabbits in the precambrian".

Aside from all the evidence separating Evolution from doctrine, there is also the little matter of the ability for a scientific theory to make predictions, something that Evolutionary theory has done on many many occasions, again this is something that a religious doctrine can never do.

So whilst you disparage those who understand evolutionary biology as Evolutionists, you might as well call us gravitationists, or for those of us who accept germ theory microbists, and as for those darn electromagnetists!! !

Conversation with you chaps is every bit as stimulating and interesting as trying to discuss the integrity of L Ron Hubbard with a coven of Scientologists.

Your ideology has nothing more to do with science than Scientology does... which you know but are desperately trying to avoid by steering the argument to a criticism of your version of a religion you know even less about than science.

You will, doubtless, also simply ignore the fact that the "geologic column" doesn't exist anywhere on Earth... it's just another fanciful invention of circular reasoning to support the assumed ideology. It goes like this: Assumption; nothing turned itself into simple organisms which turned themselves into more complex ones. So; rocks containing the fossilised remains of simpler organisms are older than rocks containing remains of more complex ones... which "proves" that simpler organisms are precursors of the more complex ones.

Completely ignoring the innumerable examples of where the different types of fossils are mixed up or even upside down the clever salesmen get to work creating idealised "geologic columns" to stick in children's school books, on cereal packets... everywhere they have a captive audience, in fact. It's a clever marketing trick that's even more pervasive and successful than the "things go better with Coke" slogan that has people all over the world paying lots of money to fill themselves up with that poisonous concoction.

"Evolutionary biology" has never been tested, can never be tested, in any practical way (as in observing it happening) because it is defined in a way that precludes any possible test... "billions of years", for example. Any real test of the supposed mechanism have invariably showed up as impossible conjecture. You need "worm holes" and "black holes" to detach the ideology even further from observable reality than even billions of years can provide.

Darwinism remains a philosophically, physically, chemically, biologically, mathematically impossible ideological presumption.

That, which I quoted above, is only the introduction to a short book. I hope that someone with a functional mind will read the rest of it.

Ahhh now I see. You would rather plumb new depths of the discussion rather than answer criticism of your previous posts. And if you think pejoratives are an answer then think again.

So David, it seems all you are here to do is preach at us. You are all pompous bluster and no substance if that's all you wish to do - no better than that Muslim chap who comes here and preaches at us, just as certain of his beliefs.

Why pose an argument if you're not going to respond to any criticism of it? Why should we respond at all, if all you plan to do is throw pejoratives at any reply?

Your method reminds me of a strange version of Monty Python's room for an argument or room for abuse sketch.
Yes it is... No it's not.. 'tis.. isn't.. that's not an argument.. yes it is..

Perhaps kraftie was right all along. You're just pulling our leg.

I think this post by AngelRho explains the issue well

It's simple! Either nothing turns itself into everything or it doesn't!

Look, Janissey, I don't give a stuff if someone who claims to be Christian says that the Moon is made of cheese. I'm only talking about observable reality... science.

"Well-founded "scientific" theories" are only well founded because the establishment media plugs them incessantly. It does not mean that there is any realistic basis for the superstition.

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