Anti-Evolutionist Scientific Explanations On Human Origin-ALL VIEWPOINTS WELCOME

The theory of evolution does not predict nor should it be reasonably expected that all gaps will be filled. History is imperfectly preserved.
It does predict that gaps will be filled over time, that as we gather new information they will fit the missing pieces of puzzle.
All the evidence fits exquisitely into an evolutionary pattern.

 

Denier tactics are universal. You'll Inquisitor uses a number of them regularly.


http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Exhib/HowtoEngl.html

7. The "What's It Mean?" Spiral of Infinity -- Try to keep your opponents off balance by constantly shifting or questioning the definitions of words. For example, if your opponent states that historians generally agree that 1 million Jews were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz during the Holocaust, you can ask, what do you mean by "historian" or what do you mean by "Jew" or what do you mean by "agree?" Alternatively, when confronted with the evidence that Himmler called for the "ausrotten" of the Jews, argue that ausrotten doesn't really mean extermination. When proof of that definition is provided by German dictionaries and German speakers on the newsgroup, just ignore it.

 

Most people who do not understand science come up with these odd claims. Claims that there must be 100 percent agreement for things to be true. Then there are claims that theories are just theories they are not laws. Finally, there is a huge amount of misunderstanding on how to judge the validity of a theory. Theory are not judged on their ability to just explain what has happened, they are judged on how they make novel predictions. The theory of evolution has guided many important scientific and medical finds. For example, the discovery of DNA was driven by the idea that organisms must pass on their trais to future generations. The vehicle was DNA for many organisms. This was in part driven by theory of evolution. Francis Crick specifically mentions it:

For Crick, the mind is a product of physical brain activity and the brain had evolved by natural means over millions of years. He felt that it was important that evolution by natural selection be taught in schools and that it was regrettable that English schools had compulsory religious instruction. He also considered that a new scientific world view was rapidly being established, and predicted that once the detailed workings of the brain were eventually revealed, erroneous Christian concepts about the nature of humans and the world would no longer be tenable; traditional conceptions of the "soul" would be replaced by a new understanding of the physical basis of mind.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick

Additionally, advances in organ transplants from different species were used and justified by the theory of evolution. Also, most of the animal models we have are justified by how closely related they are to us, without the theory of evolution we could not make these claims. Finally, optogenetics and immunotherapy are also grounded by tenets from theory of evolution. Without this theory, we would not be able to do much of the work in biliogy over this past 150 years.

We need better education in this country. These baseless and innaccurate criticisms do not occur in most other developed countries. In this country, people get a little bit of knowledge and claim that they know better than the experts. Yet, when something goes medically wrong, they go running to those experts and use whatever treatment they can get. It doesn't matter if that treatment was partially developed by theory of evolution.

 

Another one: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...wpoints-welcome.506943/page-6#post-1067798694

I claim that only posts made by believers in evolution are based purely on deduction which has no relation to reality around them, but not by anybody else less by Newton.

And they are coming one after another to demonstrate that my claim is true.

The 5th post in a raw you cannot answer the simplest question:

Observation of what?

But don't worry, no believer in evolution can.

 

Lol.

What is content of your post?

What are the facts in you posts you can demonstrate?

Lol.

The fact has been demonstrated:

The 10th post in a raw you cannot answer the simplest question:

Observation of what?

But don't worry, no believer in evolution can.

I will let the public to make conclusions about the intellectual level of believers in evolution.

 

I have quoted to you that Newton based his law of universal gravity on observations.

The observation s were:
then to derive from this force the tides, the shape of the earth, the precession of the equinoxes, lunar anomalies and other phenomena.

Yet, you ignore this and go off on a tangent. Since Newton's work is based on observation, how can you claim that he rid science of this? It is factually incorrect. You never admit this, you just insult and deflect.

 

The 10th post in a raw you cannot answer the simplest question:

Observation of what?

force the tides, the shape of the earth, the precession of the equinoxes, lunar anomalies in one word are?

It is just one word.

Can you?

Can you try?

Hint: Read your own words I quoted.

Didn't I tell in the beginning that believers in evolution cannot not only understand simple words they quote, but they cannot understand their own words they type.

Can you try to be the first?

I gave you a hint.

I have trust in you.

It is just one word.

 

Phenomena

 

You made my day.

I am smiling and I am happy.

You are the first.

Natural sciences, Classical mechanics, Thermodynamics, Genetics, Nuclear physics and similar are based on observation of phenomena.

Scientific revolution.

Scientific method:

"do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypothesis."

Do you understand the word whatever?

Then go and reread my posts.

 

Stay on topic. Your claims are false. Newton uses observations. Assumptions can have evidence. Stop posting the same erroneous threads every time.

 

You said that Newton uses observation of phenomena.

The key word in natural sciences is phenomena.

I quoted him to confirm your words that he does.

Does he has any place for evidence?

Or another whatever?

TOE is based on observation of evidence.

The key word in TOE is evidence.

The key word in your response is evidence.

Do you want me to go through your article using the word evidence 2nd time.

I don't have time.

I can tell you that both Newton's mechanics and Einstein's TOR are based on their own sets of assumptions.

As any other theory in natural sciences.

The assumptions have no proof, by the definition.

 

The TOE is a theory, right? A very good one, no doubt, and yet it is still rather weak when compared to quantum physics and mechanics. Weak in the fact that you cannot do much with TOE, like replicating in a lab the essential and necessary genetics that supposedly happened naturally over time to give the vast diversication in species. Fact is, we say it happened because of vast time, as if time was a bit like magic. But if we actually understood the mechanism, if we actually understood it, we could damn well replicate it. For intelligence would trump time. So, when this field of science starts to look like physics, when you can actually do something with the theory, macro level, then I will believe in TOE as it is laid out in the most materialistic fashion. Until I can be shown that all of the hullabaloo can be used in a lab, to create a new species, nah, you just got some lovely ideas, that depend upon the miracle of the rise of a self replicating molecules that had the potential of moving from that state to homo sapiens with just some time involved.

 

Wrong. According to the scientific method http://politicalforum.com/index.php...wpoints-welcome.506943/page-7#post-1067817662
it is whatever, it is a hypothesis, or in translation from Newton's Latin it is a pure speculation which has no place in natural sciences.

 

The something like immunotherapy or optigenetics. Or how it was one of the key ideas that drove Crick to try to discover DNA. Or how it justified organ transplants from animals into humans.

Not reproducible in the laboratory is false too:
We observed no Cit+mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.

Taken from:
http://m.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.short

This is one of the mist highly regarded journals. Additionally, dozens more articles have been generated by these experiments.

If you want a proper APA citation, let me know.

 

First off, you are taking Newton's words and applying them in a context that is far removed from when he said them.

Second off, there have been many additional interpretations.

Finally, science is not a dogmatic practice. One person does not dictate the rules by decree. Stop just referencing yourself and argue your points. You have said nothing novel nor anything that refutes people's claim. You only believe that you are. Follow the rules of the forum.

 

You are submitting a set of assumptions which cannot be accepted not only because you have no proof for, no facts, no reference to back up them, but also because they are as far away from reality as they can be.

Can you to point to any other interpretation of Classical mechanics given in the Principia, and since you are at that to any other interpretation of any theory of natural science done according to the rules given by one person namely Newton?

Can you point to who in the world besides you has ever interpreted that Newtons rules are a decree.?

You grossly misinterpret reality around you.

In theories of natural sciences (based on strict definitions), as Newton explained, there is no place for interpretation of any kind, no word can be changed, added or omitted.

This is what makes such theories stand true forever, and this is what makes natural science beautiful.

 

Theories of natural science have plenty of contributing people. Aristotle, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Hubble, Einstein, Heisenberg, Higgs, Hawkins and more. All had interpretation and predictions in their works.

Other interpretations of some of Newton's work was done by William Whewell:
The nineteenth century philosopher of science, William Whewell, qualified this statement, as, he said, "it was by such a use of hypotheses, that both Newton himself and Kepler, on whose discoveries those of Newton were based, made their discoveries". Whewell stated:
What is requisite is, that the hypotheses should be close to the facts, and not connected with them by other arbitrary and untried facts; and that the philosopher should be ready to resign it as soon as the facts refuse to confirm it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo

 

If I may ask you a few questions:

Did all the guys you listed use the same scientific method?

Aristotle and Einstein?

There was no scientific revolution which separated philosophy from science?

Why should we trust a philosopher, telling us what was going on in Newton’s mind, more than to Newton’s words repeated by Newton in the text of his theory more than twice in order to underline their importance?

Why should we trust a philosopher more than to words of Einstein referring to Newton’s rules again and again?

We should trust a philosopher than the experience of all physical theories, all using the same rules?

When the philosopher is quoted completely out of context.

(You may skip the following, because it addresses the Whewell’s text you brought to my attention:

Of course, Newton didn’t suddenly make laws of gravity because an apple fell on his head.

Of course, Kepler was building his theory starting all over 15 times.

Yet only when the theory was done it went publicly, it became a theory.

Other 14 attempts were burned.

Copernicus was begged by Catholic Bishops to publish his revolutionary theory of the Earth turning around the Sun.

He did not.

It was not done.)

Is what Whewell calls such a use hypotheses the same as Newton’s use of hypotheses with no such?


As all believers in evolution you are not interested in reading Newton, Einstein, Whewell, aren’t you?

Those were rhetorical, sarcastic questions.

You are not.


In reference to the subject of the OP, according to Whewell the TOE cannot be qualified as a hypothesis, because Whewell’s hypothesis must be built around observation of phenomena.

That’s why the TOE has nothing to do to science, but has all to do to a religious, philosophical belief.

We (or at least I), anti-evolutionists, are not against this belief, as we (or at least I) are for freedom of beliefs and religion.

We (or at least I) are against imposing this belief on others (or at least on me).

 

Yes, I will believe a philosopher who specializes in philosophy of science. You are the one making the claims about Newton. You are just some unknown person griping in a political form about science. Am I going to believe a philosopher over you? Yes.

You are taking him out of context because his writing was done hundreds of years ago. Even if we take these words out of context and only use those words, it still is a bad argument. You are trying to use phenomena as a technical term and it is not. You have not demonstrated any understanding of modern science. You just sit and repeat yourself. It may sound good to you, but to others, it is just a person ranting on a philosophical point in a science forum.

My suggestion is take a class in experimental methods. Raise your concerns and see how they responded to. I am done explaining to the same basic principles over and over again.

 

I am running out of sarcasm.

I never asked anybody to believe me.

Your choice has been either to believe the philosopher of science brought in by you, or to words of the giver one of most fundamental theories of natural science brought in by you, or to both of the philosopher and the giver and to your own words http://politicalforum.com/index.php...wpoints-welcome.506943/page-7#post-1067817574 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...wpoints-welcome.506943/page-7#post-1067817585 .

The next time when you decide to try to accuse me in all of your own sins demonstrated in your posts, at least try not to sound so insane.

“ taking him out of context because his writing was done hundreds of years ago” is a nonsense, insanity.

Newton’s Principia was done hundreds years ago, has it lost any of its validity for Einstein?

As to your advice to take a class you don’t know what classes I had taken and on what level, do you?

Classical argument of the religious fanatics: you don’t understand _______ insert a word or a subject, period.

You took your classes and it shows.

In either case all the above, including yourself has been claiming that natural science is based on observation of phenomena.

Since no adept of the religion of evolution has been able to raise any objection to this claim, but only confirm it http://politicalforum.com/index.php...wpoints-welcome.506943/page-7#post-1067817574 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...wpoints-welcome.506943/page-7#post-1067817585 , this claim stands as true.

The TOE is neither a scientific theory nor a scientific hypothesis, it is a religious belief because it is in no way or measure is based on observation of a phenomena.

We (or at least I), anti-evolutionists, are not against this belief, as we (or at least I) are for freedom of beliefs and religion.

We (or at least I) are against imposing this belief on others (or at least on me).

I personally appreciate your demonstration of total inability of any religious fanatic to address any words the fanatic quotes.

Had to repeat to confirm that there will be no reaction, like no reaction to light from a brain dead.

 

All you continue to do is document your ignorance of the science you presume to criticize.

 

Natural science makes prediction based on observable phenomena.

You quoted my words:

"I never asked anybody to believe me.

Your choice has been either to believe the philosopher of science brought in by you, or to words of the giver one of most fundamental theories of natural science brought in by you, or to both of the philosopher and the giver and to your own words http://politicalforum.com/index.php...wpoints-welcome.506943/page-7#post-1067817574 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...wpoints-welcome.506943/page-7#post-1067817585 .

The next time when you decide to try to accuse me in all of your own sins demonstrated in your posts, at least try not to sound so insane.

“ taking him out of context because his writing was done hundreds of years ago” is a nonsense, insanity.

Newton’s Principia was done hundreds years ago, has it lost any of its validity for Einstein?

As to your advice to take a class you don’t know what classes I had taken and on what level, do you?

Classical argument of the religious fanatics: you don’t understand _______ insert a word or a subject, period.

You took your classes and it shows.

In either case all the above, including yourself has been claiming that natural science is based on observation of phenomena.

Since no adept of the religion of evolution has been able to raise any objection to this claim, but only confirm it http://politicalforum.com/index.php...wpoints-welcome.506943/page-7#post-1067817574 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...wpoints-welcome.506943/page-7#post-1067817585 , this claim stands as true.

The TOE is neither a scientific theory nor a scientific hypothesis, it is a religious belief because it is in no way or measure is based on observation of a phenomena.

We (or at least I), anti-evolutionists, are not against this belief, as we (or at least I) are for freedom of beliefs and religion.

We (or at least I) are against imposing this belief on others (or at least on me).

I personally appreciate your demonstration of total inability of any religious fanatic to address any words the fanatic quotes.

Had to repeat to confirm that there will be no reaction, like no reaction to light from a brain dead."





I colored red the prediction you jumped to confirm to be true.

I personally appreciate your demonstration of total inability of any religious fanatic to address any words the fanatic quotes.

Jump again.

 

Soldier on in confusion.

.