"Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." ~ Herbert Spencer ~
??? What do you mean by "good" here? It appears you've now travelled off into popularity contest land. It's not rational to try to make a full, rigorous scientific argument on a board when the science is not trivial. As you are surely aware, theories of science are an aggregation of multiple other theories and hypotheses. Presenting some full accounting of evidence is, obviously, ridiculous. Plus, you have been given specific evidence on key issues and have simply dismissed it with a handwave. So, why bother? Remember, science has no method of proving something to be true. It works through several methods of attempting to falsify or reject an hypothesis or theory. Plus, theories such as the theory of evolution and the theory of relativity stand in part because there is no better explanation and because they have been instrumental in making scientific progress. In other words, to dispute the theory of evolution it would be necessary to find a falsification or find a superior theory. So: That is your challenge, not mine.
Science does, not evolution. Science never mocks. It never lies. It never insults. This tread demonstrates to anyone with a little bit of brain and a little bit of decency left after years of school/college education that Evolutionists always desert to pure mocking, lies and insults when they face simple questions and facts: [QUOTE="Cosmo'']Obviously, you haven't the least remote clue what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE="Cosmo'']Thanks for confirming that you're clueless.[/QUOTE] The bottom line fact is that in difference from all other theories of natural sciences ToE has been having no practical use, direct or indirect, and thus along with creationism it should be taught only in a selective class of philosophy and religion.
Of course it comes from a no-scientist. "The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words." – https://todayinsci.com/K/Kelvin_Lord/Kelvin_Lord1.htm https://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_colour_and_design.html
Sure, there no believer in evolution who does not see that you answered the question : _Inquisitor_ said: ↑ Question: Did Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein followed the synopses you posted even in some proximity? The question remains the same: They did or they did not? Fanaticism of believers in evolution is bordering with insanity Why would you care what I think, if you cannot answer a simple question, - Yes, No, I don’t know?Why would you care what I think if you don’t believe your own eyes but believe whatever you are told to believe to? Hey, is there any practical use of ToE? Hey, can you give one, just one example? Can you show one, just one vaccine or antibiotic developed with help of ToE? I know that answer is very simple: NO. As simple like that. Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein have not followed the synopses you posted even in some proximity. As simple as that. I know that Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein followed a totally different set of rules, no matter what is your religion, sex, race, party association,. All working and useful theories of natural sciences, with no exclusion, have been based NOT on observation of evidence, but ONLY on observation of phenomena, all of them have absolutely no place for evidence. Rule 4. In natural sciences we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions. (That why Einstein pointed that TOR was in compliance with Newton’s mechanics and only made it more accurate and liable to exception) -This rule we must follow that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses. - Form no 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. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. ToE makes logical conclusions deducted from empirical evidence and thus it does not belong to natural sciences. ( I always ask the same question: who did create who, Nature created scientists according to its logic, or scientists created Nature according to their logic?) It is very easy to see what does belong to natural sciences what does not. Evidence – does not. Phenomena (events, happenings) - does. Take any of these theories and scan for words “evidence, may, may be, implies, conclude, etc” you will find none.
That's just a different theory - the theory that nothing actually changes (or whatever it is that you believe). One of the catches with that is that we're witnessing new species arrive and some others dying off. We also see that in the fossil record. So, I think your theory is weak in that it doesn't describe what we find in nature.
Well, the catch is that the theory of evolution is probably the strongest theory in all of science. We know that there are problems with our models of physics - physicists don't know how to unify the field, thus even the theory of relativity is likely to need some sort of overarching framework - perhaps something like relativity provides for Newton's progress that is a subset. Perhaps one of the easier views on evolution comes with the advent of human agriculture, where humans provide the selection that has made such a gigantic difference. That's more than a "practical use" - it's central to the growth of the human population of this planet.
Natural phenomena ARE evidence. And, all these people executed tests to verify their results. They wrote their results so that they were understood in great specificity. Their results were duplicated by and challenged by many others. Their results became accepted through a process of repeated testing and review. In most of the cases of those you mention, their ideas have continued to be tested up through modern times. - engineers have to account for time passing at a different rate due to the speed and altitude of GPS satellites, or your gps mapping would be garbage. - scientists recently measured the rate of travel of gravitational waves, which is a test of Einstein's theories. Etc. I don't know where the heck you found that, but you're getting yourself confused. Please cite. Oh, please!! No, I don't know what you are reading, but you are TOTALLY in the weeds on this one. Science is based on observation. Temperature, color, wind speed, water content of the atmosphere, acelleration due to gravity, light, ... These are all observable.
Spencer was educated in anthropology and biology. Kelvin was educated in mathematics and physics. He believed in evolution, but with intelligent guidance. Darwin and Kelvin's disagreements demonstrate that tension between prominent scientific and religious figures is nothing new. You’re deflecting and gibbering instead of addressing the evidence.
I cited – the text of Newton’s mechanic’s written by Newton, particularly rule 4 of the scientific method, and the text of ToR written by Einstein. Of course, you don’t know and will never know. Just go away.
A person who has no education in physics and mathematics cannot be a scientist and cannot know anything about the scientific method. The scientific method has no place for the statements “my speculation is better than yours because I don’t accept your facts” Natural sciences have no place for any speculations. The quote of a non-scientist is no evidence. You are deflecting from the article https://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_colour_and_design.html written by one of the most contributing scientists of all times. – https://todayinsci.com/K/Kelvin_Lord/Kelvin_Lord1.htm
What for when in the minds of believers in evolution phenomenon = evidence? I asked you to go away, I had enough of that.
Already proven false in this thread...and an embarrassing notion that would get you laughed out of the room in any educated company....
For evolutionists who think phenomenon = evidence Another spew of venom Typical claim of evolutionists who think phenomenon = evidence. I am just ROFL All evolutionists can sign under your claim. I am just ROFL Another spew of venom. Your cult company does not even have a clue what is education.
lol - sorry, I'm not going anywhere. I'm asking you for a link to what you copy/pasted. There's nothing unusual about that. The text you copied uses terminology that is unusual, especially concerning what can be considered evidence - a major issue in this discussion, obviously.
Herbert Spencer was educated in mathematics and physics; he was one of the foremost polymaths of his time, described as "the single most famous European intellectual in the closing decades of the nineteenth century." He contributed to diverse subjects including philosophy, sociology,psychology, ethics, religion, anthropology, economics, political theory, literature, astronomy and biology. As to the links/articles you posted, there is nothing in them that refute the ToE.
Educated in math and physics but made no contribution to math and physics, only to philosophy, sociology,psychology, ethics, religion, anthropology, economics, political theory, literature, and biology. Ha. As to the links/articles I posted, obviously there is nothing in them that refute the ToE. Did you read them, - where scientific men and ladies just laughed at the nonsense? Ha-ha.
I asked - what for? There is no word "evidence" in the text I copied-pasted. I cannot make you to go away. Stay and keep on twisting words - from a scientific theory to = a topic to = a scientific paper, from phenomenon to phenomenon=evidence, to evidence, no phenomenon, etc Twist and shout.
That doesn't make sense, either...you have derailed Good for you, but the rest of the world laughs at you. You would fail a 7th grade science test...laughing while you fail doesn't change the reality that you failed... ....
You proposed limits on what may be used in scientific argument. That's a serious issue, and I want to see where you found that. So far, you've refused - which makes me believe your site is limited to the soft sciences in some way and not applicable to scientific method used in physics/chemistry/biology. I like the Beatles, but your dancing doesn't form an argument that can save your bacon here.
You said: I think you're referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo This came (as I understand it) from the early attempts to limit causes of movement in physics to physical contact - which can't explain gravity. So, they had a problem. Their model of physics couldn't handle gravity. So, one couldn't include gravity in an hypothesis any more than you could include god in an hypothesis. (I'm probably oversimplifying this.) This seems to me to be related to today in that hypotheses must be formed such that there is a means of testing. Today, string theory, god, etc., are outside of experimental science (scientific method) because there is no possibility of testing. No hypothesis can be made where these elements are included. When the superconducting supercollider was built one of the objectives was to be able to test what was previously unable to be tested. That allowed for hypotheses concerning the Higgs boson - these ideas came into the field of scientific method, because testing became possible. String theory still can't be tested, so that isn't within scientific method.
