Believers in evolution are cute. When they lose an argument, they try to bite through the glass again and again. You guys, may choke on your own venom in the end while I will still laughing. Very nice contribution to the discussion.
I may need to apologize because it looks like you have been trying to figure out things. I doubt that you can because you have been brainwashed (not your fault) and your mind slips from a track into the same clichés and dogmas. It is even more difficult for you because you have never had to practice things you are talking about. I don’t know if this will be any help: Everyone knows that there is philosophy and there is science. Everyone knows that philosophy and science are two different games played according two different sets of rules. For centuries, it was philosophy=science only and rules were quite vague. In XVII century Newton summarized the experience of previous centuries and divided Philosophy into Natural Philosophy (now known as natural science) and Philosophy (now known as philosophy). That was the scientific revolution people talk about so much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Revolution given in one sentence. For Nature is pleased with simplicity. In Newton’s mechanics aka Principia Mathematica https://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Newton/Principia/Bk1Sect1/PrBk1St1.pdf aka Mathematical Principals of Natural Philosophy Newton formulated 4 rules of reasoning in natural philosophy (now known as natural science) in Latin language http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/newton-principia-rules-reasoning.pdf These 4 rules ARE the complete and sufficient text of the scientific method people talk so much about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method , like the text of the Constitution, , - 1/4 of a page with ½ of a page of explanations. Simple, - See rule 1. - For Nature is pleased with simplicity. And, what is the most important, all working and useful theories, starting from Archimedes and finishing Einstein have been following these rules to a tooth. They may brainwash you to the bone but if you learn and practice those theories you will see that. Even if English is not your native language you will understand every word of that translation from Latin into old English. It is not like philosophers (who were not literate enough to read Principia) went into one corner and scientists into another, scientists could do philosophy in their clubs, and some illiterate philosophers still insist that they do science, but in order for a theory to be scientific it has to follow the rules. Philosophy is based on observation of evidence of a claimed phenomena and it is logically guessing out phenomena; natural sciences are based on observation the phenomena and no guessing, but putting it in equations. Phenomenon are events or happenings. Scientists observe events of appearances of new species, note the patterns and circumstances, introduce and strictly define terms such as genes, genomes, allele, mass, weight, make up axioms such as F=ma which have no proof, and write mathematical equations. Using those equations, they predict and observe and/or induce/reproduce events of appearances of next species. If in thousands upon thousands of experiments during 5000 + 150 years they do not observe and do not induce even a single event of appearance of new specie out of the previous ones they write the law: no new specie can appear out of the previous ones. This is the scientific method according to which the science of genetics, as an example, was made. No events (phenomena) of appearance of new species has been observed, = no science. There are as many philosophies as people in the room and in the infinite-dimensional Hilbert space there is plenty of room for an infinite amount of philosophies, but all philosophers use the same equations and laws in order to develop a new vaccine or antibiotics or to send a man to the moon regardless race, sex, religion or party affiliation, and all these equations are the results of following the 4 rules, the scientific method. If on other hand a “theory” has not been having any practical use across races, sexes, religions or party affiliations, why is it imposed on kids in schools? Graduating kids have no idea about geography, they don’t know what is climate, what is warming, what is temperature, what makes things hot or cold and a lot of other very, very interesting, all fun things just because they wasted time on evolution, earth science and Big Bang. In the beginning (if there was such a thing), God created Newton’s laws of motion together with the necessary masses and forces. This is all; everything beyond this follows from the development of appropriate mathematical methods by means of deduction. — Albert Einstein No one must think that Newton’s great creation can be overthrown in any real sense by this [Theory of Relativity] or by any other theory. His clear and wide ideas will forever retain their significance as the foundation on which our modern conceptions of physics have been built. — Albert Einstein All theories using the scientific method stand true forever and only can be made more accurate (mathematically) or liable for exception, for the simple reason that they describe observable events, such as the sun rising there and then, and as long as the sun rises every day as it did before, the related theories remain true. That’s why Einstein pointed that his theory was true also because it was in a far reaching agreement with Newton’s in spite of fundamentally different sets of assumptions. Mathematically you can see how his equations become the same as Newton’s at higher masses and lower speeds, the mathematical result is negligibly different. That’s why we use mostly Newton’s in the most cases of noticeably lower than light speeds and noticeable masses. “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.” No hypotheses, my friend, no null hypotheses, no falsification, no verifiable, all that crap in Wikipedia and in academia is not from Newton, is not from Einstein, but from devil. Good luck.
And also comprise virtually the entire scientific community. You know, the people who actually have education and experience in science. I doubt they are troubled by your dancing and prancing.
Very cute. No thinking, no brains are needed, just obey the mythical scientific community and follow other zombies. Since believers in evolution on this forum has been having no brain and no objection to any statement I made, I think it is time for them to call the communists. As I said, I am here.
There are documented cases of the appearance of new species. This absolutely has been observed. Maybe you know of a school where this happened. I was watchful during the education of my own kids and I'm not aware of any great time spent on evolution - or the big bang. Far more importantly for this conversation, the amount of time spent on those topics has nothing to do with whether they are valid theories of science. No, this is not true. There are plenty of cases where theories have been disproven. Remember that Einstein's theories upset the world of physics. New models were required. New questions needed to be answered. Etc. Newton's ideas are fine under conditions that are reasonably common. Einstein may well have noted that, as it is certainly of interest. However, Newton's ideas are FALSE when we send satellites into earth orbit. You didn't understand what was said.
A very desperate and inapproriate thing to say, as you could not possibly know my level of knowledge of the topic. Secondly, we were talking about the credentials of scientists and their consensus, not my reasons for accepting their findings. You are embarrassing yourself with this weak rhetoric, and it demonstrates quite clearly that you know less than anyone in this thread about this topic.
I guess you couldn’t find those mythical communists you were referring to. /sarcasm. The level of your knowledge is the level of your contribution to the discussion. Many contributed their thoughts, beliefs and ideas whether right or wrong. You have contributed nothing.
Do you know what is an intelligent conversation? If you say something you are odd to back it up with same facts, example, something existing in reality, otherwise your statements are no different from bubbling of an idiot. Do you understand the simple question I have been asking ? Show me one just one example in order to prove me wrong. Not many, not ten, but one, just one peer reviewed article claiming observation of appearance of a new specie. How much lower the plank can be set? (I don’t worry and I know that you will never find even one because I am using the scientific method and you don’t know and don’t understand it.) I feel sorry for your kids. I am afraid they have been raised into mini you instead of into who they are and they have been deprived from free thinking which is one of the most inhumane depravations: https://www.k12.com/k-8-course-list/earth-science-calms1106.html This is a collection of myths, fantasies, legends, dogmas and blind beliefs contradicting the scientific method according to which all useful and working and fun theories were made starting from Archimedes and finishing by Einstein. There is no practical use for any of them while graduating kids have no idea about geography, they don’t know what is climate, what is warming, what is temperature, what makes things hot or cold and a lot of other very, very interesting, all fun things just because they wasted time on evolution, earth science and Big Bang. Do you ever understand that this is a discussion forum? I don’t mind you saying that Einstein is wrong and did not know what his theories were, but you should point to some facts, some examples, to something to back up your statement. It is very simple, point to one, just one theory which was done according to the scientific method and ever was disproven. http://student.mit.edu/catalog/m16a.html 16.07 Dynamics Lecture: MWF11 (33-419) Recitation: R10 (33-419) or R11 (33-419) +final Fundamentals of Newtonian mechanics. Kinematics, particle dynamics, motion relative to accelerated reference frames, work and energy, impulse and momentum, systems of particles and rigid body dynamics. Applications to aerospace engineering including introductory topics in orbital mechanics, flight dynamics, inertial navigation and attitude dynamics. Over 300 years and still as strong as it was 300 years ago. ( Follow the link and you can see the whole list of theories which are done according the scientific method in difference from fairly tales and fantasies of the previous link to K-12 earth science. This is what the senders of the satellites to the orbit and men to the moon learn, and they will not send a man out there using any of theories which may be disproved.) You see you never back up your claims with anything. I always do. You are wrong again. I know, when believers in evolution face facts they always say: You are clueless. But you wouldn’t enlighten me, would you? Each and every thing you have said, you have taught your kids, have shared with friends and colleagues has no confirmation if the reality, but has been in total contradiction to the reality and the facts.
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/23/6074.full.pdf Your link doesn't indicate that. Good lord! I didn't say that Einstein was wrong. Newtonian mechanics is a popular place to start in first year college physics. The catch is that these principles work under specific circumstances. Later coursework will move on to cover where these principles are not sufficient. For example, GPS satellites travel fast enough that time doesn't pass at the same rate as it does on earth's surface. In fact, GPS satellites are not always the same distance from Earth, and THAT makes a difference, too. So, calculations made to find your location from these satellites has to account for the speed and distance of each of the various GPS satellites involved. You can view Newton as a special case of Einstein's theories. I assumed that if you wanted to learn about evolution you wouldn't first treat me to rafts of your silly insults and THEN come to me as the source of information. I would suggest you start with something like the evolution entry in Wiki, including it's section on mechanisms.
Evidence=/phenomena. Either you base your science on observation of evidence or on observation of phenomena. If you base it on evidence you are in opposition to Newton – Maxwell-Faraday –Kelvin - Mendel- Einstein. Your article has no observation an event (a phenomena) of appearance of new specie out of previous ones = no science. You can put your article as well as millions of similar ones in the garbage. I checked the link, - https://www.k12.com/k-8-course-list/earth-science-calms1106.html - it does. There is a big difference between then, the time when we didn’t know the scientific method according to which all useful and working theories were made ( many of them are listed here: http://student.mit.edu/catalog/m16a.html ); and now, when we know the scientific method and can measure things easily and quickly. (Unless you still want to argue against Newton and Einstein or can point to an exception in these theories.) Now we can see that most of the items listed in Earth Science do not belong to natural sciences, but to fantasies, fairly tales, guess and speculations i.e hypotheses, which according to the scientific method have no place in natural sciences. Graduating, kids have no idea about geography, they don’t know what is climate, what is warming, what is temperature, what makes things hot or cold and a lot of other very, very interesting, all fun things because they instead have been indoctrinated in all kinds of beliefs. This is nothing, but child abuse. So now let's accept as true for both of us the following: In the beginning (if there was such a thing), God created Newton’s laws of motion together with the necessary masses and forces. This is all; everything beyond this follows from the development of appropriate mathematical methods by means of deduction. — Albert Einstein No one must think that Newton’s great creation can be overthrown in any real sense by this [Theory of Relativity] or by any other theory. His clear and wide ideas will forever retain their significance as the foundation on which our modern conceptions of physics have been built. — Albert Einstein Do you understand or not – that if you say something the more when you argue against Einstein (see above), you have to back it up with some facts, some links, some references? Nothing like “popular pace to start”, Newton’s mechanic is The foundation On which Modern Physics Have been built. Why are you trying to water down my statement you have argued against: This is exactly what I said: Mathematically you can see how his equations become the same as Newton’s at higher masses and lower speeds, the mathematical result is negligibly different. That’s why we use mostly Newton’s in the most cases of noticeably lower than light speeds and noticeable masses.That’s why Einstein pointed that his theory was true also because it was in a far reaching agreement with Newton’s in spite of fundamentally different sets of assumptions. But also I pointed to the fact that: All theories using the scientific method stand true forever and only can be made more accurate (mathematically) or liable for exception, for the simple reason that they describe observable events, such as the sun rising there and then, and as long as the sun rises every day as it did before, the related theories remain true. And you have not shown even a single theory which was done according the scientific method and was ever disproven. It was not about evolution, it was about the Scientific Method as it was formulated by Newton when you made me laugh saying that I was clueless about what Newton said. As to evolution, a good place to start would be not wiki, but Darwin. While I started there, 90% of believers, including you, never read Darwin and don’t even know the name of the book, but they still believe. Funny.[/QUOTE]
I don't know where you got THAT idea, but here's the thing. Experimental science has a definition. That definition doesn't differentiate between phenomena and evidence. In science, evidence includes well recorded observations. I think you read some treatise on philosophy somewhere, but you haven't figured out how to reconcile whatever it was that you read and the definitions of science you have been shown. The paper I cited is fully accepted as science. There are lots of things scientists have measured, but that can NOT measure "easily and quickly". "Easily and quickly" have nothing to do with it. This is a matter of you guessing what actually happens in the classroom AND your assumptions about pedagogy and the aims of high school science. If you want to say high school kids should have more time in science class, I ABSOLUTELY agree. I see that as a harmless fudge factor. I've suggested that people who want their god to be involved can view it as god creating the "Big Bang" and then standing back to watch what would happen. If the god is really amazing, he/she could create a "big bang" such that humans would evolve. It will probably be some time before humans figure out how to detect anything outside our universe - though there are those who are thinking about that. I didn't disagree with anything Einstein said in terms of science. I am not interested in his religious beliefs even slightly. I don't know how you got worked up about Einstein. Had you said that to me, I wouldn't have disagreed. However, I probably wouldn't have suggested that there are different sets of assumptions. Newton just didn't know that his ideas had limits. NO!!! There ARE theories that will undoubtedly last. But, there have been many theories that have died. For example, Einstein changed the world of physics, invalidating what others had concluded. All theories are fully open for challenge. That comes from the FACT that there is no way within scientific method to PROVE that a theory is true. Science relies on proving falsity. ...how you were interpreting what he said, not what he said. We've learned a LOT since Darwin. The greater understanding of today leads to clearer, accurate and more detailed descriptions of evolution. Reading wiki is a better starting point than Origin of the Species. We've learned a lot since the mid 1800s. Since Darwin we've discovered DNA, we have electron microscopes and other equipment that can watch what is happening during cell division and can identify specific ways for variation to enter into the genome. We've massively extended the fossil record. We've come up with numerous methods of dating. Now, science can describe how it works - not just suggest it as a possibility.
No, evolution was witnessed in a laboratory. After 44,000-odd generations a particular bacteria mutated. It is a measurable event, as the DNA from the evolved organism can be compared to the DNA of the original organism. DNA from humans can also be compared, and the evidence clearly indicates dozens of mutations over the last 40,000 years alone.
Mutation and adaptation are terms of genetics. New traits of bacteria is nothing new. Ecoli bacteria remained E.coli bacteria. Evolutionists have no clue how to conduct experiment. There was no experiment demonstrating that EColi couldn’t take glucose. A quick research shows papers describing that it could. There was no attempt of a roll back experiment to show irreversibility. And many other things I cannot remember off the top of my head. And no, you will not find it on creationists blogs, I did research myself. Bacteria and its necessity for living organisms are fascinating. In some way I see it as a Swiss knife with thousands of blades, - if it has been using scissors, it does mean that it does not have a can opener… I am sorry, there has been not even single observation of phenomena of appearance of new spices and there will never be. The scientific method has no regards for evidence, it requires observation of phenomenon. You cannot make a scientific theory, if your method is opposing the scientific method and laws of nature; unless some kind of miracle happens. Do you believe in miracles other than from God?
Can you ever understand that if you say something, you have to point to some facts, some reality to back up your words, especially when they contradict Newton, Einstein and basic common sense? You have to show when, where and who made your definition which equates phenomena with evidence, otherwise you are just bubbling like a crazy idiot, I mean a believer in evolution. You have to show that your definition can be found in the text or context of Newton’s Principia, Einstein’s ToR or any of the useful and practical theories, otherwise you are just bubbling like a crazy idiot, I mean a believer in evolution. I cannot believe that an adult with a high school diploma does not see the profound difference between phenomena and evidence. But, on other hand, knowing that the schools abuse and indoctrinate young minds, but not educate them, I should make myself believe. Phenomena =/ evidence according to dictionary definitions in all languages if one knows more than one. Phenomena =/ evidence in texts and contexts of any theory I linked to. Phenomena = events, as Einstein calls them in the TOR. Phenomena=happenings. Observation of chicken breaking out of an egg is observation of an event, a happening, a phenomena. Observation of an eggshell broken in a certain way is a forensic evidence of chicken broken out the egg, because the phenomena of chicken breaking out of eggs had been observed and described many times. There may not be any forensic evidence of evolution because no phenomena, no event of a new specie breaking out of previous ones has ever been observed or ever will be observed and thus it remains a fantasy, a speculation which is not a subject of natural sciences. The paper you sited belongs to a fantasy, not science. There are many meanings of the words Measured and easily. I was not meaning scientists, but I was meaning people who could read the text and who went through the mass abuse , oppression of any free thinking and were deprived of education in the schools. I opened a cage for them and armed them. Many of them will prefer to stay in slavery, because those who were born and raised in prison often are scared of freedom, but some may dare. Those who dare can take the scientific method and quickly and easily measure any theory or peer reviewed article to see if it belongs to natural science or to a garbage can. If the theory or an article steams out of observation of phenomenon it most likely belongs to science. If people use the function Find to scroll a text and see the presence of such words as evidence, may, may be, implies, suggests, indicates etc, they know it is garbage, even if they have no clue in all other terms and symbols used. I linked to the content of a text book. Anyone can apply the scientific method to the items in the content and see that most of them are fantasies and speculations having no place in natural sciences. You as usual have absolutely nothing to back up any word of yours. Kids should have none of this kind of “science” in the class. Einstein claimed that Newton is foundation of all science second after God, it is just an expression, and idiom, and explained why but one has to know physics to understand the explanation. You lie. The lies of believers in evolution is another sure sign of pseudoscience. There is no mentioning of religion in the quote and you did disagree with Einstein, and with confirmation of Einstein words. You absolutely certainly tried to diminish newton’s role as of having no importance while Einstein considered him to be the foundation of all modern physics. I merely quoted Einstein so you are arguing Einstein again. Obviously, Einstein is correct, Newton's mechanics and the ToR ARE based on fundamentally different sets of assumptions ( statements which have no proof). Repeating the same over and over again and again and not paying any attention to any questions or objections is another trait of the believers in evolution which makes them no different from pre-programmed zombies. You have to point to some reality, some facts to back up your words. I asked you to show one theory which was done according to the scientific method and was ever disproved. I quoted Einstein objecting to your view twice. I quoted newton and crossed checked with Einstein. You act like you are on drugs. What scientific method? The one newton- faradey - maxwell - kelvin - einstein - and all useful and practical theories of natural sciences never followed? When, where and who formulated it... etc...? Thank you for agreeing with me that 90% of believers in evolution never read Darwin, don’t even know the name of the book, but believe in evolution from wiki. I wonder what they did before wiki…
You can if they open themselves up to reason, but to do that, they have to divorce themselves from whatever emotional motivations have been driving them to this point.
I posted links and quotes. But did not expect blind believers to see them. Thank you for meeting the expectations.
Any reasoning or facts you can contribute to a discussion? As expected, none. Thank you for meeting the expectations. I am just having fun.
I was speaking in general about people who cling to irrational beliefs not grounded in reasoned research. You got awfully defensive there.
After all that insulting and other nonsense you demonstrate that phenomena are one kind of evidence! Please remember that, as this seems to keep coming up with you. I gave you exactly what you asked for. Now, you just say it isn't science??? Hilarious! OK. Remember earlier, where you note that phenomena are one kind of evidence evidence. Suggesting that a temperature reading isn't evidence because it isn't a phenomenon is, well, ridiculous. No. I gave you a published paper like you asked. You haven't said anything negative that applies to it. Nobody has to read Darwin to understand evolution. There are many scholarly works on evolution. In fact, the massive progress in biology that has been made since Darwin's time allows a much more precise view of evolution. I gave you wiki because it's a rather concise, easy to read view that includes an index.
Holy crap, I should have waited a few weeks. Look what just won a Nobel Prize! https://www.theguardian.com/science...gregory-p-winter-win-nobel-prize-in-chemistry
Einstein, and other physicists oft have a concept of AWE about the universe, some call 'god', but NOT in the religious sense. Einstein's letter to Gutkind, Auctioned a few years ago. ".. "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion, like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions." ..." `
"They have applied the principles of Darwin in test tubes” - the head of the Academy’s Nobel Chemistry committee, Claes Gustafsson, told reporters. Do you have any sense of fairness? You had to submit: 1. A peer reviewed article. 2. Dated before the date I posted the request. (Because the Nobel committee could overhear our bet and insert the word evolution in the announcement. I am joking with some grain of the truth. I already told that Nobel has been looking very suspiciously lately based on the Noble Prize I considered in my last reply to you.) Chemists and the Nobel Committee don’t know that Gelenkte Evolution has nothing to do to Darwin, it rather opposes Darwin and it represents theistic evolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alter...ion#/media/File:Alternatives_to_Darwinism.svg Ignorance is a bliss. Chemists use the word evolution as a metaphor, analogy to compare their method to something popular and the metaphor is based on their total ignorance of evolution.. Understand? You have to show that if chemists knew nothing about evolution it could change anything. Because it is obvious that they knew about evolution no more than I did when I believed it was a kind of science, otherwise they wouldn't call on of the methods of engineering of proteins Gelenkte Evolution. Lol. P.S. - You have to show how their method is different from Selective Breeding which has nothing to do to evolution, because the description of the method is exactly the description of a selective breeding): https://www.novozymes.com/en/scientific-publications/artificial-evolution-of-enzymes In this case, a lot longer way is chosen when enzymes are allowed to stabilize first instead of a rational breeding. http://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/242577053/ergebnisse "The study also demonstrates convincingly the superiority of random over rational protein engineering, as the transfer of a functional environment from another protein scaffold did not yield the significant improvement as expected." Nothing has to do anything to Darwin. Lol. I would say you took my time from others and made me to do a quick research, on other had I like to research, it is a kind of weakness of mine. It is all very interesting. Try to do some research yourself before posting.
That is all very good, but what does have to do to anything you quoted? Is the word God for you like a red rag to bull? Hey Tax, ....God...
