nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + Line 23:
Line 23: + + + Line 38:
Line 41: + + + + + + + + Line 45:
Line 56: + + +
→How AiG is supposedly not scientific: Responses to various people
== How AiG Isn't Science ==
== How AiG is supposedly not scientific ==
I think we all need to agree that AiG doesn't count as a valid source to cite for Conservapedia. Having read through its site pretty thoroughly, I can say that it's an extremely biased and opinionated organization with little to no actual scientific value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I think we all need to agree that AiG doesn't count as a valid source to cite for Conservapedia. Having read through its site pretty thoroughly, I can say that it's an extremely biased and opinionated organization with little to no actual scientific value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Creation Science is to science what lightning bugs are to lightning (or possibly, what rat poison is to rats, since its only purpose is to KILL a branch of science). It's a collection of efforts to shoehorn the fossil record, astronomy, geology. etc, into the framework provided by a 4000-year-old fairy tale told by illiterate herders. What's next, [[Scientific Geo-Terrapinism]]? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Creation Science is to science what lightning bugs are to lightning (or possibly, what rat poison is to rats, since its only purpose is to KILL a branch of science). It's a collection of efforts to shoehorn the fossil record, astronomy, geology. etc, into the framework provided by a 4000-year-old fairy tale told by illiterate herders. What's next, [[Scientific Geo-Terrapinism]]? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::"Shoehorn" is a really good verb to describe it. Good analogy.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 15:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::"Shoehorn" is a really good verb to describe it. Good analogy.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 15:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::This is nothing more than biblisceptic rhetoric masquerading as fact. Are you blokes incapable of having a rational debate without this sort of nonsense? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
No. See the article on falsifiability at my talk page.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 01:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
No. See the article on falsifiability at my talk page.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 01:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Philip please explain the salt in the ocean issue. As for human population the growth has not be constant so it would be very difficult if not impossible to use this argument to refute the time that humans have been on the planet.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:02, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Philip please explain the salt in the ocean issue. As for human population the growth has not be constant so it would be very difficult if not impossible to use this argument to refute the time that humans have been on the planet.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:02, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::On the salt in the ocean, see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/578 here]. On human population growth, the lack of a constant growth rate makes it impossible to determine an exact starting point. But we have data on a range of known growth rates, and using the lowest known growth rate still gives a starting point for human population ''far'' more recent that the evolutionary age. To put it the other way, the growth rate needed to fit with the evolutionary age is so close to zero for so long that it falls far short of any known long-term growth rate for human population. Of course, this doesn't "prove" anything. Evolutionists can invent all sorts of explanations for this, but in doing so they are going outside the known evidence and speculating in order to fit the data into their theory. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Evolution is falsifiable. If you could show me a modern human skull dated to 6 million years ago - well, slap me and call me Sally, that'd do it! But you won't. Also, your "age" evidence is specious. The salt-in-the-oceans argument (1) contradicts the literal Bible (but what doesn't, these days?) and (2) is refuted [http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/28565/page/7;jsessionid=aaa5LVF0 here]. I notice that the only source that actually stands by the salt-in-the-oceans thing is AnswersinGenesis, so citing it to prove its own veracity is a bit circular, ne? So here's an analogy I can give you to work out how science is falsifiable, but how theories work. I have a box full of marbles. I hypothesize, saying, "all marbles in this box are red." I start pulling out marbles, and I get 3 red marbles, and 4 crimson marbles, and 2 pink marbles. These new "findings" do not dispute my theory's major premise - that all marbles are red - but they inform what ''type'' of red the marbles are. So I change my hypothesis, saying, "all marbls in this box are shades of red." The theory still has strong predictive value, but has been strengthened by the finding of contrary evidence, since its major premise remains unchallenged. If, however, I pulled out a blue marble, the whole theory would have to go. So it is with evolution. I've seen a lot of pink marbles that make the theory more complex, but well Philip, I'm still waiting for that blue one!-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 11:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Evolution is falsifiable. If you could show me a modern human skull dated to 6 million years ago - well, slap me and call me Sally, that'd do it! But you won't. Also, your "age" evidence is specious. The salt-in-the-oceans argument (1) contradicts the literal Bible (but what doesn't, these days?) and (2) is refuted [http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/28565/page/7;jsessionid=aaa5LVF0 here]. I notice that the only source that actually stands by the salt-in-the-oceans thing is AnswersinGenesis, so citing it to prove its own veracity is a bit circular, ne? So here's an analogy I can give you to work out how science is falsifiable, but how theories work. I have a box full of marbles. I hypothesize, saying, "all marbles in this box are red." I start pulling out marbles, and I get 3 red marbles, and 4 crimson marbles, and 2 pink marbles. These new "findings" do not dispute my theory's major premise - that all marbles are red - but they inform what ''type'' of red the marbles are. So I change my hypothesis, saying, "all marbls in this box are shades of red." The theory still has strong predictive value, but has been strengthened by the finding of contrary evidence, since its major premise remains unchallenged. If, however, I pulled out a blue marble, the whole theory would have to go. So it is with evolution. I've seen a lot of pink marbles that make the theory more complex, but well Philip, I'm still waiting for that blue one!-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 11:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::If a modern human skull was found and dated to six million years ago, the dating method would be called into question; it wouldn't falsify evolution.
::The salt-in-the-oceans argument does ''not'' contradict the biblical record, because the argument was for the ''maximum possible'' age, not the actual age.
::It being mentioned only on the AiG site does not affect whether or not it is science, which is what the question was; so again you have tried to dismiss the answer by raising a ''different'' objection.
::It doesn't make any real difference, but it is ''not'' only on the AiG site. It is also on the CMI site, and probably on the ICR site as well, at a minimum. The main researcher in this case does not work for AiG nor CMI (and never has). That objection is irrelevant.
::I understand what falsifiability is, thank you. But explaining what it is does not demonstrate that evolution ''per se'', or naturalism on which it is base, is falsifiable. I'm still waiting on an answer to that.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
: Gonna go ahead and say "mission accomplished." [[Denny Crane]].-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 15:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
: Gonna go ahead and say "mission accomplished." [[Denny Crane]].-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 15:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, you all already know what I think. It's all on Ames talk page and mine. I have given several examples of falsifiability (the steg bone, the skull) all of which could potentially falsify evo. I still haven't seen a single example in all the hullabaloo of a falsifying statement about ID. Bring it, please...Id love to hear it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 15:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, you all already know what I think. It's all on Ames talk page and mine. I have given several examples of falsifiability (the steg bone, the skull) all of which could potentially falsify evo. I still haven't seen a single example in all the hullabaloo of a falsifying statement about ID. Bring it, please...Id love to hear it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 15:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:I answered the stegosaurus bone argument, and AmesG has agreed with me that it wouldn't falsify evolution.
:I don't know what skull example you are referring to. I've searched the archived talk page of Ames' and your talk page for "skull" with no hits on either.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
== Does AIG want removal of evo material from schools or present both views ==
== Does AIG want removal of evo material from schools or present both views ==