Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is misapplication of a science evidence against it?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
    when I finally do commit a "wisecrack" (a word you applied a post or 2 of mine) you take it serious.

    what Roy said is in one of my books I cited on the first page of that thread, on p 17 of Nessa Carey's THE EPIGENETICS REVOLUTION.

    I know, but I don't care enough to go to the trouble of being meticulous every time.
    sorry if what is important to you is not important to me.

    But its a good sig, a good reminder for "DARWINISTS"

    and its a tribute to Roy.

    what good would it do to cite Nessa when every body here knows Roy.
    I don't see your sig as a "wisecrack" and if you think there's something humorous about it, then it's because you don't understand the definition of "proof" in science vis-a-vis mathematics or formal logic. If you find Roy's comment amusing, you must be thinking of the wrong definition.

    Hey Rogue! Time to repost your explanation of scientific proof?

    K54

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
      you're welcome.

      if you see anybody doing that, you need to let somebody know.
      I let Jorge know about two dozen times, but...

      Jello --- Nail --- Wall.

      K54

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
        I don't see your sig as a "wisecrack" and if you think there's something humorous about it, then it's because you don't understand the definition of "proof" in science vis-a-vis mathematics or formal logic. If you find Roy's comment amusing, you must be thinking of the wrong definition.

        Hey Rogue! Time to repost your explanation of scientific proof?

        K54
        good grief

        does one have to point EXACTLY to each word in each sentence for you

        I was referring to the tiny segment of the post in the junk thread that Roy was replying to,

        NOT MY NEW SIG
        To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
          good grief

          does one have to point EXACTLY to each word in each sentence for you

          I was referring to the tiny segment of the post in the junk thread that Roy was replying to,

          NOT MY NEW SIG
          Not your new sig??

          By putting Roy's quote in your sig, does it mean you AGREE with him and find it concise OR do you think it's amusing since you don't understand "proof"?

          BTW, the context of the Roy snippet was him explaining that evolution, nor any scientific theory, has "proof" in the deductive sense of a logical system.

          "Proof" in science method (inductive) mean "evidence" or "data" in SUPPORT of the theory. For biological evolution there is consilient "proof" aplenty.

          K54

          P.S. Just clearing things up...

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
            I don't see any misrepresentation whatsoever.

            Care to elaborate?
            Because it's not about "misapplication of science" at all, it's about logical, and intended application. If you read the the works Charles Darwin, and his colleagues, especially his correspondences with said colleagues. It's pretty clear that he himself was a Social Darwinist. He was very disingenuous in his popular works about it, but he was that way about his other beliefs too. He was far too interested in getting people to swallow his poison before they knew what was in it to give it to them straight.

            And why am I a troll? Please explain that.
            Because it's pretty clear that your only motivation in posting here is to rile people up, especially those that disagree with you.

            Cutting too close to your ideological nerve?

            K54

            It has to do with the fact that you are not what you claim to be, which is someone who actually cares about truth. You're just as hardcore an ideologue as you claim Jorge is.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
              Not your new sig??

              By putting Roy's quote in your sig, does it mean you AGREE with him and find it concise
              K54

              ...
              yes.

              P.S. Just clearing things up
              no problem.
              To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                Because it's not about "misapplication of science" at all, it's about logical, and intended application. If you read the the works Charles Darwin, and his colleagues, especially his correspondences with said colleagues. It's pretty clear that he himself was a Social Darwinist. He was very disingenuous in his popular works about it, but he was that way about his other beliefs too. He was far too interested in getting people to swallow his poison before they knew what was in it to give it to them straight.



                Because it's pretty clear that your only motivation in posting here is to rile people up, especially those that disagree with you.




                It has to do with the fact that you are not what you claim to be, which is someone who actually cares about truth. You're just as hardcore an ideologue as you claim Jorge is.
                No, it's misapplication.

                Do you know what a category error is?

                Do you?

                Well, cough it up here, and we'll see.

                Even if eugenics is a proper and logical application of "Darwinism", it does NOT affect the validity of the scientific theory!

                In other words, Big Freakin' Deal!!!

                K54

                P.S. If the Jorgian/Cerebrumian/JordanRiverine version of origins were prerequisite for Christianity, I would be a Fundy Atheist who would put Dick Dawkins to shame.

                Chew on that awhile, Cerebrum.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                  How was I misrepresenting anyone C123?

                  So far, nothing but insinuation and assertion from you.

                  Can you demonstrate my so called misrepresentation and thereby demonstrate my hypocrisy?
                  Fine, I'll demonstrate it right here. You said in your post.

                  Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                  I do often wonder how some people can claim to be "Godly", or "Bible believers", or "guided by God" on the one hand, but be so persistent at misrepresenting ideas on the other hand.
                  Except for the second, these claims wouldn't be made by someone who actually does believe the Bible. If they did, they would recognize that we are all sinners, and that we all, far too often, fall short of the mark.

                  There are very few people who could even be considered "Godly" by human standards(which also fall far short of the mark), and they would be the very kind of people not to be claiming such. It's people like the Pharisees that Jesus dealt with that usually make such claims.

                  It's a very selective belief about the Bible being displayed when folk behave like that. And either God cannot be trusted or these folk's claims and assertions are untrustworthy.
                  The same goes about you and evolution if you can't be honest about what Darwinism entails. After reading posts here, and in other threads, I have no real reason to trust anything from any of you that I can't see for myself(and that goes for the scientists you push as being so reliable too, since they are pushing the same historical nonsense). Here's an excerpt from someone who actually does believe in evolution, but sees that Darwin was not the "Saint of Science" that many make him out to be today.

                  Source: Thought Criminal Blog

                  That creationists, both in their primitive form and in the ID industry, have done that, they've poured over the record left by Charles Darwin, his family and associates and his followers, and have discovered the same quotes, the same absolutely solid case that Charles Darwin is absolutely tied to eugenics and its legacy only means that that record has been there and always will be. They are nothing if not dedicated to discovering any ammunition that is provided to them by Darwin and his friends. To the extent that evolutionary science keeps Charles Darwin as its figure head, it will find he's a political liability. The denial of his record in regard to eugenics is a lie, it is unworthy of people pretending to uphold science and the truth, the result of denying that record is a failed PR campaign, a trade mark that doesn't work with most people. The best the Darwin Fan Club can hope for is a slight mitigation to what that record shows. If they continue to deny that record, they certainly don't do anything for evolutionary science, I'd guess the Darwin cult is more likely to impede progress than to help it. To the extent they insist on keeping their artificial Darwin, it is a good indication of how much more they value ideology instead of science.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Source. Language warning for one of the links. You might miss it altogether since it's off to the side, and not related to this article, but I thought I would be safe.

                  Often, creationism seems to be a new sect within Christianity having a new creed in which salvation depends on rejecting an ancient earth and evolution, and a new Satan, Charles Darwin, whose ideas are the cause of all the earth's major ills.
                  Creation may not be the core of Christianity, but it is a key tenet. The Apostle's Creed makes believing in creation a statement of faith. You don't even get the "often" part right, because the majority of YEC's do not think it's a salvation issue(you'll see this admitted by every major YEC group).

                  The last part about Charles Darwin and Satan being probably the most egregious error here. It's merely being pointed out that he is not who many falsely portray him as, which is a kind of "Saint of Science".

                  I'll not go down your rabbit hole about Newton, as it shows that you do not even understand the argument being put forth, either that, or you are purposely misrepresenting it.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                    yes.



                    no problem.
                    Ok, fine. Thanks!

                    Like I said, a higher plane...

                    K54

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      Fine, I'll demonstrate it right here. You said in your post.



                      Except for the second, these claims wouldn't be made by someone who actually does believe the Bible. If they did, they would recognize that we are all sinners, and that we all, far too often, fall short of the mark.

                      There are very few people who could even be considered "Godly" by human standards(which also fall far short of the mark), and they would be the very kind of people not to be claiming such. It's people like the Pharisees that Jesus dealt with that usually make such claims.



                      The same goes about you and evolution if you can't be honest about what Darwinism entails. After reading posts here, and in other threads, I have no real reason to trust anything from any of you that I can't see for myself(and that goes for the scientists you push as being so reliable too, since they are pushing the same historical nonsense). Here's an excerpt from someone who actually does believe in evolution, but sees that Darwin was not the "Saint of Science" that many make him out to be today.

                      Source: Thought Criminal Blog

                      That creationists, both in their primitive form and in the ID industry, have done that, they've poured over the record left by Charles Darwin, his family and associates and his followers, and have discovered the same quotes, the same absolutely solid case that Charles Darwin is absolutely tied to eugenics and its legacy only means that that record has been there and always will be. They are nothing if not dedicated to discovering any ammunition that is provided to them by Darwin and his friends. To the extent that evolutionary science keeps Charles Darwin as its figure head, it will find he's a political liability. The denial of his record in regard to eugenics is a lie, it is unworthy of people pretending to uphold science and the truth, the result of denying that record is a failed PR campaign, a trade mark that doesn't work with most people. The best the Darwin Fan Club can hope for is a slight mitigation to what that record shows. If they continue to deny that record, they certainly don't do anything for evolutionary science, I'd guess the Darwin cult is more likely to impede progress than to help it. To the extent they insist on keeping their artificial Darwin, it is a good indication of how much more they value ideology instead of science.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Source. Language warning for one of the links. You might miss it altogether since it's off to the side, and not related to this article, but I thought I would be safe.



                      Creation may not be the core of Christianity, but it is a key tenet. The Apostle's Creed makes believing in creation a statement of faith. You don't even get the "often" part right, because the majority of YEC's do not think it's a salvation issue(you'll see this admitted by every major YEC group).

                      The last part about Charles Darwin and Satan being probably the most egregious error here. It's merely being pointed out that he is not who many falsely portray him as, which is a kind of "Saint of Science".

                      I'll not go down your rabbit hole about Newton, as it shows that you do not even understand the argument being put forth, either that, or you are purposely misrepresenting it.
                      Irrelevant drivel.

                      How could anyone support this idiotic argument?

                      Does this line of reasoning apply to any other science?

                      K54

                      P.S. Anyone who thinks that "creationism" is scientific should read this thread. Really.

                      So, Cerebrum -- you really believe this garbage and don't realize it's a category error?!!!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                        No, it's misapplication.
                        Not according to the person who invented the theory.

                        Do you know what a category error is?
                        Yes, I do, apparently you don't.

                        Do you?


                        Well, cough it up here, and we'll see.

                        I see it most in the argument "but the Bible isn't a science textbook", not only does it not understand what YEC's are actually saying. It's applying a standard that is not even in the same field, therefore can't be meaningfully applied. The whole argument is that there is real recorded history in the Bible, and that history has huge consequences on how methodological naturalism/uniformitatianism methods will make things appear.

                        Even if eugenics is a proper and logical application of "Darwinism", it does NOT affect the validity of the scientific theory!
                        When that's the only real impact of the "science" then it certainly calls into question whether anyone should teach it or not. You have been a fan of using Narnia references, think of "The Deplorable Word". It "works", but only brings utter destruction. Should anyone actually be teaching, or wanting to learn such a thing?

                        In other words, Big Freakin' Deal!!!

                        K54
                        Cutting a bit too close to your ideology?

                        Like I point out above, you miss the point entirely. There is much demonstrable evil from Darwinism, I have yet to seen a single useful gain from it. I've looked all over, and the best anyone could come up with was "bacterial resistance". Not only was it not predicted in advance, but it would be treated the same with or without Darwinism ever having existed.

                        P.S. If the Jorgian/Cerebrumian/JordanRiverine version of origins were prerequisite for Christianity, I would be a Fundy Atheist who would put Dick Dawkins to shame.

                        Chew on that awhile, Cerebrum.

                        Wow, that's just beyond sick. And you thought my comment about not wanting Darwinism taught even if I believed it to be sick.

                        You don't happen to be named Roger Olson do you?

                        Fortunately for many it's not a prerequisite, nor would I even try to make it one. However, I certainly prefer it to your anti-Biblical "Divine Design" garbage.

                        Anyway, I'm out, it's pretty clear that you are worse than you claim Jorge is.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                          Fine, I'll demonstrate it right here. You said in your post.



                          Except for the second, these claims wouldn't be made by someone who actually does believe the Bible. If they did, they would recognize that we are all sinners, and that we all, far too often, fall short of the mark.
                          So you are insinuating that if a person does believe the Bible then they can never claim an action of theirs to be "Godly" or "inspired by God", because if they really did believe the Bible, then they would know that they are sinners?

                          How does that logic follow in practice C123? I meet lots of folk in these kinds of forums who claim the most intimate of relationships with God, and to be guided by the Holy Spirit on the one hand, but have no qualms about misrepresenting the ideas of others on the other hand. And they also claim to be "born again" and "Bible believers".

                          Atheists, Hindus, Muslims, agnositcs, Buddhists - could not make those claims, could they C123. Only folk who claim to believe the Bible could make them.


                          Originally posted by C123
                          The same goes about you and evolution if you can't be honest about what Darwinism entails.
                          So, likewise are you happy to be honest about the deaths of millions of innocent people, caused by the use of Newton's theories? The moment Newton developed his theory, it entailed the deaths of those millions of people. Can you understand why?

                          Originally posted by C123
                          Here's an excerpt from someone who actually does believe in evolution, but sees that Darwin was not the "Saint of Science" that many make him out to be today.
                          So who here is making Darwin out to be the "Saint of Science"?

                          We are defending his development of a great scientific theory, a theory which has a lot of experimental support in its favour.

                          Do you think you have anything to match?

                          We are also defending a person who was very much a man of his times, who lived in a culture that generally thought in the ways he thought.

                          Originally posted by C123
                          Creation may not be the core of Christianity, but it is a key tenet. The Apostle's Creed makes believing in creation a statement of faith. You don't even get the "often" part right, because the majority of YEC's do not think it's a salvation issue(you'll see this admitted by every major YEC group).
                          The writers of those creeds lived in prescientific cultures. Of course they would write something like it. So what theistic evolutionist does not believe in creation?

                          And if YECs find it (evolution) not to be a salvation issue, then why do so many YECs on forums like these find it so darn hard to admit that theistic evolutionists are in fact true Christians?

                          I see it time and time again, a theistic evolutionist ask a YEC if he/she (the evolutionist) is a Christian and it's generally met with silence.

                          Originally posted by C123
                          The last part about Charles Darwin and Satan being probably the most egregious error here. It's merely being pointed out that he is not who many falsely portray him as, which is a kind of "Saint of Science".
                          Oh really. How often do you see the theory of evolution being blamed for so much of societies ills? For example, how much of the propaganda from sites like AiG do you actually read?
                          Last edited by rwatts; 09-01-2014, 06:34 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Baloney.

                            Not only are you wrong about Chuck Darwin, as Rogue06 has brilliantly demonstrated with copious references, but even if Chuck were worse than a combination of Caligula, Attila, and Hitler, it would not affect his science one itty-bit!!!

                            K54

                            P.S. Thanks for the analysis of my personhood. I can see why you lash out --Truth hurts.

                            You missed the point completely or are exceedingly intellectually dishonest.

                            K54

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              How is stating the truth, i.e.,

                              Big Freakin' Deal

                              cutting to close my ideology (whatever that is)??

                              The application of a scientific theory (see I dropped the "mis") has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the science.

                              I'll keep repeating this until it sinks into your noggin(s).

                              And I'll keep pointing out that it's intellectually dishonest to keep repeating a known error.

                              Cerebrum, as a Christian I assume you want to avoid dishonesty, intellectual or otherwise.

                              Am I correct on that?

                              K54

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                After reading through this thread, does anyone have even a shadow of a doubt that creationists of the ilk of Jorge, Cerebrum, and JR just completely nuts?

                                K54

                                justplainnuts.gif

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X