[quote name='alonzomourning23']Logic and good logic are two different things. [/quote]
And what exactly would you say the difference is? I bet you will say, "good logic supports what I want to believe while logic in general refutes it."
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I think even you can understand how a question about what advantage religion holds over science is related to this discussion.[/quote]
No. That is your problem. Your are so concerned with refuting religion that you can't consider science from a clear and unbiased perspective.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']](*,) I'm referring to change of living things over generations, not growth of normal things during ones life. Any change from one generation to another that alters the characteristics of the species is evolution. Anyone with an IQ of 10 could have understood that. [/quote]
I do understand that, but you don't seem to understand the implications of what your saying. I am trying to get you to specify your ideas precisely because if you could then you would realize that some of what you think contradicts itself.
I know what evolution is in the strict sense, but there is a big difference between saying that species change and saying that such change accounts for the origins of species. Specifying this distinction is cumbersome because the term is commonly used to describe the latter and not the former.
I am arguing against "evolution" as the nebulous and unscientific theory of the origins of species. That is the theory which is lacking scientific evidence. Not the idea that species change over generations.
If what you are trying to argue is that species change over generations, but that this does not account for the origins of species then I have no disagreement with you. However, I doubt that this is what you mean when you say "evolution".
I know that the two aren't the same. That is the very thing I am trying to prove and the thing which so many "evolutionary" proponents don't seem to understand. I am trying to demonstrate to you the inconsistency of thinking that both theories are part of a whole by presenting the problems with the whole.
This is exactly why controlled experiments are necessary because otherwise you can draw a number of very different conclusions from the same data. The two different ideas of species changing over time and such change accounting for the origin of all species is a perfect example.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']"I think I know", that's the whole problem with your argument. You barely understand even the basic principles of evolution, and the proposed means of evolution. Evolution is change over generations, that's all. Natural selection is the means darwin proposed by which evolution occurs. Natural selection means the organisms that are best adapted to their environment are the ones with the best chance of survival and reproduction, therefore their traits becoming more and more prominent over generations.[/quote]
No, I just give you the benefit of the doubt. I keep waiting for you to make me look stupid with some amazing wisdom that shatters the scientific method, but instead I am baffled by your complete neglect of logic and the scientific method. You haven't told me anything in this thread that I wasn't already aware of.
In other words, I say "I think I know" in the hope that you will tell me something I don't know, but you haven't.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, scientists routinely engage in many different kinds of experiments, two that I mentioned were field experiments and natural experiments. Those are accepted, and more common than, controlled experiments. You are arguing against practices that are accepted as rigorous, and viable. You have to do a better job of explaining why the whole of science should conform to your ideas. Right now, no matter how you argue, that is impossible. You don't understand the different ways science functions, you only understand the extreme basics of genetics, evolution and the scientific method. To present a truly good argument it is usually best to at least be able to discuss these things on the same level and same depth as the people you are arguing against, you don't even come close. You present no evidence to suggest why your view is better than the one currently held on experiments and the scientific method, and you present no counter argument to the suggestions that your view would stifle science due to the fact that much of what is known in science would not be acceptable under you definition.[/quote]
Scientists routinely engage in a lot of things which aren't science. Science is not whatever the scientific community happens to practice. I understand very well the way the scientific community functions. You don't understand that the scientific community doesn't function like the catholic church. In the catholic church, whatever the pope says defines what is catholic. In the scientific community, the scientists could say anything, but that won't make it science.
These aren't my ideas. These are the ideas that follow from the goals of science and the scientific method. I will argue why the whole of science needs to conform to the scientific method if necessary, but first you have to admit that you don't agree with the scientific method. If you say "you have to prove why science should conform to the scientific method" or if you say "I do not agree with the scientific method you presented" then I will prove it to you. Until then I think it is obvious why the burden is on you to do a better job of explaining why the popular opinion of the scientific community does not have to conform to the scientific method or why the scientific method cannot be understood plainly (whichever it is you believe).
And if you ask me you are the one who hasn't even come close to discussing things on the same level as me. You haven't even gotten past the scientific method yet. I'm waiting for you to get there and then we can move on to more advanced discussion if necessary.
Now all of the sudden you are claiming that my view differs from the one currently held by the scientific method, but I was under the impression that my view IS the scientific method! You claim I haven't presented any evidence, but you haven't even expressed a viewpoint. You have not given any alternative to the scientific method which I presented.
Also, I haven't presented any counter argument to your suggestions that the scientific method would stifle science because it is blatantly false to say that much of what is known in science would not be acceptable under my definition. Everything that is known in science is accepted under my definition including everything you cited earlier. If you had provided an argument or some examples then there would be something to counter argue, but as it stands you haven't presented an argument to accompany your suggestion, so how could I counter it?
[quote name='alonzomourning23']One created by humans, one created by time and earth. One is filled with biases, innacuracies and the like before modern scientists even first glance at it, the other is accurate. Studying fossils is like studying the planetary motion directly, studying a 19th century book on fossils is like studying ancient celestial records and the theories of ancient people.[/quote]
How could you be so gullible as to believe that fossils are easier to interpret than the writing of another human being? How do you define accurate? Also, if what you believe regarding evolution is true then aren't humans a part of the earth? Your whole argument is inconsistent. It has so many contradictions that it can't even "leave the gate" so to speak.
I once read a comic where a turtle went into a small pond. On the other side emerged an alegator. A nearby man exclaimed "evolution!" Then the alegator spit out a turtle shell. That is what I am talking about.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You need better examples, your examples are ridiculous and don't do anything to support your arguments.[/quote]
That is the thing you don't understand! My examples aren't here to support my argument, they are to try to help you grasp the logic and the fact that my argument is simply an extension of the definition of science. It doesn't matter if my examples are ridiculous. I don't need any examples because my argument follows from the definition of science. That is why you don't even understand my argument, because you don't understand what science is. You think that more examples constitutes a better argument, but if it follows from the definition then examples don't matter.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']What does what the ancients would do with it have to do with anything? Though nice touch with the CE. You're arguing what may have been if something, which never happened, had happened. And your arguing as if their findings would mean anything today. You saying DNA doesn't support evolution doesn't make it so.[/quote]
I will spell it out more clearly. If applied your same logic in a different cultural context then you would come to different conclusions. That demonstrates that your argument is not scientific because scientific knowledge is objective and independent of culture. That is how you KNOW that DNA does not support evolution. Not because I say so, but because you can reason for yourself that the same knowledge of DNA in a different cultural context would not lead to the theory of evolution, but something quite different.
Your notion that scientific facts from a culture of the past have no meaning on scientific facts today demonstrates quite clearly your confusion about science. The whole idea with science is to understand something that doesn't depend on culture and time. So any scientific facts from the past would most certainly having meaning today.
More importantly, we can actually use this timeless property of scientific facts to test how good they are. If our interpretation of the data changes when we put ourselves in the shoes of someone else, then we know our interpretation isn't an objective one (and objective knowledge is the whole goal of science).
[quote name='alonzomourning23']A controlled experiment is ideal, but vast, overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with the idea that the only kind of valid experiment is a controlled one. In some fields, particularly psychology, many argue that they aren't even the best kind of experiment.[/quote]
That means those fields are less scientific, not that it constitutes good science. Furthermore, there are many theories which ARE supported by controlled experiments. So even if still you want to consider theories which aren't supported by controlled experiments "good science" there is clearly a big difference between those which are supported by controlled experiments and those which aren't. In any case, you have to admit that theories like evolution which aren't supported by controlled experiments are in a lower class than theories such as electromagnetism which are supported by controlled experiments.
Like you said, controlled experiments are the ideal. So theories which meet the ideal have greater stature than those which don't.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Yes, but theories do not become laws. If you were to read a scientific journal the terms are applied to specific meanings, especially the term law.[/quote]
Maybe in biological journals, but this most certainly isn't the case for scientific journals in general. I've never seen such a distinction in any of the top physics, electrical engineering, or chemistry journals. If you ask me I'd guess that those fields which are lacking in substance try to compensate with more flowery language.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So you fight evolution tooth and nail, but just assume gravity "probably" has more evidence than any theory?[/quote]
It doesn't really matter whether it is the best or the second best supported theory. In any case, it is definitely one of the best supported theories while evolution is far far behind.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Not a scientists, not around any people engaged in scientific work in a situation where they would use scientific terms (and not dumbed down ones so everyone else, such as you or I, can understand).[/quote]
Who, me or you?
[quote name='alonzomourning23']We were? Like the ancient greek Heron who invented the steem engine? Or the supposed finding of an ancient egyptian battery, believed to have been used in medicine. Or all the times that states cut off scientific funding because they believed it went nowhere, or stifled it because it contradicted religious doctrine. Science has just as much to do with dumb luck than anything else.[/quote]
No. Not like those things. Like things you looked into and found weren't worth pursuing any further. Like that knife in your hand.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But, you need to understand something in depth to make a strong argument and defense of your opinion and judgement, especially in your case since you aren't providing any evidence for your side. Knowing who thought of an idea or theory is not important (except to know their background, useful in debunking some types of theories), knowing the theory itself, and the evidence to back it up, is essential when arguing against it. You don't need to know anything to have an opinion, but you damn well better know it if you hope to get anywhere when you decide to argue against it. [/quote]
But I'm not arguing against evolution. I'm arguing against the idea that evolution is good science. Do you need to know exactly how many feet deep the ocean is to know you will drown? No.
You really have no idea what my side is if you think I need evidence. I don't need evidence if it is part of the definition.
If you tell me you have a red car then I don't need to know anything else to tell you it isn't blue. It doesn't matter what model or make. Two door or four door. It doesn't even matter if it is really a car. It could be a boat or a oil truck. I don't really need to know a damn thing to give an extremely strong argument that it isn't blue because I know the parts that are important. Namely, that it is red and NOT blue.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Evidence of why it would be bad: Hard impace on your body hurts, thumbtack in hand hurts. Bullet through hand hurts. Being stabbed hurts. Holes in the body can lead to massive loss of blood and infections. I am fully informed about many of the dangers that risk it. Now, if I had never been cut, never seen a cut, never heard of anyone getting a wound or hurt, then I would not know that it would be painful or dangerous.[/quote]
But how do you know that what you know is enough? Certainly if you put a knife through your hand than you would know more than if you didn't. Or even apart from actually stabbing yourself, if you were a doctor then you would know more than you know now. How do you know that what you know is enough and that you don't need to be a doctor? The answer is that you don't need to know anymore because you know the important things. Likewise, I know all the important information to know in determining whether or not evolution is a good scientific theory.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']If the lay person wants to educate themself in the scientific theory they want to tackle then they can argue it effectively. If they have no form of education, self taught being a form of education, in that field, then there opinion has no importantce (except, obviously, peoples influence on government funding for science and research). Basically, if you want to tackle a scientific theory, you have to know what support that theory has in the first place.
If they want to set up some sort of experiment where they can record actual verifiable data, then they can. For example, if I believe that tv commercials are getting longer, that isn't a valid scientific statement. If I find data of the average length of old commercials, and record the time (and then average them out) of all the current commercials, then I'd have a way of showing whether my belief was valid.[/quote]
The second paragraph is true, but the first one isn't. Do you need to know what everyone else thinks about tv commercials to conduct your experiment? No. You don't need to know anybody else's experiments, because if their experiments aren't bogus then you will find the same thing. Furthermore, you don't need any special education or anything to conduct such an experiment. It could be a god damn monkey conducting that experiment. As long as the data gets recorded accurately it doesn't matter.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Again, you're arguing against hte scientific community on that one.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter who I'm arguing against. Its a fact. Its part of the definition. I don't care if every scientist on the planet says otherwise, I don't care if the president of the united states says otherwise, I don't care if the pope says otherwise, I don't care if albert einstein says otherwise, and I don't care if you say otherwise.
Its a fact that follows from the definition and not you or anyone else can change that regardless of whether your nametag says "lawyer", "janitor", "scientist", or anything else.
:lol:
[/QUOTE]
...
:lol: