Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science..

"fred" <clarma1.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>Western World wrote:
>> It is for philosophical discussions and comparative religion debates. It
>> is not science because science has strict rules. Science requires the
>> verification of an hypotheses in an experiment or in observation.
>
>To the contrary, evolution has more than its share of guesswork with
>respect to other sciences. For example, scientists quarreled over the
>significance of the "hobbit," human(?) remains found on the island of
>Flores in Indonesia:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/reo6y

That isn't guesswork. That is proper science. Different researchers
are researching different aspects of the "hobbit" find, and science
has reached no conclusion yet.

>As another example, scientists were happy with mere guesswork
>concerning the evolution of venom in reptiles until somebody actually
>decided to do their homework on the origin of reptile venom:
>
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175935,00.html

Your evidence that "scientists were happy with mere guesswork" is
lacking. New information emerged that was not accessible before.
Before, we had two relatively unrelated species that had developed
venom. There was no fossil evidence of a common ancestor with venom,
so science did NOT guess that there was. The DNA evidence says that
there was, so that has now been incorporated into the model.

Scientists had no reason to be "happy with" the prior model for
reptile evolution, and they have no particular reason to be "happy
with" the current model either because further research will almost
certainly require change to the model.

But the model will still be an evolutionary model.

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science.. 

"fred" <clarma1 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in news:1141868994.307753.293040
@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:

> Western World wrote:
>> It is for philosophical discussions and comparative religion debates. It
>> is not science because science has strict rules. Science requires the
>> verification of an hypotheses in an experiment or in observation.
>
> To the contrary, evolution has more than its share of guesswork with
> respect to other sciences. For example, scientists quarreled over the
> significance of the "hobbit," human(?) remains found on the island of
> Flores in Indonesia:

No more so than any other science. A disagreemnt about the nature of a
fossil in paleoanthropology (evolution is only incidental to the case you
cite), is no different to a disagreement in astrophysics about the nature
of dark matter. In science all such issues are ultimately settled by the
preponderence of supporting evidence.

A summary of the supporting evidence for common descent:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Klazmon

<SNIP>
 >> Stay informed about: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science.. 

fred wrote:
> Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
>> "fred" <clarma1.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in news:1141868994.307753.293040
>> @e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Western World wrote:
>>>> It is for philosophical discussions and comparative religion debates. It
>>>> is not science because science has strict rules. Science requires the
>>>> verification of an hypotheses in an experiment or in observation.
>>> To the contrary, evolution has more than its share of guesswork with
>>> respect to other sciences. For example, scientists quarreled over the
>>> significance of the "hobbit," human(?) remains found on the island of
>>> Flores in Indonesia:
>> No more so than any other science. A disagreemnt about the nature of a
>> fossil in paleoanthropology (evolution is only incidental to the case you
>> cite), is no different to a disagreement in astrophysics about the nature
>> of dark matter. In science all such issues are ultimately settled by the
>> preponderence of supporting evidence.
>
> What a sorry, copout reply. :^(
>
> It's not like evolution scientists were forced to study the hobbit from
> a distance of many zillions of light years away through telescopes as
> they are with things like dark matter.
>
> On the other hand, consider that the engineering sciences are kicking
> butt on a daily basis with respect to constantly improving our
> lifestyles. We wouldn't be constantly upgrading our computers, for
> example, if scientists were having as much trouble with understanding
> semionductor electrons as evolutionists are having difficulties in
> trying to agree among themselves about the hobbit.

Your point is worthless.

Technology is different than science. For example, we knew how to make
lightbulbs and magnets before knowing and fully understanding the
science behind them.

>> A summary of the supporting evidence for common descent:
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>>
>> Klazmon
>>
>> <SNIP>
>


--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
 >> Stay informed about: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science.. 

"fred" <clarma1.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
>> "fred" <clarma1.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in news:1141868994.307753.293040
>> @e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Western World wrote:
>> >> It is for philosophical discussions and comparative religion debates. It
>> >> is not science because science has strict rules. Science requires the
>> >> verification of an hypotheses in an experiment or in observation.
>> >
>> > To the contrary, evolution has more than its share of guesswork with
>> > respect to other sciences. For example, scientists quarreled over the
>> > significance of the "hobbit," human(?) remains found on the island of
>> > Flores in Indonesia:
>>
>> No more so than any other science. A disagreemnt about the nature of a
>> fossil in paleoanthropology (evolution is only incidental to the case you
>> cite), is no different to a disagreement in astrophysics about the nature
>> of dark matter. In science all such issues are ultimately settled by the
>> preponderence of supporting evidence.
>
>What a sorry, copout reply. :^(
>
>It's not like evolution scientists were forced to study the hobbit from
>a distance of many zillions of light years away through telescopes as
>they are with things like dark matter.

No. They are forced to study it from thousands of miles away through
limited access to the very few fossils that have been found of the
"hobbit". There are more telescopes than there are fossils, and there
is a lot more dark matter, too.

>On the other hand, consider that the engineering sciences are kicking
>butt on a daily basis with respect to constantly improving our
>lifestyles. We wouldn't be constantly upgrading our computers, for
>example, if scientists were having as much trouble with understanding
>semionductor electrons as evolutionists are having difficulties in
>trying to agree among themselves about the hobbit.

Upgrading computers makes lots of money for those who do the
upgrading, and the effort is not limited to restricted access to
silicon, which after all is one of the more common elements on the
planet. Large numbers of scientists and engineers work on making such
advances. By contrast, fusion research, which stands to also make a
lot of money for whoever can make practical cheap energy has to make
use of very limited and expensive facilities, and that research,
performed by a small number of scientists, advances at a snails pace.
Research on the evolutionary role of the "hobbit" is based on even
more limited access, and the fact that no one will make much money
over resolving the role of the hobbit, as well as the fact that most
researchers are studying things other than the "hobbit".

In any event, the speed with which a field advances has nothing to do
with the correctness of the research that has been done.

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science.. 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science.. 

On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 21:27:07 -0600, fred wrote
(in article <1141874827.153071.139360 DeleteThis @j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):

> Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
>> "fred" <clarma1 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in news:1141868994.307753.293040
>> @e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Western World wrote:
>>>> It is for philosophical discussions and comparative religion debates. It
>>>> is not science because science has strict rules. Science requires the
>>>> verification of an hypotheses in an experiment or in observation.
>>>
>>> To the contrary, evolution has more than its share of guesswork with
>>> respect to other sciences. For example, scientists quarreled over the
>>> significance of the "hobbit," human(?) remains found on the island of
>>> Flores in Indonesia:
>>
>> No more so than any other science. A disagreemnt about the nature of a
>> fossil in paleoanthropology (evolution is only incidental to the case you
>> cite), is no different to a disagreement in astrophysics about the nature
>> of dark matter. In science all such issues are ultimately settled by the
>> preponderence of supporting evidence.
>
> What a sorry, copout reply. :^(
>
> It's not like evolution scientists were forced to study the hobbit from
> a distance of many zillions of light years away through telescopes as
> they are with things like dark matter.
>
> On the other hand, consider that the engineering sciences


When did Engineering become a "science".


I betcha my Dad (formerly a laboratory Chief at WES/ERDC - "Mobility and
Environmental Systems) is looking down - well, if there's an afterlife - and
breaking up laughing over "engineering sciences".

There are some engineers - usually not very good ones - who love the idea of
being labeled as a "scientist". To quote Dad, "Scientists talk, engineers
do". (And, yes, ASTM, ASCE, FHA and NAS + ones I don't know).

> are kicking
> butt on a daily basis with respect to constantly improving our
> lifestyles.

Then they're working their trade.


> We wouldn't be constantly upgrading our computers, for
> example, if scientists were having as much trouble with understanding
> semionductor electrons as evolutionists are having difficulties in
> trying to agree among themselves about the hobbit.


Not a valid comparison. Semiconductors were /invented/ while our biological
background has to be /discovered/.

Engineers keep going forward while many scientists are looking back.

Both appear to be valid areas if we are to increase our knowledge.

Gray Shockley
-------------------------
They laughed at Columbus,
they laughed at Fulton,
they laughed at the Wright brothers.
But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
- Carl Sagan



>>
>> A summary of the supporting evidence for common descent:
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>>
>> Klazmon
>>
>> <SNIP>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science.. 

"fred" <clarma1 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in
news:1141874827.153071.139360@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
>> "fred" <clarma1 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in news:1141868994.307753.293040
>> @e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Western World wrote:
>> >> It is for philosophical discussions and comparative religion
>> >> debates. It is not science because science has strict rules. Science
>> >> requires the verification of an hypotheses in an experiment or in
>> >> observation.
>> >
>> > To the contrary, evolution has more than its share of guesswork with
>> > respect to other sciences. For example, scientists quarreled over
>> > the significance of the "hobbit," human(?) remains found on the
>> > island of Flores in Indonesia:
>>
>> No more so than any other science. A disagreemnt about the nature of a
>> fossil in paleoanthropology (evolution is only incidental to the case
>> you cite), is no different to a disagreement in astrophysics about the
>> nature of dark matter. In science all such issues are ultimately
>> settled by the preponderence of supporting evidence.
>
> What a sorry, copout reply. :^(
>
> It's not like evolution scientists were forced to study the hobbit from
> a distance of many zillions of light years away through telescopes as
> they are with things like dark matter.

Not evolution scientists. Paleoathropologist's classification of a new type
of fossil. Your agenda is showing. In fact new evidence has pretty much
settled the "Flores man" case. The fact that some kook on usenet with an
agenda doesn't like it is of no interest to scientists:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-13.html

>
> On the other hand, consider that the engineering sciences are kicking
> butt on a daily basis with respect to constantly improving our
> lifestyles. We wouldn't be constantly upgrading our computers, for
> example, if scientists were having as much trouble with understanding
> semionductor electrons as evolutionists are having difficulties in
> trying to agree among themselves about the hobbit.

There are still many issues in solid state physics that are not well
understood. Superconductivity for example. The behavior of some of the new
types of superconductors that have been discovered don't agree with the
theory. Any science has areas that are not so well understood, whether it
be biology, solid state physics, chemistry, astrophysics or anything else.
All are ruled by "evidence". A word that the anti-science cretinists are
terrified of.

Klazmon.

>
>>
>> A summary of the supporting evidence for common descent:
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>>
>> Klazmon
>>
>> <SNIP>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science.. 

"fred" <clarma1 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not evolution scientists. Paleoathropologist's classification of a new type
>> of fossil. Your agenda is showing. In fact new evidence has pretty much
>> settled the "Flores man" case. The fact that some kook on usenet with an
>> agenda doesn't like it is of no interest to scientists:
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-13.html
>
>Nice sidestep to your strawman concerning dark matter. The article is
>accessable only by subscription and I cannot find similar articles.

That is your incompetence. It took me 30 seconds to find a
nonsubscription short version.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/pf/050228-13_pf.html

>I wonder if the critics of the hobbit know that they've been silenced?

They would likely be subscribers to Nature or have access through
their universities. But the version I was found was put up by Nature
themselves only a week after the prior article, so the cost of not
having a subscription is a week's delay in learning the news.

>> > On the other hand, consider that the engineering sciences are kicking
>> > butt on a daily basis with respect to constantly improving our
>> > lifestyles. We wouldn't be constantly upgrading our computers, for
>> > example, if scientists were having as much trouble with understanding
>> > semionductor electrons as evolutionists are having difficulties in
>> > trying to agree among themselves about the hobbit.
>>
>> There are still many issues in solid state physics that are not well
>> understood. Superconductivity for example. The behavior of some of the new
>> types of superconductors that have been discovered don't agree with the
>> theory. Any science has areas that are not so well understood, whether it
>> be biology, solid state physics, chemistry, astrophysics or anything else.
>> All are ruled by "evidence". A word that the anti-science cretinists are
>> terrified of.
>
>You are denying the suspiciously greater amount of guesswork involved
>in so-called evolution theories when compared to other sciences.

You don't seem to understand that science is fundamentally about
making hypotheses (which you would probably call "guesses") and then
testing them. Thus, all of science is what you call "guesswork".

Engineering sciences also involve hypotheses and testing. For every
advance you read about, there are thousands that don't pan out. But
there are hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists working on
improving computers, because there is money to be made doing so.
There are probably only a dozen people working with "hobbit" fossils,
and a few dozen more that have indirect access to their data, are
working on something not related, but might hit upon a relevant result
anyway.

>Scientists completely missed the side of the barn with respect to their
>initial guess as to how long ago reptile venom originated, for example,
>a point that you have so far ignored.

No they did not "miss the side of the barn". They had correct dates
for the earliest fossils in two separate families that showed venom.
They had no evidence of a common ancestor, so they did not "guess"
that there was one. Now they have that evidence, so the date was
pushed back.

The guy writing the article may have been surprised by this, but I
suspect some number of scientists were not surprised at all. They
just couldn't go saying that there was a single development of venom
until there was evidence.

>Indeed, who knows what guesswork
>that is now being passed off as evolution theory that "scientists" will
>ultimately have to trashcan after the next unexpected dig?

There is no "guesswork".

But scientists of all stripes like nothing better than the discard a
faulty hypothesis in favor of a better one. That is how science
works. That is its virtue and not its flaw.

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science.. 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science.. 

"fred" <clarma1.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> "fred" <clarma1.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Not evolution scientists. Paleoathropologist's classification of a new type
>> >> of fossil. Your agenda is showing. In fact new evidence has pretty much
>> >> settled the "Flores man" case. The fact that some kook on usenet with an
>> >> agenda doesn't like it is of no interest to scientists:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-13.html
>> >
>> >Nice sidestep to your strawman concerning dark matter. The article is
>> >accessable only by subscription and I cannot find similar articles.
>>
>> That is your incompetence. It took me 30 seconds to find a
>> nonsubscription short version.
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/pf/050228-13_pf.html
>
>It doesn't surprise me that you would be satisfied with "short version"
>explanations of things. After all, who needs to read a complete
>article when, in the true spirit of evolution "science," you can simply
>get hold of a short version of an article and then use your imagination
>to fill in the missing pieces? :^O

If I want to read the long version, I can pay for it, just like anyone
else. Intellectual property isn't free.

>> >Scientists completely missed the side of the barn with respect to their
>> >initial guess as to how long ago reptile venom originated, for example,
>> >a point that you have so far ignored.
>>
>> No they did not "miss the side of the barn". They had correct dates
>> for the earliest fossils in two separate families that showed venom.
>> They had no evidence of a common ancestor, so they did not "guess"
>> that there was one. Now they have that evidence, so the date was
>> pushed back.
>
>They had no evidence of a common reptile ancestor only because they
>never took the time to roll up their sleeves and do some good old
>scientific testing in the first place.

The testing wasn't possible, dimwit.

>> The guy writing the article may have been surprised by this, but I
>> suspect some number of scientists were not surprised at all. They
>> just couldn't go saying that there was a single development of venom
>> until there was evidence.
>
>Again, there was probably nothing stopping scientists from doing some
>basic experimentation before science text books that now have wrong
>information in them concerning reptile "facts" were published.

The conclusion that reptiles and snakes have a particular common
ancestor who was venomous is not the result of "basic
experimentation". It is the result of sequencing huge portions of the
snake and lizard genome, something that wasn't possible when most of
today's science books were written, and something that still takes
months or years in a specialized and very expensive laboratory (where
it is competing for funding with the much more lucrative human genome
studies).

>> >Indeed, who knows what guesswork
>> >that is now being passed off as evolution theory that "scientists" will
>> >ultimately have to trashcan after the next unexpected dig?
>>
>> There is no "guesswork".
>
>Tell that to all the people who bought reptile books that now have
>wrong "facts" in them.

I doubt if there are any "reptile books" that say that venom evolved
independently in lizards and snakes, BTW. Not exactly the sort of
thing that is important enough to put into a general textbook.

But your complaint could also be made about the numerous textbooks
with a periodic chart containing only 102 elements (or any other
number). Or it could be made about 200 years of Newtonian physics
textbooks before Einstein showed that Newton was incorrect. Indeed,
modern textbooks STILL teach Newton.

>> But scientists of all stripes like nothing better than the discard a
>> faulty hypothesis in favor of a better one. That is how science
>> works. That is its virtue and not its flaw.
>
>Evolution "scientists" would be undoubtedly be more careful with
>preaching their so-called factual information if evolution science
>books could be recalled just like defective vehicles.

The nature of science is that it advances, and new facts are learned.
If you want a body of knowledge that can never change, go bury your
head in a Bible or the Koran, because only religion promises
stagnation.

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science.. 

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 20:13:39 -0600, fred wrote
(in article <1141956819.887954.74580 DeleteThis @u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>):

> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> "fred" <clarma1 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Not evolution scientists. Paleoathropologist's classification of a new
>>>> type
>>>> of fossil. Your agenda is showing. In fact new evidence has pretty much
>>>> settled the "Flores man" case. The fact that some kook on usenet with an
>>>> agenda doesn't like it is of no interest to scientists:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-13.html
>>>
>>> Nice sidestep to your strawman concerning dark matter. The article is
>>> accessable only by subscription and I cannot find similar articles.
>>
>> That is your incompetence. It took me 30 seconds to find a
>> nonsubscription short version.
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/pf/050228-13_pf.html
>
> It doesn't surprise me that you would be satisfied with "short version"
> explanations of things. After all, who needs to read a complete
> article when, in the true spirit of evolution "science," you can simply
> get hold of a short version of an article and then use your imagination
> to fill in the missing pieces? :^O


Most of us are familiar with Bob's credentials; what are yours?
(Those that can be validated, of course.)

Your main "credential" appears to be that - in every message - your alligator
mouth overpowers your hummingbird ass.

Oops! Sorry about that. I forgot that your and Richard "Pull 'em, Rufus"
Cheney share similar mind styles.

Of course, his 60 IQ points higher than yours does give your leader a reason
to spit down on you as a wasted porker.


But, of course, your "life" [snicker] can only be gauged by those to whom you
sell out. I understand that there are daily auctions.


Anyone who wonders what there is different between a "brain" and a "mind"
can, definitely, use you as an explanation illustrated.


You know you would be much happier dead than in your present "unDead state"
and Rowdy Roddy would applaud you while wearing his sunglasses.

You must be "they" because you sure ain't "us".


You've probably already figured out that, when you try to mate with human
women, their laughter and hilarity at you is a direct response to your
"unusual" (to be nice about it) desires.

And that your loyalty to Attorney General John "nekkid ladies with tits"
Ashcroft and to Torturer General Alberto " you use Vise-grips® on their nuts"
Gonzales is your true passion, especially if you get to see what you declare
as "the fun parts".

I realize that Bush and Cheney aren't exactly what one would call "men" but
then you're pretty yellow yourself, FredPhelpsiePoo.

Do you hate Sweden because of the blondes who spit on you or the brunettes
who spit on you?

Do you hate America because America disbarred you - along with your state BAR
- because you're an unethical porker who should be used to solve the famine
in Ireland?


++ gray





>
>>
>>> I wonder if the critics of the hobbit know that they've been silenced?
>>
>> They would likely be subscribers to Nature or have access through
>> their universities. But the version I was found was put up by Nature
>> themselves only a week after the prior article, so the cost of not
>> having a subscription is a week's delay in learning the news.
>
> Thank you for addressing my quention concerning the critics to your
> satisfaction. :^(
>
>>
>>>>> On the other hand, consider that the engineering sciences are kicking
>>>>> butt on a daily basis with respect to constantly improving our
>>>>> lifestyles. We wouldn't be constantly upgrading our computers, for
>>>>> example, if scientists were having as much trouble with understanding
>>>>> semionductor electrons as evolutionists are having difficulties in
>>>>> trying to agree among themselves about the hobbit.
>>>>
>>>> There are still many issues in solid state physics that are not well
>>>> understood. Superconductivity for example. The behavior of some of the new
>>>> types of superconductors that have been discovered don't agree with the
>>>> theory. Any science has areas that are not so well understood, whether it
>>>> be biology, solid state physics, chemistry, astrophysics or anything else.
>>>> All are ruled by "evidence". A word that the anti-science cretinists are
>>>> terrified of.
>>>
>>> You are denying the suspiciously greater amount of guesswork involved
>>> in so-called evolution theories when compared to other sciences.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand that science is fundamentally about
>> making hypotheses (which you would probably call "guesses") and then
>> testing them. Thus, all of science is what you call "guesswork".
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if hobbit critics merely got into testosterone
> arguments with respect to trying to defend their oversimplified
> generalizations about the hobbit.
>
>>
>> Engineering sciences also involve hypotheses and testing. For every
>> advance you read about, there are thousands that don't pan out. But
>> there are hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists working on
>> improving computers, because there is money to be made doing so.
>> There are probably only a dozen people working with "hobbit" fossils,
>> and a few dozen more that have indirect access to their data, are
>> working on something not related, but might hit upon a relevant result
>> anyway.
>
> Let's see, "hypotheses and testing...don't pan out...money to be
> made...only a dozen...indirect access...something not
> related...relevant result".
>
> And your point?
>
>>
>>> Scientists completely missed the side of the barn with respect to their
>>> initial guess as to how long ago reptile venom originated, for example,
>>> a point that you have so far ignored.
>>
>> No they did not "miss the side of the barn". They had correct dates
>> for the earliest fossils in two separate families that showed venom.
>> They had no evidence of a common ancestor, so they did not "guess"
>> that there was one. Now they have that evidence, so the date was
>> pushed back.
>
> They had no evidence of a common reptile ancestor only because they
> never took the time to roll up their sleeves and do some good old
> scientific testing in the first place.
>
>>
>> The guy writing the article may have been surprised by this, but I
>> suspect some number of scientists were not surprised at all. They
>> just couldn't go saying that there was a single development of venom
>> until there was evidence.
>
> Again, there was probably nothing stopping scientists from doing some
> basic experimentation before science text books that now have wrong
> information in them concerning reptile "facts" were published.
>
>>
>>> Indeed, who knows what guesswork
>>> that is now being passed off as evolution theory that "scientists" will
>>> ultimately have to trashcan after the next unexpected dig?
>>
>> There is no "guesswork".
>
> Tell that to all the people who bought reptile books that now have
> wrong "facts" in them.
>
>>
>> But scientists of all stripes like nothing better than the discard a
>> faulty hypothesis in favor of a better one. That is how science
>> works. That is its virtue and not its flaw.
>
> Evolution "scientists" would be undoubtedly be more careful with
> preaching their so-called factual information if evolution science
> books could be recalled just like defective vehicles.
>
>>
>> lojbab
>
 >> Stay informed about: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science.. 

"fred" <clarma1.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1141926043.409706.14610@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:

> Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
>> "fred" <clarma1.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1141874827.153071.139360@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
>> >> "fred" <clarma1.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in news:1141868994.307753.293040
>> >> @e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
>> >>
>> >> > Western World wrote:
>> >> >> It is for philosophical discussions and comparative religion
>> >> >> debates. It is not science because science has strict rules.
>> >> >> Science requires the verification of an hypotheses in an
>> >> >> experiment or in observation.
>> >> >
>> >> > To the contrary, evolution has more than its share of guesswork
>> >> > with respect to other sciences. For example, scientists quarreled
>> >> > over the significance of the "hobbit," human(?) remains found on
>> >> > the island of Flores in Indonesia:
>> >>
>> >> No more so than any other science. A disagreemnt about the nature of
>> >> a fossil in paleoanthropology (evolution is only incidental to the
>> >> case you cite), is no different to a disagreement in astrophysics
>> >> about the nature of dark matter. In science all such issues are
>> >> ultimately settled by the preponderence of supporting evidence.
>> >
>> > What a sorry, copout reply. :^(
>> >
>> > It's not like evolution scientists were forced to study the hobbit
>> > from a distance of many zillions of light years away through
>> > telescopes as they are with things like dark matter.
>>
>> Not evolution scientists. Paleoathropologist's classification of a new
>> type of fossil. Your agenda is showing. In fact new evidence has pretty
>> much settled the "Flores man" case. The fact that some kook on usenet
>> with an agenda doesn't like it is of no interest to scientists:
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-13.html
>
> Nice sidestep to your strawman concerning dark matter. The article is
> accessable only by subscription and I cannot find similar articles. I
> wonder if the critics of the hobbit know that they've been silenced?
>:^O

How was it a strawman? It was a perfectly valid analogy demonstrating that
all sciences have areas that are not well understood. Since you raised the
case of semiconductors which is in the field of solid state physics, I gave
the example of certain newly disovered superconductors, which are not
explained by the current standard theory. Your complaint about the Nature
article being subscriber only (Bob already pointed out how you can see the
article without paying) was anticipated. It now allows me to point out that
you could well do with being a subsriber to a prestigious scientific
journal such as nature. You might actually learn something rather than
getting everything you know from your source Faux News LOL.

>
>>
>> >
>> > On the other hand, consider that the engineering sciences are kicking
>> > butt on a daily basis with respect to constantly improving our
>> > lifestyles. We wouldn't be constantly upgrading our computers, for
>> > example, if scientists were having as much trouble with understanding
>> > semionductor electrons as evolutionists are having difficulties in
>> > trying to agree among themselves about the hobbit.
>>
>> There are still many issues in solid state physics that are not well
>> understood. Superconductivity for example. The behavior of some of the
>> new types of superconductors that have been discovered don't agree with
>> the theory. Any science has areas that are not so well understood,
>> whether it be biology, solid state physics, chemistry, astrophysics or
>> anything else. All are ruled by "evidence". A word that the
>> anti-science cretinists are terrified of.
>>
>> Klazmon.
>
> You are denying the suspiciously greater amount of guesswork involved
> in so-called evolution theories when compared to other sciences.

It is fine in any science to form a hypothesis from guesswork, especially
if the guesswork is based on a sound knowledge of the subject. The key
factor is that any hypothesis only becomes accepted when it is backed up by
empirical evidence. The biological sciences are no different to any other
in this respect. I will repeat the link I gave listing very sound evidence
supporting the theory of common descent by evolution. If you think it is
wrong, address the actual evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


> Scientists completely missed the side of the barn with respect to their
> initial guess as to how long ago reptile venom originated, for example,
> a point that you have so far ignored. Indeed, who knows what guesswork
> that is now being passed off as evolution theory that "scientists" will
> ultimately have to trashcan after the next unexpected dig?

Physics completely missed the side of the barn when Lord Kelvin stated that
the Sun couldn't possibly be older than 30 million years. At the time,
Physicists didn't even know thermonuclear reactions existed. All science is
subject to revision. As I already said science is ruled by empirical
evidence. Newton's theory of dynamics and gravity were overturned by
special and general relativity. The later are just better descriptions of
nature than Newton's theory. Again, the biological sciences use exactly the
same methodology as the physical sciences.

Klazmon.
 >> Stay informed about: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science.. 

fred wrote:
> Western World wrote:
> > It is for philosophical discussions and comparative religion debates. It
> > is not science because science has strict rules. Science requires the
> > verification of an hypotheses in an experiment or in observation.
>
> To the contrary, evolution has more than its share of guesswork with
> respect to other sciences.

Not at all. The Theory of Evolution uses *precisely* the same
scientific method as the rest of science. There is no difference
whatsoever. If evolution is bad, then *all* science is equally bad.

I'd be delighted to debate this with you any time you can find support
for your claim.

Budikka
 >> Stay informed about: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science..