Christians are anti-science.

[IBDaMann]

This message is hidden because Into the Night is on your ignore list.

Instead of onesies-twosies, why don't you just publish your entire Ignore List. Tell us whose ideas drive you back into your snowflake safe-space.

 

[Cypress]

So you are tipping your king. You can't think of any part of The Origen of Species that has been falsified and you acknowledge that Darwin's pangenesis is not part of that volume.

Shall we move on?


... and your mind is mistaken. Now, let's turn the tables a bit. You rushed to absorb the misinformation Wikipedia offers about "falsifiability" without checking any authoritative sources and thus didn't learn anything about "falsifiability." You give yourself away by referencing Karl Popper. He is dead and is not relevant to the topic. Karl popper initiated the idea of falsification but others took over and now the concept is embedded throughout industry. Nobody is going to spend big dollars on any development project that is not based on falsifiable specifications. No test plans can be generated for the unfalsifiable. No test plans means no project plan which means no funding.

So, going back to your speculation about the past. I don't care how much evidence you have that convinces you of whatever, nothing you believe can be verified without a time machine. None of your beliefs about the past are falsifiable. None.


Au contraire, mon frère, it is a branch of mathematics word problems and nothing more. Quantum mechanics is standard statistical and probability mathematics word problems. Find me a mathematician who is an expert in statistical and probability mathematics and I'll show you an expert solver of quantum mechanics word problems.

Are you under the impression that if a math word problem involves "photons" instead of "dice" that it magically transforms from math to physics?



Au contraire, mon frère, physics predicts nature ... it does not provide probabilities. Math is needed for probabilities.

This is the Stefan-Boltzmann law: Radiance = Temperature^4 * SB_Const * Emissivity

Where are the statistics? Where are the probabilities?


Of course, while you are laughing you are going to provide examples of quantum mechanics problems whose solutions are not statistical mathematics, yes? I'm standing by ... and I assure you, I am laughing with you, not at you.

Darwinian evolution included more than Origin of Species. Descent of Man, pangenesis, et al were all part and parcell of Darwin's evolutionary scheme. Work subsequent to Darwin demonstrated some flaws and mistakes in his evolutionary program.

It took decades, and only through repeated testing for falsifiability that evolution by natural selection was widely acknowledged as a verified and robust scientific theory. Information came to light only after Darwin's death that allowed scientists to test his hypothesis.

Prime examples:
-Transitional fossils in the fossil record
-Observations of descent with modification, rather than intelligent design
-Observations of modifications by natural selection in real time
-Discovery of a universal genetic code, strongly indicating all life has a common genetic origin.

Evolution by natural selection has been repeatedly tested for falsifiability, and has passed with flying colors.


Sidebar: If you walk into a university statistics department and say you want to do a PhD in quantum mechanics, they are going to laugh in your face and tell you to go over to the physics department and talk to the physics researchers

 

[IBDaMann]

Darwinian evolution included more than Origin of Species.

Nope. Darwin defined his theory and published it in Origin of Species. You are free to read it. All other people who aren't Charles Darwin who attempt to redefine Darwin's theory are in error.

Ergo, you are in error.

Descent of Man,

Nope. Darwin specifically avoided this explosive topic. He didn't want to get drawn and quartered. Anyone claiming that he covered this in his theory is lying.

pangenesis, et al

Nope. Darwin mused about many things, especially about topics pertaining to Christianity, and none of them were incorporated by Charles Darwin into his theory. Darwin did not publish any later editions to "update" his theory to be anything other than what he had published previously. Nobody gets to claim that he did.

It took decades, and only through repeated testing for falsifiability that evolution by natural selection was widely acknowledged as a verified and robust scientific theory.

It was never "acknowledged" as a scientific theory because it isn't a scientific theory. You should demand a refund.

Prime examples: -Transitional fossils in the fossil record

There is no such thing as a "transitional fossil." I think you are referring to indications of different species possibly forming an evolutionary chain over time. No fossil indicates into what its species was evolving and no species (or fossil) magically transforms. All perceived evolutionary chains are speculative and despite your unwillingness to accept the idea, we actually do not have time machines and not a single evolutionary speculation has ever been verified.

Your claims of science being involved are absurd.

-Discovery of a universal genetic code, strongly indicating all life has a common genetic origin.

Genetics has given us great insights and has spawned much speculation. We still don't have any time machines. Those UFOs that keep visiting our planet refuse to lend us one.

Evolution by natural selection has been repeatedly tested for falsifiability, and has passed with flying colors.

Sidebar: If you walk into a university statistics department and say you want to do a PhD in quantum mechanics, they are going to laugh in your face and tell you to go over to the physics department and talk to the physics researchers

Au contraire, mon frère, you aren't familiar with university math departments. Ask me how I know. Allow me to mock you for your absolutely absurd assertion.

The next time your highschool has a "college fair" ask an actual member of a math department about graduate options in applied mathematics. Tell him you want to do a thesis in quantum mechanics or in cryptography. Tell him that you just love statistical math. See what he tells you. He won't refer you to another department.

 

[gfm7175]

Explains what?

I'm still waiting for him to answer that very same question for me. He seems to think that my being a Christian explains something, but he hasn't said what it supposedly explains.

Whatever it is, I bet that it will be another error in logic...

 

[gfm7175]

Instead of onesies-twosies, why don't you just publish your entire Ignore List. Tell us whose ideas drive you back into your snowflake safe-space.

I'm part of it as well... Many intelligent minds on this forum are part of it.

 

[gfm7175]

Well, isn't this so sad? Not.

This message is hidden because Into the Night is on your ignore list.

Am I on it too?

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm part of it as well... Many intelligent minds on this forum are part of it.

I'm certain ThatOwlCoward's list will reveal JPP's cognitive achievers ... an "honor roll" if you will. Essentially there is prestige involved in making that list.

 

[Into the Night]

Darwinian evolution included more than Origin of Species. Descent of Man, pangenesis, et al were all part and parcell of Darwin's evolutionary scheme. Work subsequent to Darwin demonstrated some flaws and mistakes in his evolutionary program.

Darwin didn't have an evolutionary program. He had a theory, which was falsified. Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution. He only created the Theory of Natural Selection. That was falsified.

It took decades, and only through repeated testing for falsifiability that evolution by natural selection was widely acknowledged as a verified and robust scientific theory.

Nope. It was falsified.

Information came to light only after Darwin's death that allowed scientists to test his hypothesis.

Nope. It happened while he was still alive.

Prime examples:
-Transitional fossils in the fossil record

Define 'transitional fossil'. The lineage of fossils is unknown.

-Observations of descent with modification, rather than intelligent design

A conclusion is not an observation. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not a proof. Science does not use supporting evidence.

-Observations of modifications by natural selection in real time

A conclusion is not an observation. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not a proof. Science does not use supporting evidence.

-Discovery of a universal genetic code, strongly indicating all life has a common genetic origin.

A conclusion, not an indication. It could simply mean that life as common processes that require the same encoding in genes to exist. No universal genetic code has been found.

Evolution by natural selection has been repeatedly tested for falsifiability, and has passed with flying colors.

Nope. It was falsifed.

Sidebar: If you walk into a university statistics department and say you want to do a PhD in quantum mechanics, they are going to laugh in your face and tell you to go over to the physics department and talk to the physics researchers

There is no such thing as a 'statistics department' at a university. When you study quantum physics, you will be studying math, primarily probability math, but also some in statistics. It is not science. It is math.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm still waiting for him to answer that very same question for me. He seems to think that my being a Christian explains something, but he hasn't said what it supposedly explains.

Whatever it is, I bet that it will be another error in logic...

That's not really much of a bet. It's only a matter of time.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm certain ThatOwlCoward's list will reveal JPP's cognitive achievers ... an "honor roll" if you will. Essentially there is prestige involved in making that list.

If you're not, I beat you to it! Another first for Into the Night!

 

[IBDaMann]

If you're not, I beat you to it! Another first for Into the Night!

Yeah, that's why I'm pressing for the list like it Trump's Tax returns or Obama's birth certificate. It's my shot at redemption.

 

[Into the Night]

Yeah, that's why I'm pressing for the list like it Trump's Tax returns or Obama's birth certificate. It's my shot at redemption.

Go for it!

 

[Cypress]

The fact you have not heard of Darwin's theory of pangenesis...

Darwin never made any such theory!

"Charles Darwin's Theory of Pangenesis"

Source: Arizona State University
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/charles-darwins-theory-pangenesis

Sidebar: If you walk into a university statistics department and say you want to do a PhD in quantum mechanics, they are going to laugh in your face and tell you to go over to the physics department and talk to the physics researchers

There is no such thing as a 'statistics department' at a university!

Stanford University Department of Statistics

"Welcome to the Department of Statistics at Stanford University Webpage"

https://statistics.stanford.edu/about/welcome

Jesus Christ, it is pointless to read anything you write. You do not know jack shit about what you are talking about.

 

[Cypress]

So you are tipping your king. You can't think of any part of The Origen of Species that has been falsified and you acknowledge that Darwin's pangenesis is not part of that volume.

Shall we move on?


... and your mind is mistaken. Now, let's turn the tables a bit. You rushed to absorb the misinformation Wikipedia offers about "falsifiability" without checking any authoritative sources and thus didn't learn anything about "falsifiability." You give yourself away by referencing Karl Popper. He is dead and is not relevant to the topic. Karl popper initiated the idea of falsification but others took over and now the concept is embedded throughout industry. Nobody is going to spend big dollars on any development project that is not based on falsifiable specifications. No test plans can be generated for the unfalsifiable. No test plans means no project plan which means no funding.

So, going back to your speculation about the past. I don't care how much evidence you have that convinces you of whatever, nothing you believe can be verified without a time machine. None of your beliefs about the past are falsifiable. None.


Au contraire, mon frère, it is a branch of mathematics word problems and nothing more. Quantum mechanics is standard statistical and probability mathematics word problems. Find me a mathematician who is an expert in statistical and probability mathematics and I'll show you an expert solver of quantum mechanics word problems.

Are you under the impression that if a math word problem involves "photons" instead of "dice" that it magically transforms from math to physics?



Au contraire, mon frère, physics predicts nature ... it does not provide probabilities. Math is needed for probabilities.

This is the Stefan-Boltzmann law: Radiance = Temperature^4 * SB_Const * Emissivity

Where are the statistics? Where are the probabilities?


Of course, while you are laughing you are going to provide examples of quantum mechanics problems whose solutions are not statistical mathematics, yes? I'm standing by ... and I assure you, I am laughing with you, not at you.

Good boy, you know how to use Google and spend time reading obscure rightwing science denier blogs.

Lot's of word salad, and yet not one single solitary link to a body of reputable, peer reviewed scientific literature showing the theory of evolution by natural selection has been falsified and debunked.

"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin."

- Statement by U.S. National Academies of Science, and the national science academies of 65 member countries

https://www.interacademies.org/stat...ecently in June 2006,of the science of nature.

 

[IBDaMann]

Good boy, you know how to use Google and spend time reading obscure rightwing science denier blogs.

I think we can agree that it takes a special class of moron to refer to The Origen of Species as a "right-wing denier blog."

The good news is that you are in a "special class."

Lot's of word salad,

I think we can agree that it takes a special class of moron to refer to The Origen of Species as a "word salad."

The good news is that you are in a "special class."

... and yet not one single solitary link to a body of reputable, peer reviewed scientific literature

Aaaahhh, the scientifically illiterate moron strikes again!

There is no such thing as "scientific" literature. There is only literature. Publishing a document does not make science. There is no topic that, in and of itself, converts literature into "scientific" literature.
You need to get a refund on your education.

... showing the theory of evolution by natural selection has been falsified and debunked.

Darwin's theory is unfalsifiable and thus has never been falsified. Whatever the current theory is on evolutionary lineages is DEBUNKED every time we find a new fossil that adds new information.

 

[Cypress]

I think we can agree that it takes a special class of moron to refer to The Origen of Species as a "right-wing denier blog."

The good news is that you are in a "special class."


I think we can agree that it takes a special class of moron to refer to The Origen of Species as a "word salad."

The good news is that you are in a "special class."


Aaaahhh, the scientifically illiterate moron strikes again!

There is no such thing as "scientific" literature. There is only literature. Publishing a document does not make science. There is no topic that, in and of itself, converts literature into "scientific" literature.
You need to get a refund on your education.


Darwin's theory is unfalsifiable and thus has never been falsified. Whatever the current theory is on evolutionary lineages is DEBUNKED every time we find a new fossil that adds new information.
]

^ Still no links to any reputable body of peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrating the theory of evolution by natural selection has been debunked and falsified.

 

[IBDaMann]

^ Still no links to any reputable body of peer reviewed scientific literature

Don't expect any links. Nobody has any more insight into Charles Darwin's theory than Charles Darwin's words in The Origin of Species. Nonetheless, I see you prefer your scientifically illiterate prattle so why don't you go read up on some misinformation? There's plenty of it out there and I don't have any.

When the day comes you want to learn something, ... actually read my posts.

 

[Cypress]

Don't expect any links. Nobody has any more insight into Charles Darwin's theory than Charles Darwin's words in The Origin of Species. Nonetheless, I see you prefer your scientifically illiterate prattle so why don't you go read up on some misinformation? There's plenty of it out there and I don't have any.

When the day comes you want to learn something, ... actually read my posts.
]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You claim the theory of evolution by natural selection is easily debunked.

Still waiting on you to provide links to any reputable body of peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrating the theory has been debunked.

Simply parroting what you read on an obscure, rightwing science denier blogs does not cut the mustard.

 

[IBDaMann]

Jesus Christ, it is pointless to read anything you write. You do not know jack shit about what you are talking about.

Yes, you are an idiot. You picked Stanford who decided to take Statistics out of the Math department and to make it a separate Department owing to its applicability to virtually every other field of study. Standford could have called it the Department of Applied Mathematics but I guess they just wanted to focus on Statistics. Good for them. When one gets an undergrad degree from that department, the degree received is Mathematical and Computational Science, not Physics or Chemistry.

The Statistics Department's goal is research and student training in statistics, both theory and applications, and in probability. Throughout its history, the department has been very active in the development of these subjects to advance other fields in the sciences, medicine, engineering and education.

 

[IBDaMann]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Charles Darwin came through in spades with evidence/observations from the Galapagos. They're all in The Origin of Species. Try reading it.

You claim the theory of evolution by natural selection is easily debunked.

No. Read my posts for comprehension.

1. Darwin's theory is unfalsifiable and has thus never been falsified. I'm not going to repeat this for you.
2. Every time a fossil is discovered that adds new information, the species lineage models change, thus creating a new model that debunks the old model. Let me know if you don't grasp how that works.

Still waiting on you to provide links

Please hold your breath while you wait.

[by the way, the easy way to identify totally scientifically illiterate morons who thinks they are supergeniuses is the shout "Show me peer reviewed documents!" They/you are blissfully unaware that "peer review" has nothing to do with science ... and instead believe that it is science. It really is way too funny. It is pathetically funny.

This is a reputably peer-reviewed document:

Let me guess ... you are confused, right? You just don't understand, right? ... because you don't know what "peer reviewing" is or what it is for.

Don't you think you should first learn what you plan to talk about?