- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 25,566
- Reaction score
- 36,346
- Location
- American Refugee in Europe
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Here's how the missing link argument goes:
You found it! This is one of my favorite clips of all time!
Here's how the missing link argument goes:
No, it is religious theory
Okay...let's just say you are correct. Why then, would I dismiss massive actual Data, in favor of something I will never comprehend?
question "everything"???Don't accept anything, question everything.
question "everything"???
not everything needs to be questioned.
some things simply are.
Very few things simply are and theory's like Darwinism definitely don't fit in the simply are category. In fact give me some examples of things that simply are, I can't think of any off the top of my head.
Don't accept anything, question everything.
I agree with questioning and evaluating everything...but by doing so we can verify and move on.
The sun
The earth
biology
life
tequila
sex
war
this computer
If by theory, you mean wild-eyed guess based on nothing but wishful thinking, then yes. However, it fails any test of credibility, especially scientific credibility, in that it starts with a foregone conclusion, then seeks evidence and assertion to support it. It doesn't seek to find what is actually real, it seeks to support a particular religious view, whether it is true or not.
Not a single one of those things are simple, they are all incredibly complex.
True but tequila can make you "simple", does that count?
Serioulsy though, the queston wasn`t things that are simple but things that simple are, ie things that just exist, if you want things that are simple then the question should have been posted that way. tecoyah gave a good answer to the question, though i suspect the question was meant to be a bit more than it actually was.
The list he gave actually proved my point, he couldn't think of any things that "simply are"" either, or to better put it any concept that simply is.
The question was about things that simply are, not that are simple. Try again.
True but tequila can make you "simple", does that count?
Serioulsy though, the queston wasn`t things that are simple but things that simple are, ie things that just exist, if you want things that are simple then the question should have been posted that way. tecoyah gave a good answer to the question, though i suspect the question was meant to be a bit more than it actually was.
I believe it is creationism and religious doctrine should not be taught in our schools.
Not a single one of those things are simple, they are all incredibly complex.
The list he gave actually proved my point, he couldn't think of any things that "simply are"" either, or to better put it any concept that simply is.
Redress said:And again you have a failed understanding of the scientific method.
Redress said:Untested is not an issue. To be a scientific hypothesis it has to be testable, ie it has to be falsifiable.
Redress said:It does not have to be already tested. Science is applying the scientific method to natural phenomena. It is possible to apply the scientific method to unnatural phenomena, but they would not still be science.
Redress said:I did not say that Special Relativity is not a theory. I said the paper presented in 1905 was not a theory. It had at that time not been tested. To be a theory, a hypothesis must undergo testing.
Redress said:It is all part of the scientific process. Theories do not leap whole form from observation. That does not mean that prior to being a theory it is not science.
Redress said:Also the postulates where derived from observations at that time, most importantly the Michelson-Morley experiments(which where a wonderful set and the mechanism used was simply brilliant). While the things you mentioned where possible, they where also not nearly as likely.
Redress said:Further, if the Michelson-Morley experiments where faulty, then the predictions made by the 1905 paper would have failed experimental testing. See how wonderful the scientific method is, it checks itself.
Redress said:Deduction itself is not science, but deduction that lends itself to testing is. That is in fact what the scientific method is. Make a deduction based on current observation. Make a prediction that can then be tested, test. Again, the problem is not with science, the problem is with your faulty understanding of what science is and how it works.
Redress said:I am not familiar with Locke's work so cannot comment, but did his observations lead to a testable hypothesis that could falsify his hypothesis? If so then it does qualify as science. Whether I agree with a theory or hypothesis is irrelevant to whether it is part of the scientific process.
Redress said:Any time you argue that an untested hypothesis, such as the 1905 paper is not yet science.
Redress said:How so?
Redress said:The rest of this is just nonsense. You are trying too hard to sound smart, while espousing a grade school level of understanding of the scientific process.