Why Darwinian Evolutionists Hate Mathematicians

[The Night Owl]

I'm not here to support you.

Huh? Who said anything about support? I'm just pointing out that there is new blood in the conversation.

Something I learned long ago, is that arguing this is as pointless as trying to convince a DUmmie that George Bush is a decent guy.

The argument is the point... at least for me.

[Carl]

I do have so little patience with people who insist on remaining ignorant at all costs.... but, Christlike, I persevere. Once again: within the professional context of science the meaning of "theory" is different from common-usage meanings, and refers to a fallsifiable fact-based explanation describing the physical mechanics of a phenomenon. It is not a guess, not a speculation, not a shot in the dark: it is a coherent collection of factual data that explains a phenomenon.

Once again I have little patience with some one that chooses to define words in ways that suit their purposes.
Why must the definition of theory be anything different then what has always been?
If your belief system can`t accept that it is your problem not mine...I am not the one trying to move the goal posts here.

What if I say that theory is nothing more then hopeful wishes of those that have an agenda to push,it is simply a word used to describe a hopelessly failed explanation of organic lifes history and is a keyword to recognize one that has no cognizant argument to offer?

[The Night Owl]

I suggest you try to accept what the word means and has always meant.
Now you are saying that "in my world a theory is not what a theory has always been but something different".

Am I missing something here? The primary definition of the word theory listed in the definition you provided fits Darwinst's understanding to a tee.

Theory
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

I mean, there it is in black and white. The word theory can be used to mean speculation but that's not the kind of theorizing we're talking about. Okay?

[Chris_]

Once again I have little patience with some one that chooses to define words in ways that suit their purposes.
Why must the definition of theory be anything different then what has always been?
If your belief system can`t accept that it is your problem not mine...I am not the one trying to move the goal posts here.

What if I say that theory is nothing more then hopeful wishes of those that have an agenda to push,it is simply a word used to describe a hopelessly failed explanation of organic lifes history and is a keyword to recognize one that has no cognizant argument to offer?

Carl....."Darwinist" is correct inasmuch as a "Theory" in scientific terms is defined more narrowly than it is in general useage.......however, even in the narrow definition of science, Darwin's thoughts are not without significant problems in today's world.

The overall view is my motivation for the discussion.....

doc

[Carl]

Btw...once again you resort to the tired tactic of  "you are too ignorant to understand what I am saying".

You prove what I have said at every point.

Tell us person that has

[Sun 09:32] <Darwinist> Say TxR, what makes you think you can? I've been cutting off creationists and IDers at their shoetops for almost 20 years now: what makes you special?

how you plan to do that without creating new meanings to words.

What is the origin of life?

How did evolution get triggered?

How does new genetic material form (scales becoming feathers) ?

Why do we not have transitional animals among us?

If natural selection is the means then why did the "hopeful monster" have or be postulated?

Why did punctuated equilibrium have to enter the argument?

Why does it start and stop?

No more word games to waste time and divert attention,explain it and show the observable,duplicateable mechanism that does it.

[Carl]

Am I missing something here? The primary definition of the word theory listed in the definition you provided fits Darwinst's understanding to a tee.

Theory
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

I mean, there it is in black and white. The word theory can be used to mean speculation but that's not the kind of theorizing we're talking about. Okay?

So be it but it doesn`t equate to it being a fact now does it?

[Darwinist]

Carl....."Darwinist" is correct inasmuch as a "Theory" in scientific terms is defined more narrowly than it is in general useage.......however, even in the narrow definition of science, Darwin's thoughts are not without significant problems in today's world.

The overall view is my motivation for the discussion.....

doc

"Darwin's thoughts are not without significant problems in today's world."

Speculate?

[Darwinist]

So be it but it doesn`t equate to it being a fact now does it?

Yes, because scientific theories are composed of facts, therefore they are structures of fact, therefore they are facts. They can be toppled - falsified - of course; but that takes facts too.


BTW, "Carl," you sound a lot like someone with the same name who used to post at the CARM Evolution Forum several years ago. Would you by chance be him?

[Carl]

Carl....."Darwinist" is correct inasmuch as a "Theory" in scientific terms is defined more narrowly than it is in general useage.......however, even in the narrow definition of science, Darwin's thoughts are not without significant problems in today's world.

The overall view is my motivation for the discussion.....

doc

So why use the word if it isn`t intended as it is in general verbiage?

It is still conjecture and speculation in its application,if scientists have redefined it then I would question the motivation for doing that.
Isn`t pure science all open minded investigation?
Why close off a term that has always indicated that?

[Carl]

Yes, because scientific theories are composed of facts, therefore they are structures of fact, therefore they are facts. They can be toppled - falsified - of course; but that takes facts too.

I asked you to present the facts of evolution..please do.

[Carl]

Yes, because scientific theories are composed of facts, therefore they are structures of fact, therefore they are facts. They can be toppled - falsified - of course; but that takes facts too.


BTW, "Carl," you sound a lot like someone with the same name who used to post at the CARM Evolution Forum several years ago. Would you by chance be him?

Nope,not me...as political forums go I have been at FR,CU for a short time and here.

[Darwinist]

Nope,not me...as political forums go I have been at FR,CU for a short time and here.

Okay, just curious. Back to the fray.

[Chris_]

"Darwin's thoughts are not without significant problems in today's world."

Speculate?

As a scientist, I don't "speculate"...... if you have reviewed the entire thread, I have stated my thoughts on a couple of occasions.

To distill them to their essence......I simply don't know, but I do know that Darwin and his successors have to deal with a number of unanswered questions.  I don't doubt that they will be eventually answered, but as of today they exist unanswered.

doc

[TheSarge]

Your creationist literature is behind the times. New experiments using the current model of early Earth conditions have produced even more amino acids than the Miller-Urey experiment produced.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i42/8642notw4.html

Creationist literature?  Oh you mean books written by authors who happen to disagree with your fairy tale.

Gotcha.
 

[The Night Owl]

Creationist literature?  Oh you mean books written by authors who happen to disagree with your fairy tale.

By the term creationist literature I mean material which has a creationist bent and which has not undergone scientific peer review.

[Darwinist]

I asked you to present the facts of evolution..please do.

The facts of evolution: evolution is a genetic process by which organisms diversify through the accumulation of changes to the genome (i.e. adaptations) that lead to an advantage in differential reproduction and are heritable. Technically, and in its most succint form, evolution is "conserved changes in allele frequency" and that's all. Speciation, which is a manifestation of evolution, is the inability of one group (or single organism) to reproduce with other organisms of sufficient genetic difference.

[TheSarge]

Yet.  But the same can be said for your line of thinking as well, hence being faith based.  No?

To actually buy into evolution requires more "faith based" belief than to buy into anything written in the Bible.

[Darwinist]

By the term creationist literature I mean material which has not undergone scientific peer review.

I would actually amend that: creationist literature is, specifically, literature based on nontestable and therefore unfalsifiable claims pertaining to supernatural creation of the universe and the earth, and the so-called "special creation" (i.e. nonreproducible) of organisms by a diety.

[Carl]

The facts of evolution: evolution is a genetic process by which organisms diversify through the accumulation of changes to the genome (i.e. adaptations) that lead to an advantage in differential reproduction and are heritable. Technically, and in its most succint form, evolution is "conserved changes in allele frequency" and that's all. Speciation, which is a manifestation of evolution, is the inability of one group (or single organism) to reproduce with other organisms of sufficient genetic difference.

I asked a series of questions that if evolution was a proven and provable fact should be easy to answer.

Please do.

[Darwinist]

To actually buy into evolution requires more "faith based" belief than to buy into anything written in the Bible.

Nonsense. Evolution is a fact-based historical biological science. Its conclusions are no more "faith-based" than the sort of forensic examinations you see on TV shows like CSI.

[TheSarge]

I do have so little patience with people who insist on remaining ignorant at all costs.... but, Christlike, I persevere. Once again: within the professional context of science the meaning of "theory" is different from common-usage meanings, and refers to a falsifiable fact-based explanation describing the physical mechanics of a phenomenon. It is not a guess, not a speculation, not a shot in the dark: it is a coherent collection of factual data that explains a phenomenon.

Except for the fact that there is no coherent collections of factual data to support the theory of evolution.

Nothing in the fossils...nothing at the cellular level...or the molecular level.

[Darwinist]

I asked a series of questions that if evolution was a proven and provable fact should be easy to answer.

Please do.

(Sigh.) Where?

[Carl]

I would actually amend that: creationist literature is, specifically, literature based on nontestable and therefore unfalsifiable claims pertaining to supernatural creation of the universe and the earth, and the so-called "special creation" (i.e. nonreproducible) of organisms by a diety.

And evolution literature is specifically literature based on decades of attempts to duplicate a process yet never has.

[Carl]

(Sigh.) Where?

 

Btw...once again you resort to the tired tactic of  "you are too ignorant to understand what I am saying".

You prove what I have said at every point.

Tell us person that has
Quote
[Sun 09:32] <Darwinist> Say TxR, what makes you think you can? I've been cutting off creationists and IDers at their shoetops for almost 20 years now: what makes you special?
how you plan to do that without creating new meanings to words.

What is the origin of life?

How did evolution get triggered?

How does new genetic material form (scales becoming feathers) ?

Why do we not have transitional animals among us?

If natural selection is the means then why did the "hopeful monster" have or be postulated?

Why did punctuated equilibrium have to enter the argument?

Why does it start and stop?

No more word games to waste time and divert attention,explain it and show the observable,duplicateable mechanism that does it.

   

[Carl]

Nonsense. Evolution is a fact-based historical biological science. Its conclusions are no more "faith-based" than the sort of forensic examinations you see on TV shows like CSI.

See my questions just re posted for you.