From what you have said, in science, they are, or can be.But, that is not the comprehension in question.
You are forever comparing different scientific theories as if , because this method works in one, it means that it must work in the other. If i bleive one scientific theory i amust belive them all. If meteroology works automatically so must evolution. If I accept that a star out of human reach exist I must accept that a process beyond human vision must also be correct. This is false reasoning. But you fail to see this and repeat that argument over and over, and over.
IOW because the scientific methid works in one area it does not autmatically follw that it will do so in another. No matter how âperfectâ you view scientific methodology it is not 100% correct, evry time. So stop telling me how scientific method works! That is not the point, and never has been.
You certainly have. Three completely wrong statements is more than enough to render anything that follows not worth reading.
It isnât that âAnyone who refuses to beleive ToE must reject all science/â, itâs that the reasons you have given for rejecting ToE would, if you applied them consistently, lead to you also rejecting many other scientific theories.
It isnât that âAny one who dares criticise ToE is insulting scientistsâ, itâs that anyone who accuses scientists who base their work on ToE of being biased, ignorant or unaware of flaws in the ToE is insulting scientists. Especially when the person making the accusations repeatedly shows that they themselves are biased, ignorant and unaware of how science works.
It isnât that âanyone who dares criticise ToE canât possibly know what they ae talking about!â, itâs that people who criticise ToE in a way that demonstrates that they donât know what they are talking about canât possibly know what they are talking about.
Thatâs called âactually being consistentâ. There is such a thing as the informal logical fallacy of proving too much-- using an argument from which can be directly derived statements that would be obviously false and considered so by the arguer.
There is a difference between useful criticism and arguments that require someone (or a number of someones) to not merely be wrong but to be incompetent in a field in which they have rather more expertise than the critic. Things like telling someone who has done molecular phylogenies that they arenât reliable because of [insert something irrelevant here].
Thatâs not whatâs being considered an issue. Itâs that if someone includes a high number of known inaccurate statements in their arguments, then they are probably not a very reliable authority. Itâs the same reason that seeing Petuch or one of his students as a lead author on something makes me assume that any identification contained in the reference is untrustworthy unless I can independently confirm it. Itâs an assessment of reliability based on track record.
Irreducibility is considered to be something that is very difficult to measure and to be something which, depending on how it is defined, is either frequently generated through evolutionary mechanisms ("No piece can be removed and have it still work. " definition) or has had no good examples put forward of (âCannot be explained by evolutionary mechanismsâ definition). It is not considered to be a fallacy, but many arguments in favor of it contain fallacies.
No, it wouldnât affect the theory, unless we have some means for measuring the designer. The problem is that arguments for ID either arenât possible to assess with science (like, currently at least, the fine-tuning argument) or are based on bad reasoning (God of the Gaps or arguments from incredulity are the most common problems, seemingly).
If you havenât applied your âcritâ to other sciences, you canât know whether my statement is false.
Codswallop.
Itâs possible to criticise evolution without accusing scientists of being biased, ignorant or unaware.
Bollocks. The âcriticismsâ of ToE are frequently dismantled thoroughly.
For example:
The actual response to claims about irreducibility can be see e.g. here:
Most of the people you disparagingly refer to as âdisciples of evolutionâ are fully aware that most of the supposed examples of âirreducible complexityâ are not in fact not irreducible (the Dover transcripts help a lot),that the ID simplification that components get added one-at-a-time and never change is a ridiculous misunderstanding of how evolution happens, that irreducible complexity is achievable by modifying existing components, and that it is not only an expected outcome of an evolving multi-part system but was actually described and predicted by Herman Muller in 1918, some 60 years before Behe wrote his book!
We arenât in the slightest bit âallergicâ to arguments involving irreducible complexity, because they are soft balls that can be hit for six with minimal effort, and the only problem with dealing with them is the usual tendency of creationists to refuse to listen, and instead ignore the responses in which their pet âargumentsâ are completely dismantled and repeat their false claims later or elsewhere as if they had never been addressed.
There are several reasons given there for rejecting the argument from irreducibility, and not one of them is âanything can be done in small stepsâ or âruining the theoryâ.
Your complaint is not only demonstrably false, it can be refuted using examples from this thread. Either you havenât read the responses to irreducibility arguments, or you have and are lying about them.
Once again you either donât read responses, or do and are lying[1] about them.
The possibility that you are wrong doesnât seem to have occurred to you.
Total inability to remember any responses is also a possibility, but only if accompanied by a total inability to remember not being able to remember any responses, a total inability to remember that such responses can be found within seconds using the search function[2]and an ability to remember things that donât happen. âŠď¸
In my experience, an inability and/or unwillingness to use search capabilities is a common trait among ID/creation advocates. âŠď¸
Just so people arenât caught unawares⌠Iâm going to make more effort to stay on top of removing posts that consist of a lot of repetition and insult rather than any substantial conversational benefit. Some have already been taken off here this morning already as well as replies to them. So if any recent post disappeared, thatâs probably what happened. Will try to keep a tighter watch on not letting that dominate so many threads.
I shall endeavour to include at least one substantial on-topic comment in all my future posts.
Did you know that the rate of genetic change needed to change the genome of a Paramecium to the genome of a Homo in 4by is less than the observable rate of change measured today?
There is no consistancy. You are applying the same cooking methodes for soup and cakes. The only connection being that they are eaten.
You are proving nothing.
Except that no one is accusing anyone of being incompetent. but you are accusing others of being ignorant,
No one is calling the scientist of being inept, but, and here is the rub, the scientist is limited by his methodology and vision. That is not incompetancy it is life!
You can stare at something for hours and not see a problem, and then someone comes along and sees it straight away. It is called being too involved orr just plain tunnel visioned. Scientists have a view and they get ridicuolously offended when someone sees it differenty. And to claim âI am better qualified!â means nothing! It is nothing to do with qualifications, or experience, or diligence or any other insult you accuse. it is plainly because sceince has a view! And it is not the only one! You repeat the methodology you will repeat the blindness or error! You can do everything right and still be wrong! it is not an insult!
I canât say the same for the stuff thrown at me though. They are iunadulterated insults and you are prfectly happy with them! How dare you or anyone else insult my education and/or intelligence! (Or any one elseâ)
It is impossible to either measure, prove or disprove within evolution. That does not make it invalid. The principle itself is very provable and indisputable outside evolution.
Yes it would. ToE is self regulating and self constructing, and ID denies both.
God of the Gaps was dismissed in the eighties!!
But it seems science has never caught up or understood the criticisms against ToE, they are too busy being insulted.
Thatâs wrong. The scientific method doesnât work in scientific theories. The scientific method produces the theories. All scientific theories are products of the scientific method. Therefore, if you reject the theory of evolution because it is a product of the scientific method then logic dictates that you must reject all scientific theories because all of them are the products of the scientific method.
I never said that you must accept anything. What I am showing you is the logical consequence of your argument. Given your rejection of the scientific method, I would assume you reject the existence of any star out in the universe that you apparently canât touch, including our own Sun.
How do you determine when the scientific method isnât working?
Which only goes to prove you do not have the foggiest idea about me, or understand what i have said.
You do not read, or listen!
I am not criticising the Scientific method!
Stupid question.
its not up to me.
The proof is in the resuts.
But then, you will think it is correct even if it isnât.
IOW this is a stupid and pointless conversationâŚ(Not that it is a converstion at all. That would mean there was some undersanding both ways)
Stop getting both possessive and focussed on the Scientific method. Until or unless you can see the limittions of it, there is nothing to understand or discuss.
So youâre saying all scientists who study evolution have tunnel vision, are limited by their methodology and over-involvement, and donât understand the criticisms of their theories.
That looks like an accusation of incompetence and ineptness to me.
Really?
From the post immediately above yours:
Did you know that the rate of genetic change needed to change the genome of a Paramecium to the genome of a Homo in 4by is less than the observable rate of change measured today?
Thatâs an example of measuring within evolution. Itâs also a possible disproof of one aspect of evolution.
You demonstrate your level of knowledge and ability so frequently and thoroughly that no-one else needs to insult your education and/or intelligence.
The truth is not insuting.
(your opinion about my educaiton is not the truth, It is insuting)
How many examples does it take? Not one! especially if it has not been claimed as such!
You cannot demonstrate every development. You cannot even chart most of them. All you have is specific stages. You do not have the method of change to view it.
Yes sir. Judge, jury and exaecutionor !
(by yiour own criteria)
I know what my IQ was recorded at. (But i do not boast)
