There is this blockheaded creationist at the <a href="http://www.augustachronicle.com" target="_blank">www.augustachronicle.com</a> message board ( <a href="http://augustachronicle.com/cgi-bin/ubb/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro" target="_blank">http://augustachronicle.com/cgi-bin/ubb/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro</A> in the "Religion" section) that has been giving me a hard time. I constantly give my own input, as well as links to sites like the Talk.Origins archive, but he still won't back off. Here is his latest post.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ron_rlw:
<a href="http://www.vscc.cc.tn.us/academic/math/BIO/261/scimethod.html" target="_blank">http://www.vscc.cc.tn.us/academic/math/BIO/261/scimethod.html</a> <a href="http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/brewer/Sci%20Method.html" target="_blank">http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/brewer/Sci%20Method.html</a> <a href="http://mslc.rutgers.edu/MovingBodies/Lecture/Lec1-SciMeth.htm" target="_blank">http://mslc.rutgers.edu/MovingBodies/Lecture/Lec1-SciMeth.htm</a>
The above links should provide a bases for starting our discussion of the Scientific Method. I believe you will have to agree that I didn't stack the deck in my favor . . . but picked links that could even be said to favor evolution over creation.
The steps in the Scientific Method are simple and can be understood by most high schoolers. They disagree in the exact number of steps . . . but if you look closely at each list you will notices that the number of steps only disagrees because some folks combine 2 or more steps from one list into 1 step . . . the overall intent is not changed . . . just how it is listed.
Below is the steps as I was taught.
1. Hypothesis - Define a question to describe the problem you are trying to solve.
2. Research - The propose of research is two fold . . . 1) to determine if the Hypothesis is close to reasonable . . . 2) to help to design a way to test the hypothesis.
3. Design a test or experiment to test the Hypothesis.
4. Run the experiment and collect the data.
5. Analyze the data and form a conclusion.
6. Compare the conclusion to the Hypothesis . . . make whatever modifications are necessary to the Hypothesis to bring it in line with the observed data from the experiment.
7. Different researches should Repeat steps 1 through 7 to verify the results.
I believe that these 7 steps are all covered in the above links . . . either in their stated steps or in the explanation.
Evolution has a problem with step 3 . . . How can you design a test to test evolution. The very basic belief in evolution is that one animal evolved from another type of less complex animal. So let's design the experiments to do this.
1. Hypothesis - Did more advanced animals evolve from less complex animals?
2. Research - The only research that we can get is the fossil record. On the surface we can find less complex animals with some of the same features as more complex animals . . . so far the Hypothesis is not been falsified.
3. Design an experiment: If less complex animals evolved into more complex animals and this explains all the diversity of life on earth. Then this process should be able to be traced through the fossil record. Since evolution works on by a process of small mutations and then natural selection . . . a smooth fossil record should be recorded in the fossil record.
4. Collect Data: However, what we find is not the small changes between the fossils that evolution would demand . . . but in a very large percentage of the time we only find very large gaps between the fossils. Even when we see a small selection of the fossil record that seem to have transition the length of these transition is no more than could be explained via the modern practice of breeding . . . that is only short sections of any one branch of the evolutionary tree has these transition and then one a few examples have been discovered.
5. Analyze data: We did not find in the fossil record what we would expect to see if the our hypothesis is true.
6. Compare the conclusion to the Hypothesis:
There is two possible reasons for this difference.
1. We currently don't have enough fossils to accurately describe the fossil record.
2. Our hypothesis is incorrect and should be discarded.
Now evolutionist have a problem with both alternatives here. If you accept the second alternative then you have to discard evolution and look for another theory. But if you accept the 1st alternative and say we have not discovered enough of the fossil record to at least show the smooth transition between a high percentage of the life on earth . . . then you make Evolution non-falsifable therefore you would have to discard the theory of evolution for that reason. Either way you do not have the science to back up the most basic concept in your theory.
The reason it is non-falsifable is not just because this experiment would fail to demonstrate evolution. It is non-falsifable because despite the fact that all direct experiments that have been attempt to prove that the evolution of all types of plants and animal evolved from less complex types of life forms have failed . . . evolutionist hold on to the hope that someday it can be shown. Until that day either evolution is non-falsifable . . . we can't test the hope that some day we might prove it . . . or we accept the results of the experiments that show that evolution hasn't happened.
Or perhaps you can give us an experiment that can demonstrate evolution . . . because until we have an example of an experiment that works, with evolution being the only possible explanation . . . it would be unscientific to hold onto the belief in evolution . . . it is closer to just plain faith. Holding on to evolution is sorta like believing that gravity make objects fall away from the center of the earth . . . no matter how many you run the experiment and drop an object . . . you can still hope that some day it will fall up.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ron_rlw:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Keyser Soze (Note: That's my name at the other MB - Shadow):
Verdammt! I give up. It's no use trying to talk to an utter blockhead like you Ron. From your inability to write English properly to your suggestion that we need space aliens to make evolution work, it is obvious that you are der Verrückte.
Die Abstammungslehre ist klasse!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So tell me ... what did it miss. With the countless billions of stars in the universe and if Evolution is a natural process given the right conditions ... why wouldn't that process be expected to be duplicated every time the same conditions existed anywhere in the universe. Especially in solar systems that are a lot older than ours.
I guess what really confuses me is the fact that you object so much to the possibility of aliens existing that are a lot more advanced than we are ... don't you believe that evolution is a natural process that could happen anywhere, or is there something special about earth making it the only place in the universe that it could happen?
|
This was me: <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> . This has been really aggravating. Could someone give me some stuff that would settle this once and for all? I would really appreciate it.
~Shadow
[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: Shadow Wraith ]</p>
07-19-2002, 10:05 AM
Need help debating a stubborn cretinist.
