How do you define SCIENCE?

[TagliatelliMonster]

As has been said, no proof. Perhaps one day I'll go into the statistical possibilities. But even that wouldn't prove anything, would it? (No, it wouldn't.)

You are not answering the question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is the concept or theory or study (however you want to express it) of evolution considered science?

Yes

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh, and of course, similar to the UCA (Unknown Common Ancestor) of humans -- plus a few other "mammals," how about what fish it was? Gone? Forgotten? No trace? Conjecture like tiktaalik, or however you spell it? The type of fish it ostensibly came from is -- gone? unknown?

Who was your great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather?
Does the fact that you don't know mean that he didn't exist?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

See that's the thing, good you got it, John! You tell me!! Oh nevermind, others have said how it (probably maybe) happened. And you believe those proposals. Or possibilities. No problem, thanks for mentioning it in a backhanded way.

You confuse evolutionary history with the process of evolution.

This also is something I have brought to your attention countless times.
This also is something you simply refuse to learn and correct.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

the dogs are still dogs, though.

And again with that same mistake that's been corrected a bazillion times.

If they would become non-dogs (like cats for example), evolution would be falsified, disproven, shown wrong

So why are you stating this as if it is an argument against it?
How many times has this been explained to you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you show me mutations that are beneficial now in humans perhaps?

HIV resistance, lactose tolerance, trichromatic vision, ..


Another example would be the unique genetic sequences as a result of mutations found in native Tibetan people who live at extreme altitudes.
These mutations affect their red blood cells allowing for better / increased oxygen which makes them pretty much immune to altitude sickness.

You may again go into denial mode now.

There's always Down's syndrome, and children born with one body, two heads, right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

science doesn't even know about itself in many respects. It knows there is no proof of some things although they are taught as truth.

Science doesn't deal in "proof". It deals in evidence.

You know this, because that also is something that has been pointed out to you countless times.
But that also is another thing you refuse to learn.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You mentioned in that post that "Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change." In the U.S. the biggest donor for scientific papers is the National Science Foundation (Gov't funded) and virtually all of their requests for proposals require the assumption that humans cause detrimental climate change.

Kind of a "fast-track" for scientific decisions, simply assume it's true.

Internal memo's of high profile oil companies', like Exxon, own research departments have shown that even those companies themselves were aware of the effects of burning fossil fuels on climate going as far back as the 1970s. These memo's also show that these companies made it a policy to deny it in public as much as possible to keep the oil flowing out and the dollars flowing in.

Exxon scientists predicted global warming with 'shocking skill and accuracy,' Harvard researchers say

In the study, scientists showed how the multinational energy giant worked to cloud the issue.

news.harvard.edu

These capital heavy people have turned the public denial and spreading of misinformation concerning this model literally a part of their business model.

Imo, they should be heavily punished. To the point that they should be completely liquidated and the BILLIONS, if not trillions, of dollars they have in cash and assets should be used to further the switch to clean energy sources.
And everyone involved in that criminal cover-up should be put in jail for life.

 

[exchemist]

I haven't noticed you learned anything about evolution at all.
For example, I still see you make that mega silly argument of "...but they are still tigers!" or alike.

Which is such a fundamental mistake that it exposes you haven't even understood the basics.
It's been a very long time, years actually, since I first pointed out that error to you.

And you still haven't correct it and learned.
So yeah... when you say such a thing as in the quote, can you really blame me that I can only laugh with it?


They are only "inexplicable" in your own mind because you refuse to learn.

Spot-on. This poster is deliberately avoiding learning. A number of us have come to this conclusion. Continuing to ask questions that have already been answered numerous times is a form of trolling. If this were a more strictly moderated site, this poster would have been kicked out long ago for arguing in bad faith.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Some people scientifically trained (like my cousin the doctor) do not believe global warming exists.

It is somewhat unlikely, however, that your cousin the doctor was also trained in all of the sciences relevant to climate change. Learning one science doesn't make anybody an expert in all of them.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Simply no observation and of course the answer I get is that there is not enough time to observe...

There has been ample time to "observe," and we have done so through the fossil record. Every fossil is, in effect, an intermediate lifeform between its ancestors and its progeny, and this can be read when you view enough fossils. Visit any decent museum, they'll show you.

Look at the bones in this picture -- they are from very different species, and yet they are morphologically very similar; all the parts are analogs of each other, demonstrating very clearly how many small changes can result in very big ones.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Internal memo's of high profile oil companies', like Exxon, own research departments have shown that even those companies themselves were aware of the effects of burning fossil fuels on climate going as far back as the 1970s. These memo's also show that these companies made it a policy to deny it in public as much as possible to keep the oil flowing out and the dollars flowing in.

Exxon scientists predicted global warming with 'shocking skill and accuracy,' Harvard researchers say

In the study, scientists showed how the multinational energy giant worked to cloud the issue.

news.harvard.edu

These capital heavy people have turned the public denial and spreading of misinformation concerning this model literally a part of their business model.

Imo, they should be heavily punished. To the point that they should be completely liquidated and the BILLIONS, if not trillions, of dollars they have in cash and assets should be used to further the switch to clean energy sources.
And everyone involved in that criminal cover-up should be put in jail for life.

They got lots of AGW folks working at all the oil/energy companies.

It's interesting the way the lawsuits never get very far out of control because the leftist leader often gets hired by the oil/energy company to head up some new-fangled environmental ecology office at a HUGE salary. If you look online to Exxon.com you can easily find their "Environmental Performance" page where they spout off about how serious AGW is, They HAVE to present that view because of a huge number of factors. Meanwhile, they sell gasoline and everyone buys it.

We live in a world w/ everyone saying one thing and doing another.

 

[Pete in Panama]

You seem never to have encountered correlation coefficients: Correlation coefficient - Wikipedia

These are routinely used in science, to determine the degree of confidence that the data really does indicate a trend. Here is one example: Trend Analysis | Climate Data Guide

The problem has some of my interest, tho many wailing about their new crisis don't give a damn about degrees of confidence. My focus anyway w/ AGW is what temp measurements do we got of what mass.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Yup, you're about a decade too late for that, like people still trying to hang onto the Rutherford model of the atom in the 1940s.

huh, didn't even notice our subject had gone that far...

 

[YoursTrue]

They got lots of AGW folks working at all the oil/energy companies.

It's interesting the way the lawsuits never get very far out of control because the leftist leader often gets hired by the oil/energy company to head up some new-fangled environmental ecology office at a HUGE salary. If you look online to Exxon.com you can easily find their "Environmental Performance" page where they spout off about how serious AGW is, They HAVE to present that view because of a huge number of factors. Meanwhile, they sell gasoline and everyone buys it.

We live in a world w/ everyone saying one thing and doing another.

Just listening to a trial or being a jury member on any trial is nerve-wracking.

 

[YoursTrue]

They got lots of AGW folks working at all the oil/energy companies.

It's interesting the way the lawsuits never get very far out of control because the leftist leader often gets hired by the oil/energy company to head up some new-fangled environmental ecology office at a HUGE salary. If you look online to Exxon.com you can easily find their "Environmental Performance" page where they spout off about how serious AGW is, They HAVE to present that view because of a huge number of factors. Meanwhile, they sell gasoline and everyone buys it.

We live in a world w/ everyone saying one thing and doing another.

That's why we need God's kingdom...what Jesus taught his disciples to pray for.

 

[YoursTrue]

They got lots of AGW folks working at all the oil/energy companies.

It's interesting the way the lawsuits never get very far out of control because the leftist leader often gets hired by the oil/energy company to head up some new-fangled environmental ecology office at a HUGE salary. If you look online to Exxon.com you can easily find their "Environmental Performance" page where they spout off about how serious AGW is, They HAVE to present that view because of a huge number of factors. Meanwhile, they sell gasoline and everyone buys it.

We live in a world w/ everyone saying one thing and doing another.

That's why we need God's kingdom...what Jesus taught his disciples to pray for.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is somewhat unlikely, however, that your cousin the doctor was also trained in all of the sciences relevant to climate change. Learning one science doesn't make anybody an expert in all of them.

That's true.

 

[YoursTrue]

There has been ample time to "observe," and we have done so through the fossil record. Every fossil is, in effect, an intermediate lifeform between its ancestors and its progeny, and this can be read when you view enough fossils. Visit any decent museum, they'll show you.

Look at the bones in this picture -- they are from very different species, and yet they are morphologically very similar; all the parts are analogs of each other, demonstrating very clearly how many small changes can result in very big ones.

View attachment 81869

However it happened, there again is no video of genes moving and mutating, time or no time allowed. Science may try to put it all together but really they cant. Even if there were videos, that would not explain except for the movement .There is also nothing in detail to say that God was not involved with how things work. In other words, a force beyond what is considered science as explained by men as if it happened naturally and entirely that way.
It doesn't mean that God had no connection with the construction. However it happened.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

However it happened, there again is no video of genes moving and mutating, time or no time allowed. Science may try to put it all together but really they cant. Even if there were videos, that would not explain except for the movement .There is also nothing in detail to say that God was not involved with how things work. In other words, a force beyond what is considered science as explained by men as if it happened naturally and entirely that way.
It doesn't mean that God had no connection with the construction. However it happened.

Might I just point out that "It doesn't mean that God had no connection with the construction" does not mean that he does. To make that case, you still have all your work ahead of you. Until you can demonstrate your deity actually doing anything at all, you are on no better footing than you allow for me.

But I will say this -- the god theory has anecdotes (which is really all scripture is), but there is an awful freaking lot of science to bring to bear on my side. And in the end, anything that can be asserted WITHOUT EVIDENCE can be dismissed WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I have some -- you don't.