Is providing data to creationists a waste of time?

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh really. So now the theory of natural selection is that the alleles that end up dominating others within living populations are the alleles that end up dominating others within living populations. Thank you so much for clearing that up.</sarcasm>

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. Are you going to discuss this subject like an adult or not?

 

[sayak83]

More logical fallacies.
Look at your argument.

If science works, then planes and computers will work (If P then Q).
Planes and computers work (Q)
Therefore, science works (P).

This is a textbook example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. You may feel better about it all, but nothing has been proved.

If this magic talisman protects me from the evil eye, then I will never feel the effects of the evil eye.
I have never felt the effects of the evil eye.
Therefore, this magic talisman really does protect me from the evil eye.

Are you convinced by the second argument? No? Then why should I be convinced by the first one?

Ridiculous. Create a plane without the results and theorems of science , then we will talk. The impact of magic talisman can easily be refuted.
1) Define which effects are characterized as impact of evil eye.
2) Check how many such effects occur with the talisman
3) Check how many such effects occur without the talisman.
4) Do this multiple times
5) Talisman works if a average no. of evil eye effects as defined in 1 is reduced otherwise not.

Similarly
1) Create computer, Internet, rockets and planes using the results of science
2) Create the same without using any result or theory from science
3) Evaluate their respective efficacy
4)If efficacy of technology created through theories of science work better than when not using them, then science works. Otherwise not.

We all know what the result here would. You cannot create even One computer, car or plane without using the results and theories of science. Science works. Proved until you can make those technologies without science.

 

[sayak83]

You are making a ridiculous argument. You are like a person showing someone a sponge and saying, "If this sponge is so wonderful, show me how to use it to drive a nail into the wall."

News flash: Sponges don't do that. That doesn't mean that sponges are not useful. Similarly, logic alone cannot tell you whether pigs fly. It can, however, tell you whether an argument is valid or invalid.

Your argument seems to be that since logic cannot tell us whether pigs can fly, that science should be free to commit logical fallacies willy nilly and no one should be able to call it on them. Well, I beg to differ.

I have demonstrated that the same inference processes based on experience that enable us to successfully live from day to day in choosing what to eat and drink, to avoid running headlong into walls or jump off buildings etc. are used with even greater rigor and quantification in the scientific method. Your dodge shows that how much you carp about logical fallacies, you are employing a deliberate double standard in using those very same methods in a much more informal manner while living, adapting your behavior by inference from past experience, and you have nothing whatsoever as an alternative.

Show me how you decide that water instead of bleach should be drunk to assuage thirst in a way that is infallible and free from inference based on past experience or admit to using deliberate double standard.

 

[sayak83]

No, you have no idea what you're talking about.

From grue


That's the point! The grue paradox shows that there's no way to determine which of the infinite number of competing theories is the correct one until it's too late. Yes, we will know whether the emeralds are grue or green at some future point in time when the predictions made by grue and those made by green diverge. Until then, however, we have no way of using empirical data to determine which of the theories is correct.

Now of course no one believes that emeralds are grue. Science believes that the color of things is not time dependent. Why? Because such a thing has never been observed in the past. In short, science assumes that the past is a good guide to the future but this assumption cannot be justified.

That's the point. So before you shoot your mouth off, try understanding the argument.

P.S. I'm still waiting for you to show how Bayesian epistemology resolves all of this.

Now you have no Idea what you are talking about. Since Sparge and Seutral are defined as properties that are discontinuous at time t', the inference itself will also be similarly discontinuous. The valid inference prediction will be.

All electrons in a box observed before t' will be sparge and after t' will be seutral. There is no law of inference that says a property X has to be extrapolated as being continuous over time when it is explicitly being defined as discontinuous in time as the mathematical formulation shows. This is just a word game. If a society makes a declaration that from 2020 all flying creatures with feathers will be called snake and all rope like creatures with fangs and no legs will be called birds. Then, by definition, if we bring a large box on 31st December 2019*and till 31st Dec 11:59 pm all things selected from that box turn out to be birds then, given the social convention, what is the prediction regarding the name of the creature that is taken out on 1st Jan 12:01 am.? Its a snake, by inference.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, natural selection is not a fact. It's a tautology. In its simplest form, the theory of natural selection says that the animals that reproduce are the animals that reproduce. Then you all swoon as though something amazing was said.

Color me unimpressed.

Once again: Natural selection is not a theory. It is a self-evident fact. Nature treats different entities differentially.

In it's simplest form, natural selection says that nature selects - that's it. One lives and reproduces, another competes less successfully. The fastest, strongest, most intelligent, best camouflaged, most sexually appealing - whatever - reproduce more than others. That's not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's a self-evident fact.

 

[Jose Fly]

Neither does science.

The moon is made of cheese.

See? Anyone can go online and make stupid empty assertions.

No, I'm the kind that suggests that you abandon the things that don't.

Then I strongly suggest you disavow yourself from all things related to, and resulting from science. Your computer and internet connection would be a good place to start.

The point of science, properly understood, is not to confirm things. It's to falsify bad theories. A theory that makes no testable predictions can never be falsified.

And what do you do with theories that make testable predictions that turn out to be accurate?

 

[Jose Fly]

Biological evolution is merely the theory that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation.

No, that is the fact of evolution. Evolutionary theory is the explanation for how that occurs, i.e., by what mechanisms and pathways.

We see populations evolve all the time, right in front of us. We both manipulate it to our own ends (domestication) and fight against it (antibiotic resistance). Thus populations evolving is a repeatedly observed, documented, and studied fact.

Neo-Darwinism includes other ideas such as natural selection and common descent. Together all these ideas form what is known as the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, which is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics, which says that species never pass certain limits, with Darwinism, which claims that species do.

Right.....natural selection and common descent being descriptions of how populations evolve, which is why they are part of evolutionary theory. That populations evolve is simply a fact.

Got it?

 

[Polymath257]

No, that the two methods have so far appeared to have given the same result is remarkable.


Newton's Law of Gravity is different from Einstein's theory. Newton never attempted to explain why gravity occurred. In fact, he said that he could not imagine how such a force could propagate through a vacuum and declined to speculate on the matter. In fact Newton said:


Note also that Newton did not call what he did "science" but rather "experimental philosophy." Newton was not a scientist. In fact, the word hadn't even been coined when he was alive. He was a natural philosopher.

Exactly. The term 'scientist' had not even been defined at the time. Instead, those doing what would now be called science were called 'natural philosophers'. But, Newton did experiments, made observations, came up with ypotheses, suggested ways of testing those hypotheses, etc. He used what is now called the scientific method to do what we would now call science. That the words change doesn't mean the substance does.

And yes, Newton could not figure out how gravity was propagated. But Einstein did. Both made mathematical models, proposing how things would move in their different models. Again, in modern terminology, Newton proposed one theory of gravity and Einstein proposed another. In the older terminology, Newton proposed one law of gravity and Einstein proposed another. The two statements are exactly equivalent. In modern terminology, the term 'law' is less used and the term 'theory' is more used. That is to emphasize that ALL proposals are tentative and subject to testing and refinement.

 

[Zosimus]

I don't think you understand how this fallacy actually works. Affirming the consequent is only a fallacy when you fail to demonstrate that P is the only probable cause for Q. When you have a process which necessarily results in an increase of understanding or development of technology, it stands to reason that the technology is a result of that process. Can you name ANOTHER process through which we may have figured out how to make planes and computers?

No, I think you don't understand how fallacies work.

Let's take a sample argument: "What caused the Big Bang to occur?" someone may ask. Science doesn't know. "Aha!" retorts the asker. "Therefore, you must accept my explanation. God did it."

Are you convinced? Of course not. In fact, atheists have invented their own, fake, "God of the Gaps" logical fallacy. In reality, this argument is the argument from ignorance logical fallacy. If you don't know what caused the Big Bang, then God must have done it.

Somehow you think that's a terrible argument, but you're perfectly okay with the argument, "If you don't know why technology is advancing, then science must have done it" even though it's the same frickin' argument.

In reality, all the technological growth that we have seen is the result of larger populations. 7 billion people thinking of new ideas produce twice as many new ideas as do 3.5 billion people thinking of new ideas.

Similarly, many discoveries were made before there were any scientists.

Not the same. The scientific process PRODUCES tangible results.

Faith-based assertions don't convince me. Try something else.

 

[Zosimus]

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. Are you going to discuss this subject like an adult or not?

So you think that changing the words in the tautology affect something?

All right. Let's try this simple experiment. A real scientific theory (like gravity) can make specific, measurable predictions.

If I take a 3 kg object and drop it from a height of 25 feet, how long will it take to hit the ground? You can easily use calculus to make a specific, measurable prediction.

All right. Now let's try natural selection. You have a 25 sq. km. island populated with Darwin finches. There are no predators on the island. You release a breeding pair of domestic housecats on the island. What will happen?

A) The housecats will fail to catch enough finches to live, fail to breed, and die out completely?
B) The housecats will breed out of control and kill all the finches only later to starve to death?
C) Certain types of finches (which?) will die out whereas the finches that display adaptation (which?) will survive?
D) The finches will evolve a new defense (which?) against the cats and this new trait will become dominant in the finch population?
E) The cats will evolve a new hunting adaptation (which?) against finches and this new trait will become dominant in the cat population?
=================================
In reality, natural selection cannot make any kind of viable prediction in this situation. It will simply claim, after the fact, that the result (whatever it may be) is consistent with the tautology/theory of natural selection.

 

[Zosimus]

Ridiculous. Create a plane without the results and theorems of science , then we will talk. The impact of magic talisman can easily be refuted.
1) Define which effects are characterized as impact of evil eye.
2) Check how many such effects occur with the talisman
3) Check how many such effects occur without the talisman.
4) Do this multiple times
5) Talisman works if a average no. of evil eye effects as defined in 1 is reduced otherwise not.

Similarly
1) Create computer, Internet, rockets and planes using the results of science
2) Create the same without using any result or theory from science
3) Evaluate their respective efficacy
4)If efficacy of technology created through theories of science work better than when not using them, then science works. Otherwise not.

We all know what the result here would. You cannot create even One computer, car or plane without using the results and theories of science. Science works. Proved until you can make those technologies without science.

All right. Let's see you do it. If science can let you make a computer, then I'd like to see you make a computer using science.

Where's my popcorn? This is going to be awhile.

P.S. You cannot solicit any help nor can you use math because math isn't science.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, I think you don't understand how fallacies work.

Let's take a sample argument: "What caused the Big Bang to occur?" someone may ask. Science doesn't know. "Aha!" retorts the asker. "Therefore, you must accept my explanation. God did it."

Are you convinced? Of course not. In fact, atheists have invented their own, fake, "God of the Gaps" logical fallacy. In reality, this argument is the argument from ignorance logical fallacy. If you don't know what caused the Big Bang, then God must have done it.

"God of the gaps" isn't a "fake logical fallacy", it's a variation of the argument from ignorance that also indicates how an increase in knowledge can still leave "gaps" for God to exist in. In other words, the more our knowledge increases, the smaller the gap God fits in, so there is never a point at which God cannot be evoked as an explanation for what gaps in our knowledge exist. This is only really true of God or other proposed supernatural explanations.

Somehow you think that's a terrible argument, but you're perfectly okay with the argument, "If you don't know why technology is advancing, then science must have done it" even though it's the same frickin' argument.

Again, no. The two have a direct, causal relationship. If a cooked steak ends up on your plate, you assume it has been cooked. Do you know of any other process by which a steak can be cooked? Of course not - because, by definition, a cooked steak must have been cooked. Scientific advancement can ONLY be produced by science, and science has all the workings to show us how. Do you honestly believe we just "accidentally" built computers capable of communicating across vast distances? Do you think that scientists said "I think we could put a robot on Mars" and then just got extremely lucky somehow and this resulted in a robot landing on Mars?

In reality, all the technological growth that we have seen is the result of larger populations. 7 billion people thinking of new ideas produce twice as many new ideas as do 3.5 billion people thinking of new ideas.

Using the scientific method.

Similarly, many discoveries were made before there were any scientists.

That's like pointing out that food existed before chefs. It's irrelevant.

Faith-based assertions don't convince me. Try something else.

You aren't equipped to assess what basis an assertion has. You can't even seem to understand basic logical fallacies.

 

[Zosimus]

I have demonstrated that the same inference processes based on experience that enable us to successfully live from day to day in choosing what to eat and drink, to avoid running headlong into walls or jump off buildings etc. are used with even greater rigor and quantification in the scientific method. Your dodge shows that how much you carp about logical fallacies, you are employing a deliberate double standard in using those very same methods in a much more informal manner while living, adapting your behavior by inference from past experience, and you have nothing whatsoever as an alternative.

Show me how you decide that water instead of bleach should be drunk to assuage thirst in a way that is infallible and free from inference based on past experience or admit to using deliberate double standard.

Bullcrud. You have done nothing of the sort. In fact, if you think about it carefully, you would realize that you are making a self-defeating argument.

The rationale of science is that all knowledge comes through sense experience. So to prove that all knowledge comes through sense experience, you have constructed a completely non-sensory, rational argument designed (supposedly) to convince me and impart in me new knowledge that (supposedly) all knowledge comes through sense experience.

So let's assume, for the sake of argument, that your argument really were completely convincing. All you would have succeeded in convincing me of is that knowledge can be gained through purely rational means and without sense experience.

Since that's my very point, you seem to be arguing with me by agreeing with me.

Might I suggest that if you want to construct some sort of an argument about how wonderful empiricism is, you might want to try making it an empirical argument. Just a thought.

P.S. I never drink water.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you think that changing the words in the tautology affect something?

I already pointed out that you don't understand what natural selection actually means.

All right. Let's try this simple experiment. A real scientific theory (like gravity) can make specific, measurable predictions.

So can evolution.

If I take a 3 kg object and drop it from a height of 25 feet, how long will it take to hit the ground? You can easily use calculus to make a specific, measurable prediction.

All right. Now let's try natural selection. You have a 25 sq. km. island populated with Darwin finches. There are no predators on the island. You release a breeding pair of domestic housecats on the island. What will happen?

That wouldn't be a test of natural selection, because you'd be introducing a foreign predator into an environment that doesn't have the environmental niche to support them. Again, you demonstrate a basic failure to understand what the process actually asserts.

In reality, natural selection cannot make any kind of viable prediction in this situation. It will simply claim, after the fact, that the result (whatever it may be) is consistent with the tautology/theory of natural selection.

Do you or do you not understand that the prevalence of an allele frequency in a population is a product of beneficial mutations being selected for over negative or deleterous mutations?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All right. Let's see you do it. If science can let you make a computer, then I'd like to see you make a computer using science.

All I have to do is point to every computer ever made.

Where's my popcorn? This is going to be awhile.

P.S. You cannot solicit any help nor can you use math because math isn't science.

Wow, way to move the goalposts.

Tell you what - how about YOU build a computer only using mathematics and without using science? Do you think that's a reasonable request?

 

[Zosimus]

Now you have no Idea what you are talking about. Since Sparge and Seutral are defined as properties that are discontinuous at time t', the inference itself will also be similarly discontinuous. The valid inference prediction will be.

All electrons in a box observed before t' will be sparge and after t' will be seutral. There is no law of inference that says a property X has to be extrapolated as being continuous over time when it is explicitly being defined as discontinuous in time as the mathematical formulation shows. This is just a word game. If a society makes a declaration that from 2020 all flying creatures with feathers will be called snake and all rope like creatures with fangs and no legs will be called birds. Then, by definition, if we bring a large box on 31st December 2019*and till 31st Dec 11:59 pm all things selected from that box turn out to be birds then, given the social convention, what is the prediction regarding the name of the creature that is taken out on 1st Jan 12:01 am.? Its a snake, by inference.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Imagine that you see an emerald and you say, "This is another green emerald. All the emeralds I have seen so far are green. Thus, the next emerald I see will be green." This is a classic formation of the problem of induction.

Nelson Goodman adds on the wrinkle of what happens if you meet an alien who says that the emerald is grue? By talking with him you discover that grue means:

Green until 3000 AD
Blue thereafter.

"So, the color will change at 3000 AD?" you ask.
"No," insists the alien. "It will still be grue."
"How do you know that every emerald is grue?"
"Because every emerald we have seen so far is grue."

Okay, so in 3000 AD you will know whether the alien is right. If the emeralds suddenly look blue to you you will say:
"Holy crap! Emeralds are now blue!"
"No," the alien will insist. "They are still grue!!"

Whereas if in AD3000 they still appear green the alien will say:
"Holy crap! Emeralds are now bleen!"
"No," you will reply. "Emeralds are green as they always were."

The problem is that both theories are very well confirmed by by sense observation and induction.

Then what will you do if you encounter an alien species that insists that the emeralds are really gred? (Green until AD3000 and red thereafter?)

How can you determine which of these theories right (before AD3000 that is).

This is the problem of grue. It's not about calling something a different name.

 

[Zosimus]

Once again: Natural selection is not a theory. It is a self-evident fact. Nature treats different entities differentially.

In it's simplest form, natural selection says that nature selects - that's it. One lives and reproduces, another competes less successfully. The fastest, strongest, most intelligent, best camouflaged, most sexually appealing - whatever - reproduce more than others. That's not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's a self-evident fact.

Once there was a group of horses. The king wanted to go to war. So he selected the very fastest, strongest, and fittest horse and rode him into war. During the battle, the king was targeted by a cannon and both the king and the horse were killed.

The horse never bred.

Thus, your definition, stated above, that natural selection = "The fastest, strongest, most intelligent, best camouflaged, most sexually appealing - whatever - reproduce more than others" is demonstrably wrong.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Once there was a group of horses. The king wanted to go to war. So he selected the very fastest, strongest, and fittest horse and rode him into war. During the battle, the king was targeted by a cannon and both the king and the horse were killed.

The horse never bred.

Thus, your definition, stated above, that natural selection = "The fastest, strongest, most intelligent, best camouflaged, most sexually appealing - whatever - reproduce more than others" is demonstrably wrong.

Are you serious?

"Sometimes the fittest animals in a population die without breeding" ≠ "Animals which are more likely to successfully reproduce aren't more likely to have their genes proliferate throughout subsequent generations."

Do you honestly not see the flaw in your logic here?

 

[Zosimus]

Then I strongly suggest you disavow yourself from all things related to, and resulting from science. Your computer and internet connection would be a good place to start.

This argument is based on the unproved assumption that science created the computer and the Internet. Since this is the very point being debated, you are begging the question.

Here's a similar argument for you:

Christian: "God lives. Jesus is the Christ. He died for your sins."
Jose: "I don't believe in God. I believe in science."
Christian: "Well, then, you should start by disavowing all those things related to and resulting from God! Stop breathing air and walking on the planet he created. Stop using the body he designed after his own Spirit. That would be a good place to start.
=============================
Do you see how absurd your (and Christian's) argument is?

Probably not. You are severely logic challenged.

And what do you do with theories that make testable predictions that turn out to be accurate?

Nothing.

Here's a true story. I'm married to a wonderful girl from Lambayeque. She believes (as do most people from that province) in the power of the egg. Any time that my son has trouble sleeping, she will get the egg and pass it over his body pulling out all the bad juju so he can sleep well at night. It has invariably worked.

What should I do with these confirmations?

 

[Zosimus]

"God of the gaps" isn't a "fake logical fallacy", it's a variation of the argument from ignorance that also indicates how an increase in knowledge can still leave "gaps" for God to exist in. In other words, the more our knowledge increases, the smaller the gap God fits in, so there is never a point at which God cannot be evoked as an explanation for what gaps in our knowledge exist. This is only really true of God or other proposed supernatural explanations.

Untrue. It can be asserted of anything.

Again, no. The two have a direct, causal relationship. If a cooked steak ends up on your plate, you assume it has been cooked. Do you know of any other process by which a steak can be cooked? Of course not - because, by definition, a cooked steak must have been cooked. Scientific advancement can ONLY be produced by science, and science has all the workings to show us how. Do you honestly believe we just "accidentally" built computers capable of communicating across vast distances? Do you think that scientists said "I think we could put a robot on Mars" and then just got extremely lucky somehow and this resulted in a robot landing on Mars?

You must realize how stupid this argument is. If a steak ends up on your plate and it's cooked, you assume it has been cooked? Of course cooked steaks have been cooked! Geez, man—you're making this too easy!

What you really mean to say is that if you see a steak, you assume that an intelligent actor has created this steak in the form in which we see it. This theory has a name. It's called the theory of intelligent design.

That's like pointing out that food existed before chefs. It's irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant if your claim is that food exists because of chefs.