Not only Natural Laws but Rules of Evolution?

[YoursTrue]

Some seem to have natural tolerance of certain infectious diseases. I think there's proof of that.

 

[YoursTrue]

What about the people who had the vaccine yet still caught small pox? Does that PROVE it doesn't work?

It proves it didn't work for those people and of course the situation could vary, but only an analysis would determine why the vaccine wasn't effective. So the question...if there was an influx of smallpox near you or where you might travel to, would you take the vaccine? Or would you refuse it because maybe you'll get smallpox anyway?

 

[John53]

It proves it didn't work for those people and of course the situation could vary, but only an analysis would determine why the vaccine wasn't effective. So the question...if there was an influx of smallpox near you or where you might travel to, would you take the vaccine? Or would you refuse it because maybe you'll get smallpox anyway?

Your levels of proof are very low. So far you've proved vaccines work except when they don't.

 

[exchemist]

you are still stubbornly using words “prove”, ”proving” and ”proof”.

you are so out of touch with using the correct terminology from science, that it is no longer about your utter ignorance. You have been corrected numerous times, but you’re blindly ignoring that prove and proof are the wrong terms to use, which means you are intellectually and intentionally being dishonest.

Are you so arrogant that you cannot learn from your mistakes?

is science education antithesis for JW people?

for the hundreds of bloody times, proofs are abstract logic, like mathematical equations or constants.

While scientists do use maths, the equations are not evidence, and NO EQUATIONS ARE AUTOMATICALLY “TRUE”, NOT UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN TESTED WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

Do I have to highlight to you that proof do not prove any scientific theory?

Scientific theories and hypotheses must all be tested - the explanations, the premises, the predictions, the equations (proofs), they are all must be tested - BEFORE we can determine if they are scientifically true or false. You don’t use proof, you would use observations of evidence to VERIFY or to REFUTE a hypothesis or theory.

you seemed to be anti-science that you cannot learn that proof isn’t important to science; testable empirical evidence & data are important to science.

It's deliberate. This constant reversion to "proof", after it has been corrected, is standard creationist rhetorical boilerplate. The whole stance is basically dishonest.

 

[exchemist]

It proves it didn't work for those people and of course the situation could vary, but only an analysis would determine why the vaccine wasn't effective. So the question...if there was an influx of smallpox near you or where you might travel to, would you take the vaccine? Or would you refuse it because maybe you'll get smallpox anyway?

The Covid vaccines are effective at lessening the severity, and your level of infectiousness to others, which helps to prevent an epidemic spreading, but don't stop you catching it. Smallpox vaccine basically did the same, though I think its effectiveness at stopping you catching the disease at all was higher than in the case of the Covid vaccines. (Smallpox vaccination was stopped when the risk from side effects became significantly greater than than the risk of catching the disease. And of course smallpox is now eradicated from the entire world.)

But either way, both save lives, reduce long term incapacity and suffering, and prevent epidemics.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As I have said, when smallpox vaccines were introduced the number of victims went down drastically. That PROVES that the vaccine works.

If successful smallpox vaccination contradicted biblical scripture, falling smallpox rates following a new vaccine would mean no more to you than fossils do, and you'd be on the Internet arguing the point that they "prove nothing."

 

[YoursTrue]

Your levels of proof are very low. So far you've proved vaccines work except when they don't.

So really, the question is: if smallpox were in the area, would you take a vaccine? Or polio? would you think oops maybe it will kill me instead of helping me? The possibility can be there...and because you answered that way in terms of proof, I'm beginning to doubt very much the validity of your argument, i.e. that because vaccines may not work as hoped, discard them. OK, thanks, we're about finished, have a good one.

 

[John53]

So really, the question is: if smallpox were in the area, would you take a vaccine? Or polio? would you think oops maybe it will kill me instead of helping me? The possibility can be there...and because you answered that way in terms of proof, I'm beginning to doubt very much the validity of your argument, i.e. that because vaccines may not work as hoped, discard them. OK, thanks, we're about finished, have a good one.

I am vaccinated because there is strong evidence they work. I accept ToE because there is strong evidence to support it. I strongly doubt the existence of any Gods because there is very little evidence for the ones I've investigated.

I have no idea what my argument was that you were referring to. I was trying to show you how using the word proof confuses the conversation.

 

[exchemist]

So really, the question is: if smallpox were in the area, would you take a vaccine? Or polio? would you think oops maybe it will kill me instead of helping me? The possibility can be there...and because you answered that way in terms of proof, I'm beginning to doubt very much the validity of your argument, i.e. that because vaccines may not work as hoped, discard them. OK, thanks, we're about finished, have a good one.

I would, and did, take any vaccine advised by my doctor. I used to get vaccinated regularly in the years when I was travelling internationally on business: diphtheria, yellow fever, rabies, tetanus, cholera…….

The cholera one was a case in point. It only gave partial protection and wore off after about 3 years, but well worth taking, nevertheless.

Regarding all this ballocks about “proof”, the confusion you are (deliberately?) sowing is between observation and theory. Obviously in science as in anything, you can have proof of an observation. We have proof the smallpox vaccine works, because the disease has been eradicated. The theory of how the vaccine works is another matter: we can have evidence of that, as there could always in principle be some currently unforeseen future discovery that changes the theory.

Ditto with the age of the Earth. We have proof of the isotope ratios in certain rocks, and we have proof of the half-life of the radioisotopes. From this and other evidence we develop a theory about the age of the Earth.

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, that is what the theory predicts. Just as you are still an ape. The theory predicts that too.

Out of curiosity.... Did it predict all prior homo species going extinct?
Homo extinct species- habilis, erectus, rudolfensis, heidelbergensis, floresiensis, neanderthalensis, naledi, and luzonensis

 

[Subduction Zone]

Out of curiosity.... Did it predict all prior homo species going extinct?
Homo extinct species- habilis, erectus, rudolfensis, heidelbergensis, floresiensis, neanderthalensis, naledi, and luzonensis

Nope. It did not. Almost all species go extinct sooner or later. So far for over 99% of all species it was just a matter of time before they went extinct. And please note, not all of our close relatives went extinct, only our closest ones. And also one could argue that most of those species did not go extinct. If we are descendants of Homo erectus, which seems to be very very sure thing, then Homo erectus did not go extinct.

 

[gnostic]

I see. So to believe that dinosaurs evolved to birds is not far fetched, right? Some had big wings...some had small wings...their DNA changed ever so slightly as time wore on, right?

There are many types, or more precisely “clades” of dinosaurs, but it be broadly classified into 2 groups: non-avian dinosaurs and avian dinosaurs.

All non-avian dinosaurs, big and small, became extinct during K-Pg extinction event. Avian dinosaurs have become extinct, particularly the larger ones, but the smaller avian dinosaurs.

The birds have actually evolved from the avian dinosaurs prior to the end of Cretaceous, but their numbers (populations were small). It was only after the extinction was over, their numbers grew, and they started to diversify.

Non-avian dinosaurs weren’t the only one to die out. Any large animals, like large mammals, lizards and marine animals that weigh over 25 kg, became extinct, including the large pterosaurs.

Mainly smaller mammals, reptiles, fishes continue to thrive after the extinction into the Paleogene. This type of extinction would have to relate to comet or asteroid/meteorite impact event, and not global glacial event. The impact would throw large amount of dust and other fine particles into the atmosphere, causing large animals to have respiratory problems, choking them. Smaller animals would have less problem. The impact would have blotted out the sunlight, preventing photosynthesis from being possible, so large numbers of plants went extinct too. Animals and plants survive K-Pg extinction, after the atmosphere cleared.

We know that it was meteorite event, because layer of iridium were discovered globally that separate Cretaceous rocks from Paleocene rocks. Natural iridium are rare on Earth, but plentiful in space, particularly with asteroids and meteors. Plus, the evidence of such large impact were discovered in Chicxulub crater in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are many types, or more precisely “clades” of dinosaurs, but it be broadly classified into groups: non-avian dinosaurs and avian dinosaurs.

All non-avian dinosaurs, big and small, became extinct during K-Pg extinction event. Avian dinosaurs have become extinct, particularly the larger ones, but the smaller avian dinosaurs.

The birds have actually evolved from the avian dinosaurs prior to the end of Cretaceous, but their numbers (populations were small). It was only after the extinction was over, their numbers grew, and they started to diversify.

Non-avian dinosaurs weren’t the only one to die out. Any large animals, like large mammals, lizards and marine animals that weigh over 25 kg, became extinct, including the large pterosaurs.

Mainly smaller mammals, reptiles, fishes continue to thrive after the extinction into the Paleogene. This type of extinction would have to relate to comet or asteroid/meteorite impact event, and not global glacial event. The impact would throw large amount of dust and other fine particles into the atmosphere, causing large animals to have respiratory problems, choking them. Smaller animals would have less problem. The impact would have blotted out the sunlight, preventing photosynthesis from being possible, so large numbers of plants went extinct too. Animals and plants survive K-Pg extinction, after the atmosphere cleared.

We know that it was meteorite event, because layer of iridium were discovered globally that separate Cretaceous rocks from Paleocene rocks. Natural iridium are rare on Earth, but plentiful in space, particularly with asteroids and meteors. Plus, the evidence of such large impact were discovered in Chicxulub crater in the Gulf of Mexico.

While I see similarities in some things, I really have no verification in actuality that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That is just an example, of course. Or humans from a couple of flapping fish. Sorry. I know you're trying your hardest to show me or explain but the proof isn't there. I really appreciate your efforts, however. By proof I mean ACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. Therefore I believe there is more to it than biochemical conjecture along with fossils and possible dating. That's how I see it. As conjecture based on a principle. Nevertheless thank you for your posts.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am vaccinated because there is strong evidence they work. I accept ToE because there is strong evidence to support it. I strongly doubt the existence of any Gods because there is very little evidence for the ones I've investigated.

I have no idea what my argument was that you were referring to. I was trying to show you how using the word proof confuses the conversation.

I am not trained in science. (Obviously.) I did, however, work with scientists in various aspects. One was a professor with a class and a lab. College in a school of science. There were testtubes and experiments abounding to show the efficacy of a certain endeavor. Guess you could say he was attempting to prove something.

 

[Subduction Zone]

While I see similarities in some things, I really have no verification in actuality that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That is just an example, of course. Or humans from a couple of flapping fish. Sorry. I know you're trying your hardest to show me or explain but the proof isn't there. I really appreciate your efforts, however. By proof I mean ACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. Therefore I believe there is more to it than biochemical conjecture along with fossils and possible dating. That's how I see it. As conjecture based on a principle. Nevertheless thank you for your posts.

That is because you do not try to think of how to test your observations. It is not just the conclusions based upon one's observations that are important. It is how one tests them that shows if the conclusions are likely to be true or not.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not trained in science. (Obviously.) I did, however, work with scientists in various aspects. One was a professor with a class and a lab. College in a school of science. There were testtubes and experiments abounding to show the efficacy of a certain endeavor. Guess you could say he was attempting to prove something.

Was he? You may never know. He may have just been replicating experiments for educational purposes.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is because you do not try to think of how to test your observations. It is not just the conclusions based upon one's observations that are important. It is how one tests them that shows if the conclusions are likely to be true or not.

Does that make sense to you?

I know what the scientists say. Like feathery things discovered on long ago dinosaur bones. Very distant and faint as I understand it so far. No matter -- nothing, absolutely nothing proves evolution as posited by the many, including the majority of scientists. One may say so -- one may say the preponderance of evidence proves(?) that evolution is how it all came about from a few cells -- but really -- there is no proof.

 

[YoursTrue]

Was he? You may never know. He may have just been replicating experiments for educational purposes.

I won't go into details as to what the experiment was. But it was definitely an ongoing experiment to ascertain a certain result desired. So he wanted to achieve a result. There is nothing to demonstrate in reality that fish evolved eventually to become apes. Nothing whatsoever beyond -- figuring what spines are and how they changed, maybe flapping around ground for a while and going beyond that. All conjecture about the evolution anyway. Nothing to show and verify that fish evolved (some fish, not all fish of course because -- there are still lots of fish left in the waters.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Was he? You may never know. He may have just been replicating experiments for educational purposes.

He was not doing this privately but in a public higher educational institution that was science oriented. Say what you will, it doesn't matter at this point unfortunately because what you and some others say doesn't add up any more to me in the long run (and the short run) based on little itty-bitty biochemical changes. Which are not shown in any real form. Skin color and eye color, etc., do not prove, backup, or verify the theory of evolution. I haven't looked into the early hominid account, but I will. You may conjecture that dinosaurs become birds (some dinosaurs anyway), but there is nothing to prove that absolutely.

 

[gnostic]

While I see similarities in some things, I really have no verification in actuality that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That is just an example, of course. Or humans from a couple of flapping fish. Sorry. I know you're trying your hardest to show me or explain but the proof isn't there. I really appreciate your efforts, however. By proof I mean ACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. Therefore I believe there is more to it than biochemical conjecture along with fossils and possible dating. That's how I see it. As conjecture based on a principle. Nevertheless thank you for your posts.

still making the stupid mistakes, AGAIN!

Seriously, sciences rely on tests, observations that come from empirical evidence or repeatable experiments, and from data.

Not from this bloody proof you keep bringing up.

This is exactly the learning handicap that exist among all creationists have that make them science illiterate.

you really are stubbornly ignorant and dishonest, that you refused to recognise your errors. i don’t want to use the s word, but that’s what it is if you are incapable of learning after you have been corrected so many times.

so please, understand the following…

Proofs are MAN-MADE LOGIC, like mathematical equations. Equations are logical proof and they are only abstract rationality of humans; EQUATION ARE NOT EVIDENCE!!!​

​

Equations are only MODELS within the hypothesis or theory, and they are made of numbers, constant(s) & variable(s), like the explanations & predictions are only models in a hypothesis or theory. No models are true, until they have been sufficiently tested with physical evidence or with experiments.​

Is that any clearer, YoursTrue?

please, don’t make me repeat correcting you, which you should have learned & understood all those years ago you were here.