The flaws in Intelligent design

[ImmortalFlame]

Not at all. In fact even Wikipedia gets it right. The literal translation of "science" is "knowledge."

You do realize that sometimes literal translations of words aren't adequate to describe every single one of its uses and functions, right?

Science doesn't produce any science. Humans produce science and add each new model to the body of science. Humans also falsify existing models and remove those that are false from the body of science.

And how do they do that?

Using a method... of science?

No, you did not explain anything. You merely claimed the question was "malformed" so you could EVADE it.

Because it is malformed. Equations don't "contain" observations, they are descriptions OF observations.

I'll answer the question since you fled from it. There are obviously no observations in E=mc^2. Your insistence that there are is absurd.

You are a liar. I repeatedly said the equation didn't "contain observations".

Absurd. It quite obviously came from an epiphany that Einstein had. He was sitting around one day and he just realized it.

Okay, you're done.

 

[Polymath257]

You are not a scientist. Ask me how I know.

Science predicts nature. Science cannot speculate about the past. Humans do, yes, but science, no.

Tell me, what is the null hypothesis of Evolution? Let's start there.

Absolutely false. Science often pre

That cute animated gif is not an observation in E=mc^2

I'm still waiting.

No, but frequent observations of particle collisions in accelerators, of nuclear reactions, and of any number of other phenomena *are* observations of E=mc^2.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm afraid you need to go back AGAIN and learn what "predict" means. Yes, a prediction necessarily has to be made BEFORE occurrence. One does not "predict" what is in the closet. One merely guesses, or speculates.

The only way to confirm by observation some speculation of the past is with a time machine. We don't have any.

Simply false on both accounts. We can predict, based on our observations, the type of data we will find *about* the past. We can test our ideas about what happened in the past by comparing several different sources of data about the past. We don't need a time machine to do this. We can simply use the data that reaches us from the past.

 

[IBdaMann]

You do realize that sometimes literal translations of words aren't adequate to describe every single one of its uses and functions, right?

Yes I do. And I know that the best words to describe science are "a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature." The words "method" or "methodology" do not come into play until discussing the scientific method which is something else.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure, observations and data are useful for developing science, but not required. Once you develop science, you no longer need observations and data because you have the science (except to possibly prove it false, but then you wouldn't have science anymore).

Well, that's when science becomes engineering. The *science* still needs observations to test where tests have not yet been done. Observation is the central aspect of science.

Please give me a break. You repeat this as though it matters. It probably isn't even true.

Answer the question: What observations are in E=mc^2

I'll tell you on what it is based: an epiphany that occurred to Einstein

There. We should be done on this topic.

The only reason E=mc^2 is accepted is because it agrees with observations. Without those observations, or if it disagreed with observations, it would not be accepted.

It was a theoretical *prediction* based on ideas Einstein had. But it had to be tested by observation before it became accepted science.

 

[IBdaMann]

We can test our ideas about what happened in the past by comparing several different sources of data about the past.

Nope. You cannot test the past without going back in time. Who told you otherwise? What were you taught is a means to test the past from the present?

By the way, there's a common word for what you are describing, i.e. measuring something other than what you need to measure ... and that word is "proxy." Other words are "invalid" and "summarily dismissed."

This is why scientists refer to black body science as science and to the theory of evolution as a theory. This is why scientists refer to the laws of thermodynamics as science and to the Big Bang theory as a theory.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope. You cannot test the past without going back in time. Who told you otherwise? What were you taught is a means to test the past from the present?

Mostly from my graduate classes in physics that discussed ways of testing things that happened in the past. We collect data *now* that provides information about the past. We use the laws of physics we can test now to determine the conditions of the past. We can test whether we have the correct models by comparing data from the past by a variety of different means,making sure they are consistent.

By the way, there's a common word for what you are describing, i.e. measuring something other than what you need to measure ... and that word is "proxy." Other words are "invalid" and "summarily dismissed."

Only by those wanting to avoid the conclusions. Real science does this all the time. You might not like it, but that doens't mean it fails to be science.

This is why scientists refer to black body science as science and to the theory of evolution as a theory. This is why scientists refer to the laws of thermodynamics as science and to the Big Bang theory as a theory.

Both evoution and the Big bang are *scientific* theories, which means they have the backing of a wide range of observations and have been extensively tested. That is the *modern* (post 1900) term that tends to be used instead of 'law' (the older and less accurate term).

 

[IBdaMann]

Well, that's when science becomes engineering.

Nope.
Science predicts nature. Technology controls nature. Engineers use science to build technology. Engineers use data to refine the technology but there is no data in the science they use.

The only reason E=mc^2 is accepted is because it agrees with observations. Without those observations, or if it disagreed with observations, it would not be accepted.

So you admit that there are no observations IN science but that there are observations OUTSIDE science with which science either agrees or disagrees, yes?

Thank you. Observations play a role in the scientific method, to either falsify or not a given falsifiable model, as you describe above. What you were describing was the scientific method whereby the main objective is to prove a falsifiable model false. If it is shown to be false, it is rejected. If the model is not shown to be false in one particular test then the next test is performed, then the next, then the next, etc... until we run out of tests.

No model is ever proven true and nothing is ever confirmed in science. Science is a collection of models that have not yet been shown to be false.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope.
Science predicts nature. Technology controls nature. Engineers use science to build technology. Engineers use data to refine the technology but there is no data in the science they use.

So you admit that there are no observations IN science but that there are observations OUTSIDE science with which science either agrees or disagrees, yes?

No, those observations *are* the way science works. They are an integral part of science.

Thank you. Observations play a role in the scientific method, to either falsify or not a given falsifiable model, as you describe above. What you were describing was the scientific method whereby the main objective is to prove a falsifiable model false. If it is shown to be false, it is rejected. If the model is not shown to be false in one particular test then the next test is performed, then the next, then the next, etc... until we run out of tests.

No model is ever proven true and nothing is ever confirmed in science. Science is a collection of models that have not yet been shown to be false.

Right, but we do have models that have been extensively tested by a variety of methods attempting to show them wrong. That is what gives us confidence and allows us to make scientific statements about the past.

 

[IBdaMann]

Mostly from my graduate classes in physics that discussed ways of testing things that happened in the past.

Where did you learn this? Which school? Please, I want to make sure my children never go there.

We collect data *now* that provides information about the past.

No, you can at best speculate about what information it provides you about the past. There are infinite possibilities that could have resulted in that "evidence" and on top of it, you have human subjectively guesstimating the one possibility that they like best ... as a way of getting to invent the history they want ... and to pretend that "science says so."

We use the laws of physics we can test now to determine the conditions of the past.

You mean you use science to guide your speculation. It's still speculation.

Both evoution and the Big bang are *scientific* theories,

Nope.

Question: Do you know why they aren't called Big Bang science and Evolution science?
Answer: They are speculation about the past. They cannot be science.

Question: Is genetics science?
Answer: Yes it is. It's a falsifiable biology model that predicts nature.

Anyone who is not scientifically illterate knows all this.

 

[Polymath257]

Where did you learn this? Which school? Please, I want to make sure my children never go there.

You may want your children to avoid the truth, but that doens't make it false.

No, you can at best speculate about what information it provides you about the past. There are infinite possibilities that could have resulted in that "evidence" and on top of it, you have human subjectively guesstimating the one possibility that they like best ... as a way of getting to invent the history they want ... and to pretend that "science says so."

it isn't pretending. it is a testable position that can be verified by multiple lines of evidence. Just like ALL science.

You mean you use science to guide your speculation. It's still speculation.

No more so that anything in science is speculation.

Nope.

Question: Do you know why they aren't called Big Bang science and Evolution science?
Answer: They are speculation about the past. They cannot be science.

Answer: they are. By scientists.

Question: Is genetics science?
Answer: Yes it is. It's a falsifiable biology model that predicts nature.

And so are Big Bang and Evolution.

Anyone who is not scientifically illterate knows all this.

Well, except for all the *scientists* who disagree with this.

 

[sayak83]

Where did you learn this? Which school? Please, I want to make sure my children never go there.


No, you can at best speculate about what information it provides you about the past. There are infinite possibilities that could have resulted in that "evidence" and on top of it, you have human subjectively guesstimating the one possibility that they like best ... as a way of getting to invent the history they want ... and to pretend that "science says so."


You mean you use science to guide your speculation. It's still speculation.


Nope.

Question: Do you know why they aren't called Big Bang science and Evolution science?
Answer: They are speculation about the past. They cannot be science.

Question: Is genetics science?
Answer: Yes it is. It's a falsifiable biology model that predicts nature.

Anyone who is not scientifically illterate knows all this.

Apparently you do not seem to have any education in science above school level, would I be correct? Nobody with some amount of science education will claim such absurd things. If Big Bang is not science how did the people who did critical research in Big Bang got Noble prize in physics??

Big bang theorists scoop Nobel prize for physics

The 2006 Nobel prize for physics has been awarded to John Mather and George Smoot for their contribution to the big bang theory of the origin of the universe.

The pair were honoured for “their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation”, the jury said.


The past is as much predictable and testable through scientific theory and evidence based observation as the present and the future.

And of course, Nature, the premiere journal in all of science, prominently publishes research on evolutionary sciences.
Evolutionary biology - Latest research and news | Nature

Example of one such recent article

Polygyny is linked to accelerated birdsong evolution but not to larger song repertoires

Non-monogamous mating behaviors including polygyny or extra-pair paternity are theorized to amplify sexual selection, since some males attract multiple mates or copulate with paired females. In several well-studied songbird species, females prefer more complex songs and larger repertoires; thus, non-monogamous mating behaviors are predicted to accelerate song evolution, particularly toward increased complexity. However, studies within songbird clades have yielded mixed results, and the effect of non-monogamy on song evolution remains unclear. Here, we construct a large-scale database synthesizing mating system, extra-pair paternity, and song information and perform comparative analyses alongside songbird genetic phylogenies. Our results suggest that polygyny drives faster evolution of syllable repertoire size (measured as average number of unique syllables), but this rapid evolution does not produce larger repertoires in polygynous species. Instead, both large and small syllable repertoires quickly evolve toward moderate sizes in polygynous lineages. Contrary to expectation, high rates of extra-pair paternity coincide with smaller repertoires.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Guys, I'm becoming increasingly certain IBdaMann is a POE. I suggest you join me in putting them on ignore for the sake of our collective sanity.

On another, now defunct website, he would get quite emotional. He also has been banned from science websites. When I challenged him to discuss this with me on Physics Forums he could not.

 

[IBdaMann]

You may want your children to avoid the truth, but that doens't make it false.

I want my children to avoid the Marxist indoctrination that sucked you in. By the way, where did you go to school?

it isn't pretending. it is a testable position that can be verified by multiple lines of evidence. Just like ALL science.

Your inability to distinguish religion from science has you stuck reciting Global Warming prayers.

Evidence plays no role in science but it is key in religion. Scientists use observations to hopefully inspire new science but they avoid applying subjective labels like "evidence of ..." because that implies a speculative conclusion. "Evidence" is entirely subjective on two levels, 1) what even constitutes evidence is a matter of opinion (which is why it is argued in the court of law) and 2) what it means (which is also argued in the court of law). To a Christian, the Shroud of Turin is clear evidence that Jesus died for our sins. To a scientist, it is some cloth that appears to have been made around late 14th century, give or take, and there is some image on the cloth.

No more so that anything in science is speculation.

You are confusing science with religion again. Science is not speculation. Science predicts nature. Religion is all about speculation, e.g. is there a God, where do I go when I die, etc... None of that from science.

 

[Polymath257]

I want my children to avoid the Marxist indoctrination that sucked you in. By the way, where did you go to school?

Well, among other places, I worked as a physicist at Fermilab. I also have a PhD in math. Where I got my degrees from is none of your business as I won't give out more personal information.

Your inability to distinguish religion from science has you stuck reciting Global Warming prayers.

Evidence plays no role in science but it is key in religion. Scientists use observations to hopefully inspire new science but they avoid applying subjective labels like "evidence of ..." because that implies a speculative conclusion. "Evidence" is entirely subjective on two levels, 1) what even constitutes evidence is a matter of opinion (which is why it is argued in the court of law) and 2) what it means (which is also argued in the court of law). To a Christian, the Shroud of Turin is clear evidence that Jesus died for our sins. To a scientist, it is some cloth that appears to have been made around late 14th century, give or take, and there is some image on the cloth.

You are confusing science with religion again. Science is not speculation. Science predicts nature. Religion is all about speculation, e.g. is there a God, where do I go when I die, etc... None of that from science.

Clearly the opinions of someone who has never done actual science a day in his life. I can assure you that I knew more math and physics when I was 18 years old than you ever will.

 

[Quintessence]

*** THREAD LOCKED PENDING STAFF REVIEW ***​

 

[Rival]

***THREAD UNLOCKED. PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF THE RULES***​

 

[Bear Wild]

***THREAD UNLOCKED. PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF THE RULES***​

Good to hear we can still discuss the flaws of intelligent design. Thanks.