What is this thread about anyway? There must be at least 3 or 4 separately running conversations.

I don't sidestep any more or less than you people sidestep (how did the first life form originate? where did the thing that exploded into the "big bang" come from?). 

I don't invoke the supernatural any more or less than you people invoke it (how did the first life form originate? where did the thing that exploded into the "big bang" come from?).

If not knowing all the answers constitutes "sidestepping" and "invoking the supernatural," then we both do it to the same degree.

Sounds good to me.

Same for us.

Not any sooner than you have to answer your unanswered questions.

I would first focus on developing a model that shows we evolved.

I will ask for the third or fourth time.  Where in that 5 step scientific method of "observe, hypothesize, test, etc." does it say "discriminate between the natural and the supernatural?"  It is a stupid thing for you to be harping on, because as I've said, I could care less about the supernatural, but since you people keep bringing it up, do you care to answer my question?

We use the same fossil record that you do.  You don't own the fossil record.

Wrong.  If your theory is wrong, I can just say its wrong.  I don't need anything of my own in the way of models, experimentation, data, etc.

I agree 100%, except it's worse than that.  For the most part, they aren't even practicing science.  They are practicing something that they claim is science, and believe to be science.

It's about 9 pages too long...

The world is sooo full of cranks, I just wonder if it's worth saving

I linked to an article that had no mention of the undocumented 'fact' I threw out there, which, if documented, would prove a supposedly impossible feat.

Wow. In the interest of fairness, I should mention that nothing says interbreeding is 'impossible', but there has been no evidence found for it in the genetic record - at this point if any interbreeding existed, it is likely that the offspring were sterile, a'la tions, ligers, and mules (oh my!) -

But that paragraph - even for you, that's special.

Jonnan

That looks really really interesting - Thanks

Jonnan

People bring this up, and I concede there is something interesting here, but  . . . why in the world do people (And it's always people that don't accept a proven, linear relationship between temperature and CO2) think some warming effect from Sol is going to effect Earth, Mars, and Jupiter in some obvious, linear way.

Cube Square law guys - 1.5 times the distance = 1/2.25 times the effect at mars, 5 au orbit for Jupiter's is going to be 1/25th the effect. But people are insistent on claiming disparate effects on three planets are all causes by something going on on the suns 11 year sunspot cycle? Or something?

But hey - a straight linear relationship between CO2 and temperature they try to complicate. Because that would involve, y'know, doing something.

Sigh - Jonnan

That looks really really interesting - Thanks

Jonnan

BTW I did provide a link back a couple of pages ago.

It's about Agent of Kharma insisting that if a theory doesn't explicitly invoke the supernatural and hides it behind a curtain then it's a valid argument and if only we were open minded and reasonable we would see that.

Which may be a factor in our failing to convince him he's wrong - it might be better to confine our attempts to convince people of the scientific methods advantages to those that have developed object permanence.

Jonnan

Now this is the reason to pity you

The only thing that I can say about it is that as long as whatever is claimed is not inconsistent with our current state of scientific knowledge then it's not something that can either be proved or disproved. Anthing related to god is intrisically supernatural in nature and cannot be proven although if and when religion makes claims counter to known scientific fact or in some cases even theory then it can be disproven.

In a similar manner at some point there are things that science cannot prove either. The mistake is when people try to use science to "prove" the supernatural or use the supernatural to "disprove" science. Not all things are knowable. "I don't know" is a perfectly good acceptable answer.

Sooner or later, I'm going to find the language that resonates with you so I can stop repeating myself.

Where do you think we're invoking the supernatural? We're saying those events are currently unknown, but awknowlege that one day we'll possibly make an observation and a model refinement that will provide an explanation for these events as well as provide predictions on which we can build reliable experiments around.

A theory is our best idea of how a system works. It is a model that has been verified experimentally. Something supernatural obviously cannot be modeled, as it would never be predictable.

Nope, we don't.

No, you don't understand. Origin of life may not be explained right now but we are actively trying to figure it out. The Big Bang is not explained right now but we are actively trying to figure it out. You said:

But I would not makes such statements. I would state that these theories do not yet explain those events, but are working on them. Likewise, you're obliged to figure out how the designer got there. The origin of life is just that: The Origin of Life. If we were designed by something living, we would still have to explain how that living thing got there.

We have one. It has been explained, even by me. I very, very simple language I'll tell you the punch line: Your kids look a lot like you. Where's your model for the designer? Care to post a link? I'm sure there is one, and you'd know where the most credible one is.

I'll answer you for the 3rd or 4th time, in the hope that you *might* finally understand the answer and give a comment that is relevent: You'll notice science has to form a model, then make predictions based on that model that can be verified experimentally. If something can be modeled and have effects reproduced in the lab, it isn't supernatural at all. You have a model, it becomes a theory of nature.

Supernatural = untraceable, random, cause-less events. These can be invoked anywhere in the univserse at any moment for any reason, and then may never occur again.

Natural = events that are traceable, therefore can be modeled and reproduced experimetally. Here is your connection to naturalism.

Another way to look at it is that a true supernatural event would put science in an infinite loop of experimentally trying and failing models. Science would fail but never know it, as it always tries to produce basically an equation to explain oberserved phenomena that will provide predictions that can be tested and re-tested in labs.

So you have evidence of ID from the fossil record? Is the designer's skeleton in there somewhere?

In other words, "Disproving a theory only requires someone to personally disagree with it by citing what they view as problems with the theory while not providing a better explanation."

Well, I claim that General Relativity is completely wrong due to the fact it leave a huge gaping hole where the big bang singularity should be and because it can't properly describe black holes. I guess it is now disproven.

Or perhaps, you really don't understand what a theory is after all.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Defining_science

You will learn the core of why ID isn't science, and why science can't be redefinted from what it is to suit the philosophy ID is really founded upon.

Again?  Stop pretending you're stupid just to piss me off.  It's a waste of time, I'm always pissed off.  On the rare occasion I'm in a good mood, you'll know it.  If there's a thread like this running as well, I'll be perma banned for the first post I make.  The link with no mention of the undocumented fact was linked because there's no mention of it.  You have to dig through the internet to find it.  When you switch to satellite and spend the six hours looking up stuff that I did over the last couple days, then you can give me shit for not blowing more than the hour I already have.

"But the Croatian Neanderthal fossils harboured an ancestral form of the microcephalin-1 gene, which today is also found among Africans.

Overall, it seems that Neanderthals have contributed, at most, a "very limited" fraction of the variation found in contemporary human populations, said Prof Paabo."

This is hardly definitive proof but it's the best that I could find supporting any possibility of human neanderthal interbreeding.

I still wonder what possible difference the precise outcome of human/neanderthal interaction has on your belief or lack thereof in evolution?

Yeah, it's an unrelated study.  This was a sampling of DNA from the local population, crosschecked against a partial DNA mapping from one of the earlier fossil finds.  They were supposed to have found a substantial amount of inherited traits.

It's bearing on evolution is zip, it's just wrong information.

Where do you think I am?

I think your "rationale" (cough) is

1. They claim there is a designer.
2. If so, who designed the designer?
3. Must be a claim to the supernatural.

I can make the same attack on you:

1. They claim life evolved from the first life.
2. If so, how did it get there?
3. Must be a claim to the supernatural.

Or, if you prefer:

1. They claim a big bang exploded from a point of infinite density.
2. If so, how did that get there?
3. Must be a claim to the supernatural.

Yeah.  It's wrong.

Then I will say for the fifth time (even though, again, I COULD GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT ANYTHING SUPERNATURAL),

where in that 5 step process of "observe, hypothesize, test, etc." do you see "discriminate between the natural and the supernatural?"

I have evidence which is consistent with my theory and which refutes your theory, yes.

As much as it might peeve you to hear this, the answer is in fact yes.  (Note that I'm not saying I haven't provided a better explanation.  I'm simply saying that yes - to disprove a theory, one does not, and never has had to, provide a better explanation, or any explanation for that matter.)

No.  I will not read some stupid web page, especially if it is something on wikipedia, especially something with such a ridiculous title as "defining science."  I have worked in science all my life.  I don't think I need you to forward some stupid web page telling me what it is, LOL.  If you don't know what science is, read it yourself.

I've found a few papers that bring into question whether neanderthals were completely displaced or just interbred until the races homogenized. It's not yet settled (or more accurately was thought settled and became unsettled) whether they were indeed an entirely separate species or a different subspecies within the same species, much like wolves and dogs are still close enough to be interfertile. Breeding them back together over many generations would eventually rehomogenize the gene pool and reintegrate the two groups.

True, at least in isolation. To disprove a theory, you must be able to prove that it gives a wrong answer in a known situation. If you can provide substantial evidence that the theory takes known starting conditions, predicts an outome based on these conditions, and the predictions are flat out wrong compared to the known real-world outcome based on the same starting conditions, you can say you have disproved it. You aren't even close yet.

No. If you have "worked in science" you would know you can't simply claim you have evidence. Show it to us. Telling us to find it ourselves is not an acceptable answer, we need to see exactly what data you are basing your conclusions on. Short of this, you are not engaged in science at all.

It is our American habit if we find the foundations of our educational structure unsatisfactory to add another story or wing. We find it easier to add a new study or course or kind of school than to recognize existing conditions so as to meet the need. strangled the holy curious of inquiry. It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty.--Albert Einstein

I think evolution is already disproven, but that's of a secondary concern to me, because the truth is, it isn't up to me to diprove their theory.  It is up to them to prove it.  The burden of proof or disproof isn't on me, it is on them.  In your own words, "they aren't even close yet."

It isn't my job to prove to you what Charles Darwin and other leading evolutionists have said about the truth of the fossil record.  I will not spoonfeed it to you.  Either choose to become better informed on your own, or don't.

lol. so kharma is an expert biologist, climate scientist AND engineer. must be really busy being him.

until you've published something that completely blows evolution out of the water, the only thing you've done is prove you're full of unsubstantiated bollocks.

The answer is NO.

LOL.  So you are attacking the fact that I think critically and think for myself, and you are defending appeal to authority, bandwagon jumping, and general support of the establishment and status quo.  Furthermore, you back this up with personal attacks?  I guess I win by default then.

So wait...

Kharma, your argument in the whole thing breaks down into "I'm right, and you'll see that when you find the information that I won't tell you the location of." Very convincing. Seriously, I'm dissapointed to even be in the same career field as you.

Gah, double post.