The Theory of Evolution

[spitfire]

I don't understand what you just said, its far to scientific for me. What about the Universities of Tennessee, Indiana and Berkeley - will you write to them about their statements that science is based on those assumptions they outlined? Surely they've got it all wrong if NASA hasn't?

Check the NASA map text again and tell me in your own words, where does it state anything different than what I have already said.

Oh and by the way, I owe you something from a link you posted earlier, in your unbelievable moronic attempt to imply that I have a childish approach.

Key Info - Hypothesis

Your hypothesis should be something that you can actually test, what's called a testable hypothesis. In other words, you need to be able to measure both "what you do" and "what will happen."

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_hypothesis.shtml

Kindergarten stuff. That's what you post Vangelovski all the time.

I wonder why you keep avoiding the evangelical protestant creationist part though.

[Vangelovski]

Spitfire, you've claimed that there are no assumptions in science. The University of Berkeley states the following:

The process of building scientific knowledge relies on a few basic assumptions that are worth acknowledging. Science operates on the assumptions that:

There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

There is an obvious contradiction between what you say and what Berkeley says. How do you respond to this?

[spitfire]

Spitfire, you've claimed that there are no assumptions in science. The University of Berkeley states the following:

There is an obvious contradiction between what you say and what Berkeley says. How do you respond to this?

The same way I did with the other link. From resources of the same link.

Here's how I take your pants off, as I would with any other imposter,

From the very same link the basic titles:

There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us
For example, if a ball falls to the ground, science assumes that there must be a natural explanation for why the ball moves downward once released.Right now, scientists can describe gravity in great detail, but exactly what gravity is remains elusive. Still, science assumes that there is an explanation for gravity that relies on natural causes, just as there is for everything in nature.

Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes
Science assumes that we can learn about gravity and why a ball falls by studying evidence from the natural world. Scientists can perform experiments with other falling objects, observe how gravity affects the orbits of the planets, etc. Evidence from a wide range of experiments and observations helps scientists understand more about the natural causes of gravity.

There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world
In other words, the same causes come into play in related situations and these causes are predictable. For example, science assumes that the gravitational forces at work on a falling ball are related to those at work on other falling objects. It is further assumed that the workings of gravity don't change from moment to moment and object to object in unpredictable ways. Hence, what we learn about gravity today by studying falling balls can also be used to understand, for example, modern satellite orbits, the formation of the moon in the distant past, and the movements of the planets and stars in the future, because the same natural cause is at work regardless of when and where things happen.

These assumptions are important and are not controversial in science today. In fact, they form much of the basis for how we interact with the world and each other everyday.

...

So all you did was take your pants off on your own really. Work on that vocabulary. You are not very intelligent when you use a word in a context and then apply it to every context. It shows that you think you can fool the other party.
Well... not so good an effort. You have to try harder.

Now how about the evangelical protestant creationism? Care to answer? No? I have other questions too. Do you want me to draw it in picture?

[Vangelovski]

Spitfire, until now you were claiming that assumptions don't exist in science. Do you now accept that they do?

[julie]

From what I can gather in this and other similar discussions, the 'evolutionists' are being asked to provide scientific evidence of how it all began, and no response thus far has been acceptable to the 'creationists'. When the 'creationists' are being asked by 'evolutionists' to provide evidence of how it all began, they refer to Genesis. Neither side accepts the logic of the other yet some speak as if they know what happened as a matter of fact. The 'creationists' will never be satisfied with a scientific explanation because even science cannot concretely answer how it "really" all began, whereas 'evolutionists' will never be satisfied with a biblical explanation because to them it appears too simplistic and convenient to merely refer to Genesis. All of you have made your points. None of you are willing to concede. Instead of agreeing to disagree, you continue trying to argue that your point of view is the correct one. What all that obviousness in mind, what is the point of this discussion? Although this is the general discussions section of the forum and most topics are open for debate, I would like to encourage you all to start focusing on issues that are actually pertinent to the Macedonian Cause, because this here is a cyclic debate and is drowning out other worthwhile topics that could be discussed. And if it continues, I will be very much inclined to close this thread and any others of a similar nature which have detracted from the core reason of why this forum exists. Time to move on people.

seems no one has read this SoM. Observing people being ridiculed here further.

[spitfire]

I think that's about it. Vangelovski has defaulted to basic training. He is repeating the same no matter what.
It's pavlovian conditioning... !

[Risto the Great]

Salivation instead of salvation. Very possible.

[Vangelovski]

Salivation instead of salvation. Very possible.

No answers and lots of ridicule. You seem to agree with Spitfire. Perhaps you can explain what Spitfire is on about? He seems to be claiming that the term assumptions when used in science is somehow different to the term assumptions when used in common English? Do you agree? If so, why? What do you think a scientific assumption is?

I think the links from those universities make it clear - that the scientific method, in order to be useful, must assume certain basic "realities", but that we have no actual way of knowing whether those realities are true or not.

While these assumptions may be reasonable, they are still assumptions and the scientific method cannot prove them, simply because it based on presupposing them.

Further, every scientific theory, in addition to these basic assumptions, uses other assumptions (assumptions that we have no way of knowing whether they are true or not) to try and explain various things about the natural world. The result is, far from being omnipotent, scientific theories are built on multiple unprovable assumptions (some more so than others).

Operational science (a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.), relies on far less assumptions which are much more reasonable (though still unprovable) than historical/origin science (interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view, events which are not observable, measurable or reproducible) and therefore relies on many more assumptions, which are much less reasonable (and are still unprovable).

Perhaps you can contribute something of substance rather than one-line mockery, but I'm yet to see it.

[Phoenix]

I think that's about it. Vangelovski has defaulted to basic training. He is repeating the same no matter what.
It's pavlovian conditioning... !

Or to put it another way...

The last refuge of the scoundrel...

Where Samuel Johnson framed his famous quote in reference to patriotism, Vangelovski is seen as framing his, not to patriotism but to knowledge...Vangelovski pretends to be all encompassing about knowledge but it's a sense of false knowledge, Vangelovski's patriotism isn't to knowledge, it's to an absolutely unquestioning slavery to faith alone.

[Phoenix]

Vangelovski,

The interesting thing that I find about science and scientists is their intestinal fortitude to question the very foundations of their 'belief system'...

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski,

The interesting thing that I find about science and scientists is their intestinal fortitude to question the very foundations of their 'belief system'...

Do they? Have they questioned naturalism or do they just assume it and then base their interpretations of their observations on the assumption that naturalism is true?

[Vangelovski]

Or to put it another way...

The last refuge of the scoundrel...

Where Samuel Johnson framed his famous quote in reference to patriotism, Vangelovski is seen as framing his, not to patriotism but to knowledge...Vangelovski pretends to be all encompassing about knowledge but it's a sense of false knowledge, Vangelovski's patriotism isn't to knowledge, it's to an absolutely unquestioning slavery to faith alone.

Is it? Do you question scientific theories or just accept them on blind faith? Do you question the assumptions on which they are postulated?

[Vangelovski]

Phoenix, are you able to actually provide some insight into questions that are posed to you or is your default just to ignore the hard ones and pretend they were never raised?

Remember that sentence you were complaining about. I posted it and I bolded it. Can you demonstrate its truthfulness? You based an entire post on it, surely you are able to at least tell us why you think its a truthful proposition?

[spitfire]

Or to put it another way...

The last refuge of the scoundrel...

Where Samuel Johnson framed his famous quote in reference to patriotism, Vangelovski is seen as framing his, not to patriotism but to knowledge...Vangelovski pretends to be all encompassing about knowledge but it's a sense of false knowledge, Vangelovski's patriotism isn't to knowledge, it's to an absolutely unquestioning slavery to faith alone.

True. Unfortunately he doesn't want to see this.

Try this experiment if you ever find yourself talking to a proponent of ID. Say, "OK, for the sake of argument let's say evolution is wrong and let's forget about it. Now tell me how intelligent design works.
You will be met with silence or an urge to turn the discussion to another issue.

Dodging is their strategy. All these are known of course, but they pretend they don't know that.

[Philosopher]

Try this experiment if you ever find yourself talking to a proponent of ID. Say, "OK, for the sake of argument let's say evolution is wrong and let's forget about it. Now tell me how intelligent design works.You will be met with silence or an urge to turn the discussion to another issue.

Not quite Spitfire.

Intelligent design is based on the theory that information comes from a rational mind, and is not the product of unguided and undirected processes. The Intelligent Designer created biological life using sophisticated information in the form of DNA.

It is more rationale, considerably more rationale, to believe life comes from life, and that information is the product of intelligence, and that this Intelligent Designer designed DNA to be able to adapt and survive via natural selection within the framework of microevolution, than to believe that time and chance can produce sophisticated and complex information "far, far more advanced", as Bill Gates stated, than any computer program ever designed by human beings.