Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire You cant create Order from Disorder. The 4th and 5th dimensions.

jaguartx,

The natural instinct for survival would preclude the protozoan to divide itself.

There are more.

I've not seen the video. I only want to point out making "peer review" the arbiter of truth is to employ a logical fallacy---an appeal to authority. A scientific proposition is either true or not based on its predicate facts, premises and conclusions, not because it has been approved by someone or some group of thinkers. That's very sloppy thinking.

Crock, the oldest supernova that has been detected is estimated to have happened 10.5 billion years ago.

Ringman, give the young earth creationist mythology a rest. You sound like a clown.

It's not my assumption or my position. Evolution is an established fact, organisms evolve. The only question being the mechanisms and drivers of evolution.

As to why some PhD's become creationist, that is a matter of their personal belief and not a matter of science....

The presence of life does not necessarily require the presence of an instinct for survival. In fact, often life exists beyond the desire or drive for the instinct for survival.

Whether it is an established fact depends on what you mean by evolution. Until you define the term, your merely arguing by assertion, which is to say you're making no sensible argument at all.

Nonsense. James Tour doubts evolution on the basis of scientific evidence, or rather, the lack thereof.

Chaos is from the 14th dimension.

You don't know any such thing. You appear to be conflating knowledge with faith.

Nor is it a solution to propose an even more complex assumption, a God (whatever that is), as an explanation for a vast and complex universe.

It's not an appeal to authority to have someone knowledgeable in the field to review your work in order to pick up any flaws or mistakes.

That is what makes science the most successful method of discovery in the history of humankind.

And the absence and discouragement of questioning is what makes religion and faith the worst, dogma, contradictions, resentment of questioning, etc.

...

More like his own flawed interpretation of evidence. An interpretation that is not shared by the vast majority who work in the field, or anyone who is not looking at the world through the filter of faith.

Simply not true. Try telling that to an astrophysicist.

It most assuredly is an appeal to authority when you imply that the only way to establish the truth of a postulate is to have others learned in the field confirm its truth. Your preferred mechanism for achieving that is "peer review" (since you faulted the video initiating this thread on the basis of a lack of peer review rather than attacking its facts and logic) but truth is not established by the consensus opinion of experts. That is indeed a fallacy---an appeal to authority. It is certainly possible the experts will arrive at the correct conclusion but often, they do not (witness global warming/cooling/the food pyramid, etc.). That however, is quite beside the point, the truth isn't so because consensus of experts declare it thus, but because the factual predicates, premises and conclusions of any proposition under consideration are themselves demonstrably true. This happy outcome is is not something established by a consensus of experts. If some experts ultimately arrive at the truth, it is on the same basis as everyone else, not on the basis of them constituting a "group of experts" specially endowed by virtue of education or training to decide what is truye. It is certainly true that reason and the ability of a postulate to be falsified have contributed mightily to the discovery of truth, but all of that is predicated on the premise that the mind is free to apprehend truth. This is something virtually all religions agree with but which the philosophy of materialism (your a priori metaphysical commitment) denies.

Your post is not only a misrepresention of the scientific method and the role of peer review, but the nature of evidence itself.

You seem to deny the existence of observable, testable, falsifiable evidence and the role it plays in forming theory, which is in turn reviewed and tested.

Nor do you see the utter contrast between this process of weeding out errors and religious faith....which, in stark contrast to science, is accepted without evidence.

As is par for you, you misrepresent. Nowhere did I state or imply the non-necessity of observable, testable, falsifiable evidence or the role it plays in forming theory and then testing and refining that theory. Nowhere did I state or imply that the scientific method is other than hypothesizing, testing and refining. But it is simply false to categorically state that religious faith and science are always and necessarily in conflict. Science seems to confirm that the Universe had a beginning, just as Genesis teaches. Science also seems to confirm the truth of the Biblical proposition that "in the beginning was the Word (logos)" because in all of human experience, intelligence and information always precede the existence of specified complexity. There are thousands of other examples. And it remains the case that appealing to "peer review" as the ultimate measure of ascertaining scientific truth is fallacious. It is to employ a logical fallacy---the appeal to authority.

You imply it quite regularly. You misrepresented what I said when you claimed - ''I only want to point out making "peer review" the arbiter of truth is to employ a logical fallacy---an appeal to authority'' - when I clearly and simply pointed to the role of peer review in science. That's just one example.



You overlook or downplay actual evidence, the physical fossil record, genetics, traits, etc, upon which theory is built,



They are two entirely different ways and means of seeing the world. It's just a matter of chance If they ever coincide. Science doesn't deal with things that cannot be detected, gods, goblins, angels demons....these are the things of religion and faith, not science.




No such thing. You are writing your own narrative. Science says nothing about conditions prior to expansion, what caused it or whether time began with the BB. The universe may be an expanding bubble within a greater system or it may be cyclic....nobody knows. In contrast, religion claims to know. God, whatever that is, did it.