Sovereign wrote:Brain Man, why haven't the alt science people ever produced testable theories? Give me one that is supported by observed and/or experimental data.

how about this. Myers calls fleury a crackpot, and does the best job possible of misrepresenting fleury in so many ways we could make a list. Also Out of 45 pages of fleuries online visual book he picks out the one image that fleury (who is not an artist) could not find a good image to communicate his concept to interested parties. In other words Myers cannot be trusted to represent others work as an objective communicator.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... ain_be.php

Fleury, replies as politely as possible considering myers nonsense, asks no more than his full image bank where he posts up lab data is allowed to be posted. His colleagues then over the next two years produce a new technique to film their lab results.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 101740.htm

Not that fleury is a creationist but this weakness in our interpretation of evolution and neophobia over anything that questions it is yet one weapon the creationists have been employing.

Myers and dawkins have since backed down on this one.

Now again from another lab, new genetic evidence has found that structuralism is at play.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153943.htm

Nothing in structuralism proves god. Its just an idea creationists like.

the point is again if i want to find groundbreaking material, i other have to visit creationist websites, fringe theories or visit here and wait for something (by a moderator) to be posted in pseudoscience.

LucidFlight wrote:Also note that apostrophes and consistent capitalisation will not be a part of the new scientific paradigm.

those are the first casualties in this war. And we have to be prepared that we may take many more before the fight is won.

Weaver wrote:So you're not actually going to answer his (Sovereign's) question, then?

If you want to just put up more links, you don't have to quote irrelevant questions from other posters - especially when the links you post don't even support the points YOU are making in your posts.

Edited to make attribution clear.

it is answered. Structuralism is part of the creationist hit list on traditional evolution. It shows at least this time, they are more clued up and ahead than the rest of the game.

bit strange that, but like i said, its over simplistic and not in keeping with how reality works to expect every breakthrough to come from where you expect it.

im not a creationist. I am a realist, and part of that is the reality that systems break and become uncreative after a certain amount of success due to capitalization of resources. Study any period of history and you find that. Scientific institutions which are now an industry is likely to be similar in dynamics, which we can see happening.

We just should not have this many amateurs outside the system making breakthroughs.

We can akin the situation with science now to big business. 5 years ago lots of us were messing around as hobbyists with stereoscopic projectors and even tried to make them into TV's. No commercial company would consider the idea 3d could be big. It was laughed at.

One seminal movie by james cameron (who was a stereoscopy fan) and now 3dTV sets are in all the stores by every manufacturer within a year. Easy for them, as nobody could patent it. Its the same with science. In a year structuralism will be accepted, now that dawkins stamped it as plausible. there will so many publication it would be completely forgotten that creationists and fringe theorists pushed it up there.

Dawkins after receiving some calculations on the likelihood of super-intelligence existing elsewhere in the universe due to stats on extrasolar planets and some new experiments on artificial life is even backing down on his idea there could be no godlike power out there to a position of even if there is it was never right that we thought it could be true without evidence.

I dont know the shop round the corner will be standing before i go out to get some milk. I have no evidence. Should i consider going there to try and get some ? (milk that is, not evidence)

theropod wrote:I expect things like this to come from reality. Starting with the conclusion isn't. Creationists start with the conclusion and are, by definition, fucking wrong and thinking like that isn't based in reality.

RS

see my example on milk.

I have no evidence the shop will be there.

What about switching on your computer tomorrow. Do you have evidence its going to work ?

No ..then you have made a conclusion and are, by definition, fucking wrong and thinking like that isn't based in reality.

Weaver wrote:You do have evidentiary reasons to believe the shop will be there tomorrow - you have seen it before, there are physical laws to the universe regarding life of material constructions, and you haven't seen anything to indicate that the shop will NOT be there - fire trucks, loud explosions, etc.

Therefore, you can conclude that the highest likelihood is that the shop will be there when you go to buy milk.

ok now expand the milk shop example to im going to go an a random holiday, pick a spot on a map, where flights are under a hundred quid, and have a good time.

What evidence do you have that you will have a good time ?

You have no evidence. You make the claim to yourself and just do based on belief in your ability to have a good time.

Weaver wrote:Wait - how the fuck does that particular strawman relate to the reality of science vs creationist bullshit?

Well obviously i am trying to illustrate how even so called hardened realists do not actually apply realism in other domains of their lives. They just seem to don it when logging on to forums as atheists for some reason, which i think is wanting to be part of a social club, like a new form of football or sport of some type.

Conversely believers in the afterlife are capable of putting out solid scientific works.

How does that work do you think ?

Non scientists who apply belief in their everyday lives but not in their personal domains, like this forum and scientists do not apply belief to their everyday lives but do not in their personal domains.

You did not answer my question Brain Man. You did some dance around it completely. I don't care about an ad homenim Meyers threw out. I asked what testable theories have the alt science people produced? It's kinda like those armchair fighters who say Anderson Silva is over rated because he doesn't fight in a traditional way regardless of the fact he had beaten everyone he has fought. When you ask them what style they practice, they don't.

Now on to the structuralism. I read the Science Daily articles and could you please explain to me how those articles disprove evolution and proves intelligent design? My reading comprehension must be really bad because I couldn't find it. If anything, they're more evidence for a common ancestor through evolutionary means.

All I ever see ID people do is scream "You don't fully understand that so God did it!" and when they are shown to be wrong, they keep screaming the same thing over and over again as in the case of Casey Luskin and the bacteria flagellum. If you're theories are so strong, give me one that can be tested via observation or experimentation.

Sovereign wrote:You did not answer my question Brain Man. You did some dance around it completely. I don't care about an ad homenim Meyers threw out. I asked what testable theories have the alt science people produced? It's kinda like those armchair fighters who say Anderson Silva is over rated because he doesn't fight in a traditional way regardless of the fact he had beaten everyone he has fought. When you ask them what style they practice, they don't.

Now on to the structuralism. I read the Science Daily articles and could you please explain to me how those articles disprove evolution and proves intelligent design? My reading comprehension must be really bad because I couldn't find it. If anything, they're more evidence for a common ancestor through evolutionary means.

All I ever see ID people do is scream "You don't fully understand that so God did it!" and when they are shown to be wrong, they keep screaming the same thing over and over again as in the case of Casey Luskin and the bacteria flagellum. If you're theories are so strong, give me one that can be tested via observation or experimentation.

I dont recall saying this proved ID. If you read back i said it does not prove ID, but its just part of a set of ideas they like. Lately its gone further than that. the ID people are well funded. Its a business for them. Their believers cherished mental domains are under attack. So the ID people try to hire some shit hot scientists, to dig out every weakness in evolution, get it on the research agenda, and just keep at it.

Science has a policy to ignore ID science, so that means they are shooting themselves in the foot. Because these are topics the evolutionists should be researching, they then will not touch it because the ID crew are all over it.

ID then get the chance to take control over the domain and strangely lately have become the better scientists on evolution. All they have to do is find an area of evolution (for which they are plenty) with problems. Make statements on research intentions. Mainstream science runs away from researching said domain. ID keeps at it and takes a win.

Even though none of it proves ID ... very strange state of affairs. Thats politics of science for you. Its value for ID is it makes good press release.

So no answer then?

Alan C wrote:So no answer then?

no, as i am not making any claims for ID. What ID do is buy up the science which is working at holes in evolution then twist the results into something else on their webpages.

Hmm, I was referring to this [bold mine]

Sovereign wrote:You did not answer my question Brain Man. You did some dance around it completely. I don't care about an ad homenim Meyers threw out. I asked what testable theories have the alt science people produced? It's kinda like those armchair fighters who say Anderson Silva is over rated because he doesn't fight in a traditional way regardless of the fact he had beaten everyone he has fought. When you ask them what style they practice, they don't.