|
|
#211
05-05-2006, 12:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Appendix
[ QUOTE ]
To me, the 'law' of gravity is plausible because we observe elliptical orbits, not the other way around. [/ QUOTE ] The law of gravitation is observed everywhere and constitutes a sufficient cause of elliptical orbits. That orbiting bodies would follow elliptical paths is not, in itself, enough to assume the law of gravitation. [ QUOTE ] The processes proposed clearly do lead to incremental divergence. Let's agree on that at least. The question then is, is the process radical enough to produce wide divergence? There is plenty of evidence relating to this question, which I think is a good one. [/ QUOTE ] This is an essential question. When extended, the proposed processes have to be not only radical enough, but also of the correct character to account for the diversity of species. [ QUOTE ] How about 'We observe change in artificial selection. We speculate that nature might operate similarly. We look for evidence that natural selection has occurred and is occurring. We find it (usually indirect evidence). We conclude that there is some evidence supporting the hypothesis'. [/ QUOTE ] Fine, but you are still merely supposing that the changes you observe are steps in the process you are looking for. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] A scientist should stick to what can be observed and leave the fiction writing to the experts. [/ QUOTE ] I'm sorry, could you expand on this please, I simply don't understand what your're getting at. Usually, the process of assessing fit to a theory is just comparing observations with predictions. Where does the fiction writing come in? [/ QUOTE ] Never mind, really. [ QUOTE ] You may be right that evolution theory is bad science. It is almost certainly not accurate or complete as yet. But even if it is bad, it may still be the best there is. Do you dispute this? [/ QUOTE ] Can bad science also be best science? Possibly. The theory has produced much worthwhile investigation. This has happened before in the history of science, where incorrect premises have lead down paths which later bore fruit. 
|
|
#212
05-05-2006, 03:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Appendix
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] As if I expected you to do anything but punt. Youre too predicatable sharkey, if you play poker the same way you must be a big loser. [/ QUOTE ] Who’s really punting here? All you have to do is find a definition of the term “replicable” in a science glossary using Google. [/ QUOTE ] If you do that you will be awash in definitions from lay people. Professor Dutch is a tenured science professor in a well respected science program at a well respected college of science. This is part of his syllabus, and was articulated for specifically this question, not the generalities you will find on the internet. It is also consistent with what I learned as a science major at one fo the top undergraduate science and engineering schools in the country. Punt returned for a touchdown. Since you cant punt on the next play, my 2 point conversion will be good, because all you can fall back on is denial and the opinion of 1 person, yourself.
|
|
#213
05-05-2006, 03:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Appendix
Wake up from your fantasy and think.
If you’re going to contradict my use of a term, it’s going to have to be from a generally accepted source like a desk reference, etc. Otherwise, there will only be a pointless contest of opinions. Try again.
|
|
#215
05-05-2006, 08:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Appendix
[ QUOTE ]
Wake up from your fantasy and think. If you’re going to contradict my use of a term, it’s going to have to be from a generally accepted source like a desk reference, etc. Otherwise, there will only be a pointless contest of opinions. Try again. [/ QUOTE ] Sharkey, As my friends at OOT would say, YSSCKY. And no, I won't explain to you what that means.
|
|
#217
05-05-2006, 11:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
the appendix---do i love it or hate it?
i can't decide if i love or hate the appendix.in 2001 i had a rare case of carcinoid cancer of appendix...was i going to get this cancer anyway ?in which case i love the appendix and its disposable nature...or did the existence of the appendix and those pesky endocrine cells gone bad mentioned before almost kill me for no reason?....i honestly don't know but the mere word appendix still sends shivers down my spine...considering they removed my gallbladder at the same time one thing i am sure of is i am running out of disposable parts
|
|
#218
05-05-2006, 03:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Appendix
[ QUOTE ]
Wake up from your fantasy and think. If you’re going to contradict my use of a term, it’s going to have to be from a generally accepted source like a desk reference, etc. Otherwise, there will only be a pointless contest of opinions. Try again. [/ QUOTE ] Youve reduced yourself to troll status, if that isnt what youve been all along.
|
|
#219
05-05-2006, 03:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Appendix
[ QUOTE ]
Youve reduced yourself to troll status, if that isnt what youve been all along. [/ QUOTE ] Let’s have a look. No, that also isn’t a generally referenced scientific definition of “replicable” that allows phenomena to be assumed to cause an outcome without observation of their existence.
|
|
#220
05-05-2006, 04:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Appendix
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Or could it be because you’re an off-topic troll with weak material? [/ QUOTE ] What's a troll? [/ QUOTE ] Sharkey is a prime example of one. Attention-seeking trolls This class of trolls seeks to incite as many responses as possible and to absorb a disproportionate share of the collective attention span. (An example of the above behaviour is)...intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error. Often the poster will become defensive when the argument is refuted, and may continue the thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as "feeding" the troll. What motivates a troll? Anonymous attention-seeking: The troll seeks to dominate the thread by inciting anger, and effectively hijacking the topic at hand. Amusement: To some people, the thought of a person getting angry over statements from total strangers is entertaining. This could be categorized as a form of schadenfreude - trolls with amusement motives deriving pleasure from the actual frustration/anger/pain (or what they may perceive in their own minds as such) from their targets. This type of trolling is common on Internet forums. Anger: Some people use trolling to express their hostility to a group or point of view.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
