Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 22 Oct 2006 10:56 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:ugL_g.16511$vJ2.15882(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:db6dnYRkTNUz7KbYRVnysw(a)pipex.net... >> >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:ehfn55$8qk_011(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <JaednSrRmpdFE6fYRVnyhA(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>news:Qmu_g.14851$GR.13390(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >>>>> >>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:ehd5rn$8qk_009(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know it's wrong. I do know enough that bad data will >>>>>> never show any statistical significance. >>>>> >>>>> Don't you think *they* are in a better position to judge the quality >>>>> of >>>>> their data than *you* are, since your understanding of statistics is >>>>> essentially non-existent? And don't you think that the peers who >>>>> reviewed >>>>> the article and allowed it to be published might also be just a tiny >>>>> tad >>>>> more knowledgeable of statistics than you are? >>>> >>>>When BAH posted this, it struck me as a massive example of how really >>>>closed >>>>minded some people can be. She hasn't read the data, she has no idea >>>>about >>>>the methods, she doesn't know who reviewed it (etc), yet she does know >>>>that >>>>bad data will spoil stats (which is true). She has taken the one thing >>>>she >>>>does know and assumed it to be the case because the answer is not one >>>>she >>>>wants. >>>> >>>>Amazing that BAH claims to have any scientific background at all. >>> >>> I don't. Biology and math were my majors; chemistry was my minor. >> >> All three are sciences. >> >>> I didn't work in the science field. I thought I made that clear. >> >> IT and computers are a science field. > > Well, there I would quibble...they're technology, which is very different > than science. Well, true, but the degree is Bachelor of Science :-) > Still and all, she should have a better grasp of the limitations of her > understanding of population statistics. Yes.
From: unsettled on 22 Oct 2006 11:14 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ehfn2c$8qk_010(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > All that does is show you're a BS artist, can parrot some equations, and > have absolutetly no idea how to apply them correctly. This comes from someone who can't even figure out the attributions in usenet posts correctly! LOL
From: John Larkin on 22 Oct 2006 11:49 On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:55:27 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >If you're going to label evolution as "just a belief", then you had better >be prepared to apply that appellation to *all* of the observational >sciences, since evolution is one of the best supported ideas in the history >of science. It is not. The observational evidence for big evolutionary jumps, and especially for the creation of life, is spotty or non-existant. There is no demonstrably accurate mathematical model for evolution. Nobody actually understands how DNA works. Evolution, and especially its mechanisms, is nowhere near being good science; it may be some day, but not yet. If you use "best supported" to mean "popular", then I guess you're right. John
From: John Larkin on 22 Oct 2006 11:56 On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:03:45 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:4535424A.C08609A3(a)hotmail.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> T Wake wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>>> >>>>>> > Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been >>>>>> > subject >>>>>> > to >>>>>> > question and modification over the years. What has not changed is >>>>>> > the >>>>>> > basic idea of evolution. >>>>>> >>>>>> Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on the >>>>>> radio >>>>>> show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a >>>>>> bit >>>>>> behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond the >>>>>> specifics Darwin described. >>>>> >>>>> I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon >>>>> they >>>>> know >>>>> better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they >>>>> had >>>>> no >>>>> vailidity ! >>>> >>>> >>>>I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some >>>>creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory." >>>> >>>>Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory. :-) >>> >>>Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best >>>guess at how nature and its laws work. >> >> It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's >> quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all >> situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess." > > >Yes, all theories are flawed by definition, and the only measure of a theory >is its usefulness--i.e., how well it predicts or explains a certain effect, >combined with how easy it is to use (i.e., simple). > >The trouble is, the Creation Science/Intelligent Design people use that >"flawed" to mean "useless", in order to aggrandize their belief system, >which provides complete certainty and Truth, despite being nearly useless in >explaining and predicting natural phenomena. > >Eric Lucas > By the standards set for decent scientific theories, evolution has a long way to go. It's still very fuzzy about explaining and predicting phenomena. It seems to be the only "science" that, confronted with true mysteries, seems to accept, and be relieved and satisfied by, unproven conjecture. John
From: John Larkin on 22 Oct 2006 11:59
On Sun, 22 Oct 06 11:46:02 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <54OdnR2_EJ87q6fYRVnysg(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehd4o6$8qk_004(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2(a)4ax.com>, >>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA(a)pipex.net>, >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:4535424A.C08609A3(a)hotmail.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> T Wake wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been >>>>>>>> > subject >>>>>>>> > to >>>>>>>> > question and modification over the years. What has not changed is >>>>>>>> > the >>>>>>>> > basic idea of evolution. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> radio >>>>>>>> show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a >>>>>>>> bit >>>>>>>> behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> specifics Darwin described. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon >>> they >>>>>>> know >>>>>>> better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they >>> had >>>>>>> no >>>>>>> vailidity ! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some >>>>>>creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory." >>>>>> >>>>>>Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory. :-) >>>>> >>>>>Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best >>>>>guess at how nature and its laws work. >>>> >>>>It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's >>>>quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all >>>>situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess." >>>> >>> >>> I'm not going to deal with this one. >> >>So why make any post? Why not just ignore it? > >It was a communication to the rational readers of this thread. >If correcting John's idea of the Scientific Method was >important, somebody else could do the writing. John's concept >is slightly incorrect and requires a nitpik. > So sorry. "Science" does not allow anyone to be "slightly incorrect." Reminds me of some physics conferences I've attended, where you had to watch your step for slipping on the blood on the floor. John |