True or not true about evolution...?

[Dan From Smithville]

Pseudo.
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.

There you go. What is observed, hypothesized and theorized about evolution within science is compatible with the scientific method.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Pseudo.
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.

I am actually reading the article you linked. It doesn't seem that you did. It mentions the "scientific theory of evolution". I love your self-refuting style. It is so economical and time saving.

 

[Viker]

Pseudo.
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.

Yep. Just what I was thinking.

 

[nPeace]

Pseudo? Like YEC or ID? I prefer to call those pseudo-sciences what they really are.

Well that certainly is your view or opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, just as others are.
Scientists themselves have called the various ideas, beliefs, statements and practices claimed by other scientists to be scientific, what it rightly is - pseudo science, because there is no scientific method that can be applied to the guesses.
Do you also call it as it is, when it involves those things you believe. Or do you still refer to them, as science science?

For example, a hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

When these ideas are presented as fact, and scientific, with no way of testing them, and observing any reality, but merely giving ones opinions on what one thinks, do you call that science science?

Perhaps you can explain the difference between what you consider pseudoscience, and science science.

I'm wondering too, why you would consider something to be true, based on reasoning, when scientist (A) carry it out, as opposed to reasoning on the part of other scientists (B).
For example, say you repeat an experiment, and there is general agreement on the conclusions. Then later, those conclusions are overturned, do you feel comfortable with that method of "empiricism"?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well that certainly is your view or opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, just as others are.
Scientists themselves have called the various ideas, beliefs, statements and practices claimed by other scientists to be scientific, what it rightly is - pseudo science, because there is no scientific method that can be applied to the guesses.
Do you also call it as it is, when it involves those things you believe. Or do you still refer to them, as science science?

For example, a hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

When these ideas are presented as fact, and scientific, with no way of testing them, and observing any reality, but merely giving ones opinions on what one thinks, do you call that science science?

Perhaps you can explain the difference between what you consider pseudoscience, and science science.

I'm wondering too, why you would consider something to be true, based on reasoning, when scientist (A) carry it out, as opposed to reasoning on the part of other scientists (B).
For example, say you repeat an experiment, and there is general agreement on the conclusions. Then later, those conclusions are overturned, do you feel comfortable with that method of "empiricism"?

YEC and ID are pseudosciences. They fit within the descriptions that are found in the link you provided. You really didn't read it all did you. Of course not.

Do you have any examples from the real world or are you just making what if statements, because that is all you actually have?

When previous scientific findings are challenged it is on the basis of new data and not guess work or untestable claims.

 

[Viker]

Well that certainly is your view or opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, just as others are.
Scientists themselves have called the various ideas, beliefs, statements and practices claimed by other scientists to be scientific, what it rightly is - pseudo science, because there is no scientific method that can be applied to the guesses.
Do you also call it as it is, when it involves those things you believe. Or do you still refer to them, as science science?

For example, a hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

When these ideas are presented as fact, and scientific, with no way of testing them, and observing any reality, but merely giving ones opinions on what one thinks, do you call that science science?

Perhaps you can explain the difference between what you consider pseudoscience, and science science.

I'm wondering too, why you would consider something to be true, based on reasoning, when scientist (A) carry it out, as opposed to reasoning on the part of other scientists (B).
For example, say you repeat an experiment, and there is general agreement on the conclusions. Then later, those conclusions are overturned, do you feel comfortable with that method of "empiricism"?

If current conclusions are later overturned by scientific methodology I can accept it.

 

[nPeace]

If current conclusions are later overturned by scientific methodology I can accept it.

"Scientific Methodology" is apparently not considered to be such by all scientists. So I guess it's opinions of people that determines what is. Thus science science apparently is pseudoscience to some scientists. While what may be viewed as pseudoscience, isn't distinguishable from science science.

 

[Viker]

"Scientific Methodology" is apparently not considered to be such by all scientists. So I guess it's opinions of people that determines what is. Thus science science apparently is pseudoscience to some scientists. While what may be viewed as pseudoscience, isn't distinguishable from science science.

Ok.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"Scientific Methodology" is apparently not considered to be such by all scientists. So I guess it's opinions of people that determines what is. Thus science science apparently is pseudoscience to some scientists. While what may be viewed as pseudoscience, isn't distinguishable from science science.

Do you have records or any evidence of your claim? Have you shown that the theory of evolution is pseudoscience? So far you never have.

 

[YoursTrue]

They're not suggesting the skull is a half dragon and half humanoid. It's just an elongated humanoid skull found in China. This dragon man.

I know that

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you have records or any evidence of your claim? Have you shown that the theory of evolution is pseudoscience? So far you never have.

Hey I was thinking about this today, sometimes I do think y'know. And I was thinking if only there were motion pictures showing the birth, I mean, emergence, ok evolution, of cells changing into a different species.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hey I was thinking about this today, sometimes I do think y'know. And I was thinking if only there were motion pictures showing the birth, I mean, emergence, ok evolution, of cells changing into a different species.

I have heard people make the same comments about biblical creation, biblical miracles or the life of Christ. Besides the continued use of your straw man version of evolution (I am certain you have claimed to have studied this in the past), what is your point?

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh sure, throw facts in there that make sense.

LOL, again -- humans with different shaped eyes do not mean evolve to different species. Y'all are really sompin. That's facts, that this Dinoman wore pants? LOLOL...(man o man) He needed to cover up his lower parts, lolol...guess the artist didn't think it was that warm, huh. You guys are somthin. What I see is a horrible attempt to justify the Darwinian theory at any cost.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL, again -- humans with different shaped eyes do not mean evolve to different species. Y'all are really sompin. That's facts, that this Dinoman wore pants? LOLOL...(man o man) He needed to cover up his lower parts, lolol...guess the artist didn't think it was that warm, huh. You guys are somthin. What I see is a horrible attempt to justify the Darwinian theory at any cost.

You are something. What I see is a person that does not understand the science, but rejects it all at any cost in favor of a man-made doctrine that they decided to believe as real.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL, again -- humans with different shaped eyes do not mean evolve to different species. Y'all are really sompin. That's facts, that this Dinoman wore pants? LOLOL...(man o man) He needed to cover up his lower parts, lolol...guess the artist didn't think it was that warm, huh. You guys are somthin. What I see is a horrible attempt to justify the Darwinian theory at any cost.

I suppose you wanted to seem a picture of him hanging out?

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh sure, throw facts in there that make sense.

Too bad the warm weather animals haven't figured to make coats, lol, while they're in their same species, of course, if the climate changes. And, of course, do you say the facts are that this dinoman wore pants over his lower parts?

 

[YoursTrue]

I suppose you wanted to seem a picture of him hanging out?

Is it consistant with the dinoman's skull part that he wore pants? People have pets and most don't cover them up. Zoos have gorillas with their "lower parts" hanging out. So why not dinoman?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is it consistant with the dinoman's skull part that he wore pants? People have pets and most don't cover them up. Zoos have gorillas with their "lower parts" hanging out. So why not dinoman?

The climate of the area where the skull was found has been pointed out to you already. The fact that similar remains have been found in parts of the world with similar climates seems to have escaped your notice. The fact that naked humans are not found running around in cold climates is another fact to have escaped your notice. That public representations of people are commonly covered in the US media is yet another fact that has gone over your head. What about the history of drawing similar individuals. Were they clothed. Yes they were. The addition of clothing caters to our cultural expectations more than saying anything about how the actual individual existed in life.

You are reading a lot into an artistic representation that is not of the actual individual in real life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Too bad the warm weather animals haven't figured to make coats, lol, while they're in their same species, of course, if the climate changes. And, of course, do you say the facts are that this dinoman wore pants over his lower parts?

What is it with you and this subject? I can determine no validity for your enthusiasm or reasoning here. What is it you think you are saying with this obsession over the artistic rendering?

 

[rational experiences]

A man looks at a fossil.

You are the living self.

You see the fossil. Your claim it is a fossil.

Are we meant to congratulate you as a living human observing that fossil?

Life says a human is living inside of the same heavens as a heavens by Multi diverse billions of living forms.

Intelligence human. Intelligence natural. Intelligence living advised.

So you would say once a living body living inside of the same heavens lived and died.

Your observation once a living creature is now deceased. It is a fossil.

How many millions of billions of living bodies lived then?

We live inside the gas heavens. What has dead bodies on the ground got to do with life living? And why should we congratulate you looking at some fossils?