Skip to main content

Topic: [what has science done] From: ABX testing vs. unconscious perception/d (Read 1395 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • andy o
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
[what has science done] From: ABX testing vs. unconscious perception/d
It is a bit like evolution (as some other poster mentioned). There is some proof for the theory, there are many wholes (for example in the fossil line) however there is no proof for any other theory...

Holes such as...?

Get with the program. What you just said up there is straight from the creationists' "Intelligent Design" tactics handbook.

And just like that, the thing about "enjoyment" you say ABX tests fail to capture, is a common theme from ABX denialists. Not that you're one, I don't know that.
  • Last Edit: 18 March, 2012, 09:51:05 PM by andy o

  • icstm
  • [*][*][*]
[what has science done] From: ABX testing vs. unconscious perception/d
Reply #1
It is a bit like evolution (as some other poster mentioned). There is some proof for the theory, there are many wholes (for example in the fossil line) however there is no proof for any other theory...

Holes such as...?

Get with the program. What you just said up there is straight from the creationists' "Intelligent Design" tactics handbook.

And just like that, the thing about "enjoyment" you say ABX tests fail to capture, is a common theme from ABX denialists. Not that you're one, I don't know that.

Holes such as lack of a complete record of the fossil line.
Do we have fossils (or DNA) from every creature in our line from start to homo sapiens? No. Does that mean that these is 100% complete evidence that mankind came from some RNA protien shake, no. Does that mean I do not beleive in evolution, no.

What you and saratoga miss is that ABX measures a conscious recording of a conscious event. (A known known to use a US defence sec. speak...)

  • andy o
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
[what has science done] From: ABX testing vs. unconscious perception/d
Reply #2
Holes such as lack of a complete record of the fossil line.
Do we have fossils (or DNA) from every creature in our line from start to homo sapiens? No. Does that mean that these is 100% complete evidence that mankind came from some RNA protien shake, no. Does that mean I do not beleive in evolution, no.

Those are complete non sequiturs. Obviously this is way off topic, I don't know why you brought it up. Can't find the other post mentioning evolution from a quick search, but the analogy doesn't hold, if only from the gross misconceptions about it which, again, are straight from the creationists' confusion tactics. Think about it. How many fossils do you think there should be? How many is enough, and how do you detemine the discrete number of species? Do you expect that for evoluion to be completely correct, no dead bodies of any species should have completely disintegrated, in 3.5 billion years? This is OT, so I won't say any more, but you should look up the answers if they're not obvious to you. And from what I understand, fossils aren't even the strongest type of evidence for evolution, that comes from molecular biology.

There is no such thing as a missing link. Once you find a fossil, you just fill that "gap" but create two more.

  • krabapple
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
[what has science done] From: ABX testing vs. unconscious perception/d
Reply #3
Holes such as lack of a complete record of the fossil line.
Do we have fossils (or DNA) from every creature in our line from start to homo sapiens? No. Does that mean that these is 100% complete evidence that mankind came from some RNA protien shake, no. Does that mean I do not beleive in evolution, no.

Those are complete non sequiturs. Obviously this is way off topic, I don't know why you brought it up. Can't find the other post mentioning evolution from a quick search, but the analogy doesn't hold, if only from the gross misconceptions about it which, again, are straight from the creationists' confusion tactics. Think about it. How many fossils do you think there should be? How many is enough, and how do you detemine the discrete number of species? Do you expect that for evoluion to be completely correct, no dead bodies of any species should have completely disintegrated, in 3.5 billion years? This is OT, so I won't say any more, but you should look up the answers if they're not obvious to you. And from what I understand, fossils aren't even the strongest type of evidence for evolution, that comes from molecular biology.

There is no such thing as a missing link. Once you find a fossil, you just fill that "gap" but create two more.



It also shows a profound ignore-ance (literally) of the role of inference vs direct experience of phenomena, in science. 

There are many natural events that we don't 'experience' directly because they are distant in time or space or scale (e.g., too slow or fast or large or small), but that doesn't necessarily limit us from making confident inferences about them....including the basic inference that they *happened*.

"100% complete evidence" is not what science waits for, or requires.  It's a straw man argument.


Meanwhile, we're still waiting for that fossil rabbit in Cambrian strata...that's the sort of thing it would take at this point to 'disprove' evolution as we know it.






  • icstm
  • [*][*][*]
[what has science done] From: ABX testing vs. unconscious perception/d
Reply #4
The reason that is the no off topic is that there is a difference between empirical proof and theorems.
In much of physics and thus engineering there are many theorems and “laws” that not only make predictions, but also state exactly what will be seen.

The issue we have with the debate in this thread is that the equivalent does not exist. If it did, this thread would not need to exist and all those weird threads on other forums would look even more silly.

[what has science done] From: ABX testing vs. unconscious perception/d
Reply #5
The reason that is the no off topic is that there is a difference between empirical proof and theorems.
In much of physics and thus engineering there are many theorems and “laws” that not only make predictions, but also state exactly what will be seen.

The issue we have with the debate in this thread is that the equivalent does not exist. If it did, this thread would not need to exist and all those weird threads on other forums would look even more silly.

Do you mean to imply that evolution makes no predictions? The fact that it hasn't been disproven is because every new thing discovered in biology fits with the predictions of evolution.

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
[what has science done] From: ABX testing vs. unconscious perception/d
Reply #6
If it did, this thread would not need to exist and all those weird threads on other forum would look even more silly.
It's not as if this forum is free of silly discussions.
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.