Welcome, Guest. Please Login
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
  YaBB is sponsored by XIMinc!
  HomeHelpSearchLogin  
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
'Real' Science (Read 12303 times)
Simianus
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Seek Truth!

Posts: 26
Re: 'Real' Science
Reply #30 - Dec 30th, 2009 at 7:03am
 
Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 5:48am:
Simianus wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 4:30am:
Heh. I understand what you mean. I found that crazier bits of philosophy and particularly "Logic" encroach on the territories of mathematics and computer science, where language and argument is reduced to symbols representing an occasionally (ridiculously) complex formula. Interesting (but arguably not very useful in real life.) I'd think that the majority philosophical theory might aspire to, but will never grow up to sciencehood. I'm really at a disadvantage because I'm lacking in any meaningful background in the advanced sciences, and am probably not very useful in comparing the two; although - your post makes me wonder if scientists dip into philosophy when questioning and exploring new avenues of study, or in finding an hypothesis if you will, and the follow-up testing bits are entirely subject to evaluation by scientific principle.  The sort of unproven conjecture preceding scientific study. I'm making this up as I go along, so I really hope it makes sense.  If not, I think I'll blame the hour and my lack of sleep - definitely why I'll need to spell check this a couple times before submitting... Wink


Well there is the philosophy of science, thats more concerned with paradigm shifts and the like, if your interested read up on Khun and Popper.  I'm not sure which one came out on top so to speak, i only looked into it a little.

But there's also the fact that science has it's roots in philosophy, back with the ancient greeks.  Over the centuries it adapeted and changed as people got into alchemy and the like.  Then along came Galileo and he practically invented the scientific method, i'm not sure if it got tweeked along the way to what we have now but he is essentially the grandaddy of modern science.


Thanks! I will probably look that up too, I'm quite curious now.

Ironically, I had one or two sentences about Ancient Greeks and philosophy in my last post but did a mass delete when I realised how much I was rambling.  Smiley
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: 'Real' Science
Reply #31 - Dec 30th, 2009 at 1:39pm
 
Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 29th, 2009 at 2:51am:
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 28th, 2009 at 5:26pm:
Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 28th, 2009 at 3:21pm:
[quote author=72777E7A7D130 link=1262038147/2#2 date=1262038441]3) Ummmm......no, there is not truth seeking in science.  We leave that to religion and philosophy.  Science mearly seems to provide us with an explanation/understanding of how the world and universe works.


Thank you for pointing out that you would accept b u l l S h i t over truth any day.

If you are not seeking to find the truth in science, then you are only seeking to perpetuate your f**king beliefs.


So you've just demonstrated your failure to understand what science is about.  Science seeks to determine an objective way of explaining what is happening around us.  Scientists come up with a hypothesis, they test it and get results, they may refine their hypothesis and test it again, this is repeated ad nauseum until we have something that seems to work adequatly.  Up until we find something new that breaks the previous model, also it has to survive peer review, this is an additional 'testing' phase.

It's also why science works on the falsification thing, if something can be falsified then it can be tested, and when it gets falsified then we know we were wrong and we will happily move on.

If i want the 'truth' in all it's mystical glory i'll goto a church or a philosopher or the like.  I won't be picking up a scientific textbook.


Please show all of us the scientific methods used to test fossils?  Show us the scientific methods used in any part of the "theory of Evodelusion"?

I have never seen it used at all in the "Theory of Evolution". The only thing that is proven absolutely is that evolution is not proven to be even science. Whatever you think it is, it is not science.

Show me the evidence for fish coming out of the water, turning into reptiles, birds, and mammals. Show me the mechanism for this magical b u l l s h i t.
Show me the repeatable scientific tests done that even suggest this crap?

This is the whole reason for this website.  It is to allow all of you believers to produce the evidence then we can discuss it.
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Volcano Girl
Junior Member
**
Offline


Geologist

Posts: 66
Re: 'Real' Science
Reply #32 - Dec 30th, 2009 at 3:59pm
 
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 1:39pm:
Please show all of us the scientific methods used to test fossils?  Show us the scientific methods used in any part of the "theory of Evodelusion"?


Dating of fossils or identifying the species?  Please be specific, you say you've got all this scientific study under your belt so lets see it in action.  There is no theory of evodelusion, there is the Theory of Evolution but as i said earlier i'm going to stick to my strengths and deal with the Geology.  So i can go through dating methods, which i'll do in the other thread, as for identifying fossils i'll have to handle that with glowingape as it's a cross specialism thing and from what i gather he/she is a Biologist.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 1:39pm:
I have never seen it used at all in the "Theory of Evolution". The only thing that is proven absolutely is that evolution is not proven to be even science. Whatever you think it is, it is not science.


Well points for getting the name correct this time, however thats as far as it goes.  Evolutionary theory is much more developed and understood than our knowledge of how gravity works, so are you going to rant on about Gravitationaldelusionism?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 1:39pm:
Show me the evidence for fish coming out of the water, turning into reptiles, birds, and mammals. Show me the mechanism for this magical b u l l s h i t.
Show me the repeatable scientific tests done that even suggest this crap?


The evidence will be in taxonomy and transitional fossils, the mechanism is evolution and how we explain that is the Theory of Evolution.  Again i think i will work with glowing ape on this one, i shall stick with all things geological and if my suspisions of him/her being a Biologist by specialisation is correct then i'm sure they'll step in then and help out.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 1:39pm:
This is the whole reason for this website.  It is to allow all of you believers to produce the evidence then we can discuss it.


The evidence has been produced, it's this little thing called peer review science, found in journals.  I can not help if you refuse to accept this or if you refuse to explain to us which parts you find problematic so that we can attempt to help you come to grips with this.  And save your 'you've all been brainwashed by evil scientists', it's like a bad broken record thats boring.  If you want to reach out and save use shouting at us isn't the way to go.

Back to top
 

I'm sorry if i start to sneeze and cough, however i'm allergic to nonsense pseudoscience.
 
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: 'Real' Science
Reply #33 - Dec 31st, 2009 at 11:14am
 
Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 3:59pm:
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 1:39pm:
Please show all of us the scientific methods used to test fossils?  Show us the scientific methods used in any part of the "theory of Evodelusion"?


Dating of fossils or identifying the species?  Please be specific, you say you've got all this scientific study under your belt so lets see it in action.  There is no theory of evodelusion, there is the Theory of Evolution but as i said earlier i'm going to stick to my strengths and deal with the Geology.  So i can go through dating methods, which i'll do in the other thread, as for identifying fossils i'll have to handle that with glowingape as it's a cross specialism thing and from what i gather he/she is a Biologist.


The dating methods for dating fossils is unproven, assumptions.  If you were to die today, and you fell into a watering hole (common place for fossilization), as time goes on and you are fossilized in less than 1000 years..... The sediment you fell in were to turn into compacted stone as is the normal case. Then in less than 1000 years your fossil would be dug up, using these "modern" radiometric dating, you would be dated as the age of the ground you fell in, which could be dated at many millions of years.  This is why this method is ridiculous.  This is why there are so many logical problems with the fossil record.  You cannot date a replacement or recrystallization fossil at all.  There is no tissue there, no carbon and no way to date.   Assumptions are worthless for anyone who is seeking to find out what really happened. 



If we have 90% of the fossils found of  vertebrate species (non bird) and some of those fossils are 110 million yrs old by this messed up dating system and the look the same today, then; 1/ fossilization is common  2/ evolution is ridiculous.

Other scientists show that there are flaws in using radiometric dating that are not considered.  The main one is the assumption that life, space and time, minerals, have remained the same as they are now for all time.  If you are living in a time warp and the only reference you have of time is from "your" time warp, then you will assume that the universe was stabilized at the instant it was established.  That is ridiculous to assume that. There was a constant flux and many fusions taking place over who knows really how long of a time.  It could be 10,000 years or 100 billion or 10 trillion years, and you would not know because of the constant manufacturing of minerals from fusion after the initial explosion of the big bang (which I am inclined to think of as plausible).

There have been many historically false dates made by these methods.  At best it is extremely poor.  It was because of many fossils that are obviously not dated even "ball park" close that caused me to look deeply into this radiometric dating.  When I started my studies it was called radiation dating, by the way.  I am 61 years old, 62 in a couple of months. Science has been my life, because it is what I do, my passion.  Assumptions, make this whole fossil dating a logical fallacy and the fossil record is a mess because of it.

The closest thing to dating is by the layers of strata and by looking at the plates, but that has to have a reference point to start from.  This makes dating by strata or ice layers, just another guess.

If you have 10,000 years ( a stretch ) of known time and space, with only about 6,000 years of almost recorded histroy of humans as your reference, and you use that for your way of establishing calibration for radiometric standards, then you cannot stretch that out to more than 100,000 years with any accuracy.  The farther you go back in time, the less accuracy. 

To illustrate this point.  You are looking at a dark road on a moonless night with a tiny flashlight. You can see 6 inches of road with it, and from that 6 inches of what you can see, you believe you can project that road to be the same for 47 miles.  This is the insanity of accepting assumptions. The accuracy is .0000026   or 2.6 X10-7


As to the accuracy of what these fossils are , you are relying on the judgement of delusional people, with agendas and deeply held beleifs to inflict those beliefs on the fossils.
They think because they have degrees in bogus fields, that they can brainwash you with the same delusional crap they were fed. These are the priests of this Evodelusionism religion.

I realized this when I was 16 years old.  I told myslef, it was ridiculous that these fools can look at distorted rocks and come to conclusions. Now they can use a toe bone and reconstruct an entire creature, but that is some of the feculence they do.  It is impossilbe to take a warped and distorted fossil of some hominid (or any smashed and distorted creature) and create what this creature looks like, because they don't have a clue as to the muscle structure, density of skin tissue, how the tendons attached and the numbers of tendons and the fossil is obviously distorted.  They can only make "assumptions" based on what is available to them in modern times.  It may be that those old creatures had 12 inches of flesh and 4 inches of fat tissue to keep them from frying in the sun or from freezing to death.  They do not know any of the organic structures to start from.

As to the "tree of life" ( a religious icon ) it is bogus, because in order to classify anything, you must have DNA and that is the only way we would have to determine any associations or any ties between any creature.  Just looking with delusional fools with agendas to "prove" evolution because they are brain washed is not evidence.  It is actually evidence against evolution.  No idiot believer is going to come between me an the truth of what happened.

I never accept someone's opinion as any form of fact. This entire religious pseudo science is based on opinions from belief and nothing else.

The fossil record is mostly a mass of conflicting data, falsely identified data, and it is obvious why.  Until we actually have the tools to see what happened, this science is just a friggin religion of delusional weak minded brainwashed believers. This is the same as any cult and any of the old sciences based on assumptions from religious belief.

The "World Is Flat" syndrome has never left science because of crap like this. This is a mythological religion and nothing more.

If there is any validity to any fossil classification it is by accident.


Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 3:59pm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s2U7EsJ1QQ
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 1:39pm:
I have never seen it used at all in the "Theory of Evolution". The only thing that is proven absolutely is that evolution is not proven to be even science. Whatever you think it is, it is not science.


Well points for getting the name correct this time, however thats as far as it goes.  Evolutionary theory is much more developed and understood than our knowledge of how gravity works, so are you going to rant on about Gravitationaldelusionism?


Actually Evodelusion is not understood it is believed and perpetuated by con artists who don't know they are con artists but think they are scientists.  If you had any objective reason you too would see this as obvious.  It is forced fed to students, who are forced into submission by pressures of society and they are taught out of logic and reason, while being told they are the "logical ones".  That is really sad to watch and read about.

The only thing they have is a belief, because there is NOTHING to back up this belief, not in fossils, not in DNA, not in any living creature we have now.  There is nothing but religious belief in fantasy and no use of any standard scientific methodology.   

There is only evidence of genetic stability and extinction, nothing else.  If you can show me where any fish has become a human over some immense time as it became a reptile, then birds and mammals, I would love to see this absolute evidence.  If you believe in things by inference, forced dogma, and peer and social pressures then you are not a scientist, but a puppet of other people's religious beliefs, backed by nothing.

By the way it is the law of gravity as it has been for centuries.  It is because these idiots can't accept that gravity is a foundation of science, and they can't understand how it works, that these weak humans have lowered its status to "theory".

Do you realize how many sciences are established on gravity and that without gravity, sciences like physics, chemistry, and electricity, could never be established at all.  There would be no "periodic table of the elements" without gravity as the basis of the table.

Without gravity, you and I would not have this conversation.

It is one of the fundamental parts of the universe required for the universe to have any structure.  It is a foundational principle required for life.

Unlike Evodelusionism, which is not even testable by any scientific methodology, gravity is here and now and we can test it.  There is no way to tell what is in the deep past with any accuracy, but you can measure all the effects of gravity in any experiment. Don't you know this?  Why do you accept bovine feculence from people?

Yet idiots who are not able to understand how it works, because there is no way for them to understand it they degrade fundamental laws of nature, by their tiny feeble minds.  It is the "law of gravity" and it can only be a fundamental law of science that has no cause humans can perceive. It just is!

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 3:59pm:
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 1:39pm:
Show me the evidence for fish coming out of the water, turning into reptiles, birds, and mammals. Show me the mechanism for this magical b u l l s h i t.
Show me the repeatable scientific tests done that even suggest this crap?


The evidence will be in taxonomy and transitional fossils, the mechanism is evolution and how we explain that is the Theory of Evolution.  Again i think i will work with glowing ape on this one, i shall stick with all things geological and if my suspisions of him/her being a Biologist by specialisation is correct then i'm sure they'll step in then and help out.


There is no such thing as transitional fossils.  In order to have transitions, you have to show transitional features that are growing or in stages of growth.  All we see in the fossil record are complete creatures fully developed with no partial arms or partial ribs etc.

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 3:59pm:
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 1:39pm:
This is the whole reason for this website.  It is to allow all of you believers to produce the evidence then we can discuss it.


The evidence has been produced, it's this little thing called peer review science, found in journals.  I can not help if you refuse to accept this or if you refuse to explain to us which parts you find problematic so that we can attempt to help you come to grips with this.  And save your 'you've all been brainwashed by evil scientists', it's like a bad broken record thats boring.  If you want to reach out and save use shouting at us isn't the way to go.



I have read over 20,000 papers on science and evolution and the only thing contained in them is a belief in evolution, with no evidence to back it.  There are only opinions and nothing more.  If you read carefully it is clear that the authors are brainwashed into belief and there is an "elephant" in the room with them constantly that does not allow any objective reason when it comes to this belief.  You go and start reading, realizing that the belief is stronger than reality.

Good questions and responses.  I like having a conversation instead of the crap that most Evodelusionists try to inflict on me.  For the most part the Evodelusionists are nasty and will do anything to stop me from destroying their "life" that the build around bovine feculence, just like any preacher or high priest of bovine feculence religions.
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: 'Real' Science
Reply #34 - Jan 8th, 2010 at 12:55pm
 
Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 28th, 2009 at 3:09pm:
I've just been browsing through the latest posts and i've seen this used by our estemed admin, but i'm curious as to what is meant by this.  There are many scientific fields and there are many fields that claim to be science but fail epicly.

As someone with a degree in Geology i know that my science is real, it's one of the youngest of the main sciences (only 200 or so years old) and even up until a short number of decades ago is still finding new and exciting things (by this i mean the development of Plate Tectonics).  The starting point for any one learning the subject is the same as the origins of the subject itself, i.e. you start by learning about the various rocks and mineral.  This is done typically in the lab/classroom at first and then moving out into the field to put all the relationships into place.  There's also the fun that is mineralogy and all the remote sensing techniques that are used.

So, what else is a real science?  My money goes in with anything that has an effective peer review process.


Have you seen this information, which I find compelling for why the earliest creatures were marine.  Evodelusionists think that because the oldest fossils are marine, that is evidence for evolution. It is not.  It is evidence that the oldest were marine and nothing else. 



Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: 'Real' Science
Reply #35 - Jan 8th, 2010 at 10:38pm
 
Simianus wrote on Dec 28th, 2009 at 7:40pm:
Someone could prove to me tomorrow that the theory of Evolution is entirely misguided, but by missing my points completely you are not doing it today.


I am blunt, clear and demanding.  That is why I have been very successful in implementing science in my work and why if you do you will not fail to produce things that work.

This crap belief is a mockery of science.
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: 'Real' Science
Reply #36 - Jan 14th, 2010 at 9:58pm
 
prolescum wrote on Dec 28th, 2009 at 6:03pm:
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 28th, 2009 at 5:26pm:
Thank you for pointing out that you would accept b u l l S h i t over truth any day.

If you are not seeking to find the truth in science, then you are only seeking to perpetuate your f**king beliefs.





...



and

Quote:
And the "truth" you're talking about is...


- glowingape

Did you actually see that program? He, "Captain Kirk" was in excruciation pain in his roll.  What you have is extremely painful for my purely logical mind to accept.  It goes against all reality and facts. Evodelusion is a sick f**king religion.
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: 'Real' Science
Reply #37 - Jan 14th, 2010 at 9:59pm
 
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 8th, 2010 at 12:55pm:
Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 28th, 2009 at 3:09pm:
I've just been browsing through the latest posts and i've seen this used by our estemed admin, but i'm curious as to what is meant by this.  There are many scientific fields and there are many fields that claim to be science but fail epicly.

As someone with a degree in Geology i know that my science is real, it's one of the youngest of the main sciences (only 200 or so years old) and even up until a short number of decades ago is still finding new and exciting things (by this i mean the development of Plate Tectonics).  The starting point for any one learning the subject is the same as the origins of the subject itself, i.e. you start by learning about the various rocks and mineral.  This is done typically in the lab/classroom at first and then moving out into the field to put all the relationships into place.  There's also the fun that is mineralogy and all the remote sensing techniques that are used.

So, what else is a real science?  My money goes in with anything that has an effective peer review process.


Have you seen this information, which I find compelling for why the earliest creatures were marine.  Evodelusionists think that because the oldest fossils are marine, that is evidence for evolution. It is not.  It is evidence that the oldest were marine and nothing else. 





I find it interesting that Volcano Girl has gone and has not responded to these videos. 
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print