evolsion (Page 7)

AchillesSinatra: Ok, this is all standard bs... lol

Put yourself back circa 1600, Copernican theory entails stellar parallax. No parallax was observed.

data was at odds with theory.

Was theory dumped?

You tell me.

kittybobo34: Eventually yes

AchillesSinatra: Put your self in 1850 now, Newtonian mechanics does not comport with the recalcitrant orbit of Uranus..


With me yet?

kittybobo34: in that case several ideas were presented that would account for it. With researchers trying to figure it out one way or the other

AchillesSinatra: Newtonian mechanics does not comport with the wobbles of Mercury.

So they posited a planet named Vulcan.

They never found it.

What's the point?

You've been telling us when theory clashes with observation, the theory is screwed.

It's not that simple.

kittybobo34: SO you are saying that the theory doesn't get replaced until a better one becomes available?

AchillesSinatra: "in that case several ideas were presented that would account for it. With researchers trying to figure it out one way or the other"

Kitty, I admire your intelligence. You need to read a little philosophy of science. Please don't take my comments the wrong way. I thoroughly enjoy a discussion with someone as obviously intelligent as youself.

kittybobo34: Thank you, I enjoy an intelligent conversation as well.

AchillesSinatra: "SO you are saying that the theory doesn't get replaced until a better one becomes available?"

Exactly right. As history bears witness.

AchillesSinatra: I'd love to discuss these matters further with you, So many dumbass trolls here. Haha

kittybobo34: now and then someone says something interesting

kittybobo34: But getting back to TOE do you have a better theory?

AchillesSinatra: No, I don't.

Two things to say about that, Kitty:

1, I do not believe there can be a general theory of evolution any more than there can be a general theory of human history.

2. And is there anything wrong in critiquing a theory that I consider deeply flawed? Isn't that what science is all about?

kittybobo34: Nothing wrong at all with it. As far as I know though there is no "non fitting data" with the theory. Much has been learned and much has changed with the theory since its start in the 1830's

AchillesSinatra: Well, Kitty, first of all, thank you, I'm sincerely grateful to be able to discuss these things with someone like yourself.

Now, when you talk of theory "fitting the facts" we have to probe a little deeper.

Do you mean your theory (whatever it is) is COMPATIBLE with the facts?

The God-did-it theory is also perfectly compatible with the facts, and by compatible I mean no contradictions are incurred.

"Compatability" is an extremely low standard of evidence.

kittybobo34: Yes , you could say compatible. However the God theory isn't so compatible, but there I guess you have to say which God

AchillesSinatra: The lemurs from outer space did it is also perfectly compatible with the facts.

I don't mean to be flippant. Do you see what I'm saying, Kitty?

AchillesSinatra: No, Kitty, if compatibility is our crierion of evidence, then Santa Claus, lemurs and your own theory are all perfectly compatible with the facts.

If you disagree, and with all due respect, show me I'm wrong?

What contradictions arise?

kittybobo34: Don't agree, the lemurs would have to have been around for 4 billion years

AchillesSinatra: well, I'd like to think so. Haha.

But the point is: Is the lemurs did it theory in any way incompatible with the facts?

kittybobo34: yes doesn't fit the fossil record, the time frame is incompatible with an organic species doing it. Nor is there any evidence of Lemurs being around for most of it

AchillesSinatra: I did explain: Compatability means consistent with the facts.

The point I'm trying to make here, Kitty, is I'm afraid your theory is compatible with ANY facts.

And that's bad news.

And if you mention that pre-Cambrian rabbit, I'll kill you. Haha!

kittybobo34: Don't think so, the TOE is backed by several other disciplines, Geology, Radiology, paleontology

kittybobo34: to me its religious doctrine that fails the test

AchillesSinatra: well, it would help if you told us what TOE is.

By way of contrast, general relativity ENTAILS certain observations.

By that I mean if the theory is true, certain observations MUST occur.

Your theory is nothing like that.

What if these peppered moths hadn't changed color?

Would be at odds with your theory?