Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > No scientific evidence == nonexistence?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,04:27    does it?

Corkscrew Posts: 20 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,05:40    I'd say that: no scientific evidence => it's not useful to accept existence. If you can't make valid predictions of any sort about what X will do next, then it's not advantageous to consider X as a factor in your calculations - you'll do just as well on average if you simply ignore X and get on with your life. This doesn't necessarily mean that X doesn't exist, but it does mean that belief in the existence of X is fairly daft - if nothing else, it's a waste of valuable brain resources, which aren't something that most people are overly blessed with to start with...

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,06:41    Quote (stevestory @ April 14 2006,09:27) does it? Nope. If that was the case, Quantum effects did not hapen until about the mid-20th Century. Gravity did not work before Newton. And the speed of light only became absolute after Einstein was born.

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,07:12    And there was no DNA 60 years ago, no radioactivity 150 years ago and no electricity a few hundred years before that. What a tremendous exercise of the brain, and for science, to ponder the existence of things beyond the current limits of our observations and tests.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,07:27    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 14 2006,11:41) Quote (stevestory @ April 14 2006,09:27) does it? Nope. If that was the case, Quantum effects did not hapen until about the mid-20th Century. Gravity did not work before Newton. And the speed of light only became absolute after Einstein was born. But those aren't examples of no scientific evidence! The evidence was all over, humans just weren't in a position to see it yet. Lack of comprehension isn't the same as lack of evidence. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,07:35    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,07:42    Speaking of evidence take a look at this gem I got from the IDnet in AU: Quote Actually, after 10 years we still do not have a single, peer reviewed study in any scientific journal that actually has falsified Irreducible Complexity. Gosh, that proves IC is true, and that proves the existance of space aliens and time travelers! -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,07:56    Once a discovery is made it is apparent, in retrospect, that the evidence was always there. At certain times there just aren't the tools, techniques, knowledge or mindset necessary to see it for what it is.

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,08:11    Quote Once a discovery is made it is apparent, in retrospect, that the evidence was always there. At certain times there just aren't the tools, techniques, knowledge or mindset necessary to see it for what it is. Sure.   And at certain other times, people cling to cherished notions that are utterly bogus, or at least unknowable one way or the other.  The tricky part is deciding how to distinguish fact from fancy.   Oh, btw we call that trick, "the scientific method."  In layman's terms this is sometimes known as "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection."

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,08:19    Quote (Mr_Christopher @ April 14 2006,12:42) Speaking of evidence take a look at this gem I got from the IDnet in AU: Quote Actually, after 10 years we still do not have a single, peer reviewed study in any scientific journal that actually has falsified Irreducible Complexity. Gosh, that proves IC is true, and that proves the existance of space aliens and time travelers! Shoot, this now means that as long as it wasn't disproved in a peer-reviewed journal, everything I ever wanted to believe is now true!! Well, he11, this changes everything... -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,08:21    I wish I'd heard about this "science" thing before. It sounds fascinating. Separating fact from fantasy is an excellent idea.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,08:30    Quote Actually, after 10 years we still do not have a single, peer reviewed study in any scientific journal that actually has falsified Irreducible Complexity. That coudn't be anything to do with the fact that they keep changing the definition does it?

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,09:06    I dont recall any peer reviewed journal publication about Irreducible complexity.   So their point is somewhat like saying "My team won the match because your team didnt turn up to beat them, even though my team doesnt exist at all." Or in other words, total mince.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,09:12    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 14 2006,12:27) Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 14 2006,11:41) [quote=stevestory,April 14 2006,09:27]does it? Nope. If that was the case, Quantum effects did not hapen until about the mid-20th Century. Gravity did not work before Newton. And the speed of light only became absolute after Einstein was born.[/quote] But those aren't examples of no scientific evidence! The evidence was all over, humans just weren't in a position to see it yet. Lack of comprehension isn't the same as lack of evidence. I have to disagree there (apart from gravity). What evidence was there for relativity or QM?

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,09:25    Re: relativity, there had long been recognition that the orbit of Mercury was anomalous under Newtonian mechanics. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,10:14    Quote Actually, after 10 years we still do not have a single, peer reviewed study in any scientific journal that actually has falsified Lee Harvey Oswald was a space alien from a distant galaxy. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Henry J Posts: 5760 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,10:16    Re "That coudn't be anything to do with the fact that they keep changing the definition does it?" Naahhhhhh... How could one suggest such a thing?

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,10:37    Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ April 14 2006,14:25) Re: relativity, there had long been recognition that the orbit of Mercury was anomalous under Newtonian mechanics. Unless another unobserved body had yet to be found. Anyway, that was hardly evidence for light having a fixed speed and traveling at that speed through space stoped you traveling through time.

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard