[005]
SchizoTechnician
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The only dogma scientists have, though, is that which can be proven by evidence- if they\'re otherwise, they\'re not scientists, as science is a \'\'process\'\', not a body of knowledge. I will GLADLY disregard evolution by process of natural selection if sufficient evidence for an alternate explanation can be compiled - but most \
to:
The only dogma scientists have, though, is that which can be proven by evidence- if they\\\'re otherwise, they\\\'re not scientists, as science is a \\\'\\\'process\\\'\\\', not a body of knowledge. I will GLADLY disregard evolution by process of natural selection if sufficient evidence for an alternate explanation can be compiled - but most \\\"evidence\\\" against it I\\\'ve seen attacks it rather than tries to prove its own facts and leaves the alternate explanation to \\\"I don\\\'t know but I point you at religion in general and assume you\\\'ll look at mine\\\" (I prefer to refer to the FlyingSpaghettiMonster if I have to do that, thanks), and doesn\\\'t hold up under laboratory conditions (God can\\\'t be used as a formal scientific explanation until we get evidence of Him, which doesn\\\'t exist- that doesn\\\'t invalidate religion, of course, as faith is important and such, it just means He isn\\\'t a valid scientific standby at the present time) or thought experiments, or even much analysis (I refer here to young earth creationism and the attempt to get \\\"intelligent design\\\" taught in classes based on the scientific method, when intelligent design by its nature is an unverifiable hypothesis by current technology, and as such is philosophy rather than science).
Also, that car analogy doesn\\\'t work for the simple reason that there is an obvious explanation for WHY a car will stop running eventually- its propulsion is limited. But why would the accumultion of changes and adaptations be limited? There\\\'s more than enough time, so that isn\\\'t a factor. Many offspring are produced, so lack of individuals to adapt isn\\\'t a factor. What are you suggesting the limiting factor preventing microevolutionary changes from compiling into macroevolutionary ones is? A car can exist and be maintained without moving, but life, barring immortality, cannot maintain itself, as far as can be proven at present, without reproducing. If you reproduce, you\\\'re adapting to changing circumstances or dying off at the hands of those that are adapting. If you\\\'re adapting, you\\\'re evolving. If you see a car and think it can move forever, you just haven\\\'t analyzed it enough or understood the process by which it moves- whereas with evolution, we DO understand its motion. Or, at least, have an understanding which has not yet been disproven, which can explain presently available evidence, and which is backed up by logical reasoning, the closest there is to confirmation in ACTUAL science.
Also, that car analogy doesn\\\'t work for the simple reason that there is an obvious explanation for WHY a car will stop running eventually- its propulsion is limited. But why would the accumultion of changes and adaptations be limited? There\\\'s more than enough time, so that isn\\\'t a factor. Many offspring are produced, so lack of individuals to adapt isn\\\'t a factor. What are you suggesting the limiting factor preventing microevolutionary changes from compiling into macroevolutionary ones is? A car can exist and be maintained without moving, but life, barring immortality, cannot maintain itself, as far as can be proven at present, without reproducing. If you reproduce, you\\\'re adapting to changing circumstances or dying off at the hands of those that are adapting. If you\\\'re adapting, you\\\'re evolving. If you see a car and think it can move forever, you just haven\\\'t analyzed it enough or understood the process by which it moves- whereas with evolution, we DO understand its motion. Or, at least, have an understanding which has not yet been disproven, which can explain presently available evidence, and which is backed up by logical reasoning, the closest there is to confirmation in ACTUAL science.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The only dogma scientists have, though, is that which can be proven by evidence- if they\'re otherwise, they\'re not scientists, as science is a \'\'process\'\', not a body of knowledge. I will GLADLY disregard evolution by process of natural selection if sufficient evidence for an alternate explanation can be compiled - but most \
to:
The only dogma scientists have, though, is that which can be proven by evidence- if they\\\'re otherwise, they\\\'re not scientists, as science is a \\\'\\\'process\\\'\\\', not a body of knowledge. I will GLADLY disregard evolution by process of natural selection if sufficient evidence for an alternate explanation can be compiled - but most \\\"evidence\\\" against it I\\\'ve seen attacks the it rather than tries to prove its own facts and leaves the alternate explanation to \\\"I don\\\'t know but point you at religion in general and assume you\\\'ll look at mine\\\" (I prefer to refer to the FlyingSpaghettiMonster if I have to do that, thanks), and doesn\\\'t hold up under laboratory conditions or thought experiments, or even much analysis (I refer here to young earth creationism and the attempt to get \\\"intelligent design\\\" taught in classes based on the scientific method, when intelligent design by its nature is an unverifiable hypothesis by current technology, and as such is philosophy rather than science).
Also, that car analogy doesn\\\'t work for the simple reason that there is an obvious explanation for WHY a car will stop running eventually- its propulsion is limited. But why would the accumultion of changes and adaptations be limited? There\\\'s more than enough time, so that isn\\\'t a factor. Many offspring are produced, so lack of individuals to adapt isn\\\'t a factor. What are you suggesting the limiting factor preventing microevolutionary changes from compiling into macroevolutionary ones is? A car can exist and be maintained without moving, but life, barring immortality, cannot maintain itself, as far as can be proven at present, without reproducing. If you reproduce, you\\\'re adapting to changing circumstances or dying off at the hands of those that are adapting. If you\\\'re adapting, you\\\'re evolving. If you see a car and think it can move forever, you just haven\\\'t analyzed it enough or understood the process by which it moves- whereas with evolution, we DO understand its motion. Or, at least, have an understanding which has not yet been disproven, which can explain presently available evidence, and which is backed up by logical reasoning, the closest there is to confirmation in ACTUAL science.
Also, that car analogy doesn\\\'t work for the simple reason that there is an obvious explanation for WHY a car will stop running eventually- its propulsion is limited. But why would the accumultion of changes and adaptations be limited? There\\\'s more than enough time, so that isn\\\'t a factor. Many offspring are produced, so lack of individuals to adapt isn\\\'t a factor. What are you suggesting the limiting factor preventing microevolutionary changes from compiling into macroevolutionary ones is? A car can exist and be maintained without moving, but life, barring immortality, cannot maintain itself, as far as can be proven at present, without reproducing. If you reproduce, you\\\'re adapting to changing circumstances or dying off at the hands of those that are adapting. If you\\\'re adapting, you\\\'re evolving. If you see a car and think it can move forever, you just haven\\\'t analyzed it enough or understood the process by which it moves- whereas with evolution, we DO understand its motion. Or, at least, have an understanding which has not yet been disproven, which can explain presently available evidence, and which is backed up by logical reasoning, the closest there is to confirmation in ACTUAL science.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The only dogma scientists have, though, is that which can be proven by evidence- if they\'re otherwise, they\'re not scientists, as science is a \'\'process\'\', not a body of knowledge. I will GLADLY disregard evolution by process of natural selection if sufficient evidence for an alternate explanation can be compiled - but most \
to:
The only dogma scientists have, though, is that which can be proven by evidence- if they\\\'re otherwise, they\\\'re not scientists, as science is a \\\'\\\'process\\\'\\\', not a body of knowledge. I will GLADLY disregard evolution by process of natural selection if sufficient evidence for an alternate explanation can be compiled - but most \\\"evidence\\\" I\\\'ve seen attacks the opposition rather than tries to prove its own facts and leaves the alternate explanation to \\\"I don\\\'t know but point you at religion in general and assume you\\\'ll look at mine\\\", and doesn\\\'t hold up under laboratory conditions or thought experiments, or even much analysis (I refer here to young earth creationism and the attempt to get \\\"intelligent design\\\" taught in classes based on the scientific method, when intelligent design by its nature is an unverifiable hypothesis by current technology, and as such is philosophy rather than science).
Also, that car analogy doesn\\\'t work for the simple reason that there is an obvious explanation for WHY a car will stop running eventually- its propulsion is limited. But why would the accumultion of changes and adaptations be limited? There\\\'s more than enough time, so that isn\\\'t a factor. Many offspring are produced, so lack of individuals to adapt isn\\\'t a factor. What are you suggesting the limiting factor preventing microevolutionary changes from compiling into macroevolutionary ones is? A car can exist and be maintained without moving, but life, barring immortality, cannot maintain itself, as far as can be proven at present, without reproducing. If you reproduce, you\\\'re adapting to changing circumstances or dying off at the hands of those that are adapting. If you\\\'re adapting, you\\\'re evolving. If you see a car and think it can move forever, you just haven\\\'t analyzed it enough or understood the process by which it moves- whereas with evolution, we DO understand its motion. Or, at least, have an understanding which has not yet been disproven, which can explain presently available evidence, and which is backed up by logical reasoning, the closest there is to confirmation in ACTUAL science.
Also, that car analogy doesn\\\'t work for the simple reason that there is an obvious explanation for WHY a car will stop running eventually- its propulsion is limited. But why would the accumultion of changes and adaptations be limited? There\\\'s more than enough time, so that isn\\\'t a factor. Many offspring are produced, so lack of individuals to adapt isn\\\'t a factor. What are you suggesting the limiting factor preventing microevolutionary changes from compiling into macroevolutionary ones is? A car can exist and be maintained without moving, but life, barring immortality, cannot maintain itself, as far as can be proven at present, without reproducing. If you reproduce, you\\\'re adapting to changing circumstances or dying off at the hands of those that are adapting. If you\\\'re adapting, you\\\'re evolving. If you see a car and think it can move forever, you just haven\\\'t analyzed it enough or understood the process by which it moves- whereas with evolution, we DO understand its motion. Or, at least, have an understanding which has not yet been disproven, which can explain presently available evidence, and which is backed up by logical reasoning, the closest there is to confirmation in ACTUAL science.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The only dogma scientists have, though, is that which can be proven by evidence- if they\'re otherwise, they\'re not scientists, as science is a \'\'process\'\', not a body of knowledge. I will GLADLY disregard evolution by process of natural selection if sufficient evidence for an alternate explanation can be compiled - but most \
to:
The only dogma scientists have, though, is that which can be proven by evidence- if they\\\'re otherwise, they\\\'re not scientists, as science is a \\\'\\\'process\\\'\\\', not a body of knowledge. I will GLADLY disregard evolution by process of natural selection if sufficient evidence for an alternate explanation can be compiled - but most \\\"evidence\\\" I\\\'ve seen attacks the opposition rather than tries to prove its own facts and leaves the alternate explanation to \\\"I don\\\'t know but point you at religion in general and assume you\\\'ll look at mine\\\", and doesn\\\'t hold up under laboratory conditions or thought experiments, or even much analysis (I refer here to young earth creationism and the attempt to get \\\"intelligent design\\\" taught in classes based on the scientific method, when intelligent design by its nature is an unverifiable hypothesis by current technology, and as such is philosophy rather than science).
Also, that car analogy doesn\\\'t work for the simple reason that there is an obvious explanation for WHY a car will stop running eventually- its propulsion is limited. But why would the accumultion of changes and adaptations be limited? There\\\'s more than enough time, so that isn\\\'t a factor. Many offspring are produced, so lack of individuals to adapt isn\\\'t a factor. What are you suggesting the limiting factor preventing microevolutionary changes from compiling into macroevolutionary ones is? A car can exist and be maintained without moving, but life, barring immortality, cannot maintain itself, as far as can be proven at present, without reproducing. If you reproduce, you\\\'re adapting to changing circumstances or dying off at the hands of those that are adapting. If you\\\'re adapting, you\\\'re evolving. If you see a car and think it can move forever, you just haven\\\'t analyzed it enough or understood where its motion comes from- whereas with evolution, we DO understand its motion.
Also, that car analogy doesn\\\'t work for the simple reason that there is an obvious explanation for WHY a car will stop running eventually- its propulsion is limited. But why would the accumultion of changes and adaptations be limited? There\\\'s more than enough time, so that isn\\\'t a factor. Many offspring are produced, so lack of individuals to adapt isn\\\'t a factor. What are you suggesting the limiting factor preventing microevolutionary changes from compiling into macroevolutionary ones is? A car can exist and be maintained without moving, but life, barring immortality, cannot maintain itself, as far as can be proven at present, without reproducing. If you reproduce, you\\\'re adapting to changing circumstances or dying off at the hands of those that are adapting. If you\\\'re adapting, you\\\'re evolving. If you see a car and think it can move forever, you just haven\\\'t analyzed it enough or understood where its motion comes from- whereas with evolution, we DO understand its motion.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The only dogma scientists have, though, is that which can be proven by evidence- if they\'re otherwise, they\'re not scientists, as science is a \'\'process\'\', not a body of knowledge. I will GLADLY disregard evolution by process of natural selection if sufficient evidence can be compiled - but most \
to:
The only dogma scientists have, though, is that which can be proven by evidence- if they\\\'re otherwise, they\\\'re not scientists, as science is a \\\'\\\'process\\\'\\\', not a body of knowledge. I will GLADLY disregard evolution by process of natural selection if sufficient evidence for an alternate explanation can be compiled - but most \\\"evidence\\\" I\\\'ve seen attacks the opposition rather than tries to prove its own facts and leaves the alternate explanation to \\\"I don\\\'t know but point you at religion in general and assume you\\\'ll look at mine\\\", and doesn\\\'t hold up under laboratory conditions or thought experiments, or even much analysis (I refer here to young earth creationism and the attempt to get \\\"intelligent design\\\" taught in classes based on the scientific method, when intelligent design by its nature is an unverifiable hypothesis by current technology, and as such is philosophy rather than science).
Also, that car analogy doesn\\\'t work for the simple reason that there is an obvious explanation for WHY a car will stop running eventually- its propulsion is limited. But why would the accumultion of changes and adaptations be limited? There\\\'s more than enough time, so that isn\\\'t a factor. Many offspring are produced, so lack of individuals to adapt isn\\\'t a factor. What are you suggesting the limiting factor preventing microevolutionary changes from compiling into macroevolutionary ones is?
Also, that car analogy doesn\\\'t work for the simple reason that there is an obvious explanation for WHY a car will stop running eventually- its propulsion is limited. But why would the accumultion of changes and adaptations be limited? There\\\'s more than enough time, so that isn\\\'t a factor. Many offspring are produced, so lack of individuals to adapt isn\\\'t a factor. What are you suggesting the limiting factor preventing microevolutionary changes from compiling into macroevolutionary ones is?
