Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop

Holt wrote:LOL sir, I must agree only this whole thread seems to be that way.

Well look at the thread title... obviously this thread is full of poop!

DPinkerton wrote:

Holt wrote:LOL sir, I must agree only this whole thread seems to be that way.

Well look at the thread title... obviously this thread is full of poop!

Absolutely DP, chuckle! What was I thinking???

MrBigfoot wrote:

Sweetsusiq wrote:

Sweetsusiq wrote:It is sadly impossible to discuss theology and the Christian Faith with a closed mind. So I have made my point, and I will not respond to your rhetoric again. Please know that I hope one day that you too will find the peace and joy that comes through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for *you* and me.. And Who Created you and me..

Sweetsusiq says:

I came across sounding harsh with my posting that I copied here above this one. My hubby said something to me about the futility of trying to convince someone of something being real and true when that person has different opinions and beliefs. I never should have said that anyone has a closed mind regarding their personal beliefs because time and circumstances can and have changed many people's beliefs, thoughts,opinions, and ideas. I sincerely apologize for saying that you have a closed mind.

this isn't directed at you susi, but the phrase I bolded is one of my pet peeves when used against people in discussions. I'll elaborate:

To truly have a closed mind means you haven't considered opposing viewpoints, you came to your conclusion and that's it.

IF,however, you looked at the oppositions information/point of view/ position, and have considered it, looked at their data/argument and decided they are wrong, you haven't been closed minded at all.

It just irks me when people go to the old cliche of "you're closed minded" when somebody disagrees with them or points out a problem with their argument.

You can be open minded and wrong, and you can be closed minded and correct. None of these things are mutually exclusive, however, if you consider the oppositions data and determine they are wrong, you ARE open minded.

once again, not directed at Susi but she mentioned "closed minded" and I wanted to comment.

Not exactly.. If you view a side as the "Opposition" then your mind is already set to a prior point of view. You will have a natural bias towards something you call "opposition".

No ones mind is completely open. But "closed minded" means you are not listening to any other point of view. You are dead set that your view is the only view. You are then shut off to any alternative possibilities in everything.

DPinkerton,

As promised I will attempt to address your questions and hopefully clear up some of your confusion. I might miss some stuff out, but if I do I am more than happy to answer any further questions this post might raise.

With regard to speciation it's a tricky thing to tie down as it usually occurs over huge periods of times. For the most part we are talking about science inferring speciation from observations of hard data (DNA, the fossil record etc.). These inferences can be verified by making predictions that can be tested. If the predictions are shown to be accurate then you have evidence for speciation. There are however direct experimental observations regarding experiments that replicate the process of natural selection. You can find several fully referenced examples here:

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

By following the references you should be able to read the original papers and access the original data and methodological details you requested.

You also asked for evidence that life evolved from single cell organisms. This was asked within the context of the TOE and the TOE does not deal with how life started (abiogenesis). Theories regarding abiogenesis belong to a different field of study and aren't really part of the scope of the TOE. If however you were talking about the idea of common descent, this concept is a fundamental part of the TOE and has been well researched and backed up by experimentation. The scope of this experimentation, involving numerous scientific disciplines and 150 years worth of data, is too immense to distill into a few isolated examples. If you check out this Wiki page it should give you an idea of what I mean.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

The page does however provide a selection of fully referenced examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Specific_examples

You can pretty much pick any of them to read in full, but the E. coli long-term evolution experiment is interesting as it is designed so that it will only allow genetic markers to be passed on if common descent is in play. So a lack of such markers would disprove common ancestry. The experiment survives this attempt at falsification.

Is the Theory of Evolution fact?

I science there are two types of facts. For the most part scientific facts refer to empirical data and evidence e.g. the different boiling temperatures of liquids under fixed environmental conditions. That's why evolution can be considered a fact, because evolution merely describes a large body of empirical data and observations.

However a theory can also be considered a fact if it satisfies certain conditions and this is where the issue of falsifiability comes into play. For a theory to be considered scientific there must be a means by which it can be tested. A scientific theory will remain hypothetical until there has been an attempt to test (falsify) the claims it makes. So even if ID were considered falsifiable, there have never been any practical attempts to do so and it would remain hypothetical.

When a theory has been tested and survives attempts to falsify it, then it becomes a fact. The TOE has withstood more than 150 years of testing (examples are included in the references provided above). But that doesn't mean that the facts of the TOE are immutable. Specific claims, including various ones made by Darwin, have been falsified over the years and the TOE has been changed accordingly. So whilst the TOE is a fact the facts of the TOE have changed and will continue to do so. The overriding principles behind the TOE remain intact, which is why it is still called the TOE and not something else. If there was experimental data or evidence that made the TOE untenable, it would be abandoned and replaced by something else.

Also when we see scientists disagreeing about specific details and claims regarding the TOE this isn't a sign that it is untenable and unproven. It is an example of the process of falsification in action.

Hopefully you can appreciate from the above that falsification is an integral part of verifying a theory and continually testing it in order to see if it matches new data that comes along. It's an ongoing process where scientists proposes explanations for data and then test them.

I also hope that you can now see that the views expressed on this thread have remained consistent and that I have not contradicted myself.

PS - Sorry for the long post, but I felt the need to provide a relatively thorough response as I suspect that brevity would result in the discussion going round and round in circles.

Tzieth wrote:But "closed minded" means you are not listening to any other point of view.

Not unlike the case with the principles of the scientific method, I think that not only must you consider all possible viewpoints, but dealing with opposing arguments is integral to finding out what is correct. If you don't seriously consider arguments as to why you might be wrong, you are not putting your ideas to the test and untested ideas are nothing but hot air.

Said earlier...

In science 'theory' refers to a concept that has been verified, tested and holds it's weight.

Said now...

A scientific theory will remain hypothetical until there has been an attempt to test (falsify) the claims it makes.

And to further contradict yourself...

When a theory has been tested and survives attempts to falsify it, then it becomes a fact.

Initially you said that a 'theory' refers to a concept that has been verified, tested and holds it's weight. But a theory is hypothetical until it has been tested? But in order to be a theory, it has to have already been tested and verified. If we are not confused yet...here we go!

So once a theory has been tested and survives attempts to falsify it it becomes fact. But in order to be a theory, it needs to have been tested, verified and hold its own weight. Wouldn't that already mean it has met the requirements to be a fact in order to met the requirements to be a theory?

...scratches my head.

What I see here is attempts to dodge the questions posed by throwing around terms. You are debating terminology and not substance. When asked to explain something...you say it is not part of the TOE. I don't care if it part of the TOE...I asked a question, as have others...to which you have not addressed.

No Wood your statements have not been consistant.
Sorry you are back peddling in your statements. Everyone see's it.


Now some Proven tests that verify ID
Cloning:
We have In a Lab created a sheep. An Intelligent (HUMANS) have manipulated and cloned a life form.

FruitFly's :
We are running experments on Fruitflys we are setting up them in the lab and tweeking things Again Intelligence (Humans) Manipulating

Africanized honey bees
Africanized honey bees, known colloquially as "killer bees," are some hybrid varieties of the Western honey bee species, (Apis mellifera), produced originally by cross-breeding of the African honey bee A. m. scutellata, with various European honey bees such as the Italian bee A. m. ligustica and the Iberian bee A. m. iberiensis. The hybrid bees are far more aggressive than any of the various European subspecies. Small swarms of Africanized bees are capable of taking over European honey bee hives by invading the hive and establishing their own queen after killing the European queen.[1]

A Inteligence (HUMANS) crossbreed and created the bees.
We humans are always working out ways to Breed defects out of our animals or even create better plants. These are all verifiable experments that prove ID.

We are in the process of working on Mosquitos. Again we are the Inteligence and we Humans are the ones Manipulating it.

So ID has been tested and verified and can be falsiefied. So ID is a Working Theory according to Science.

You just assume ID = GOD and not AN Intelligence that is your mistake.

DPinkerton,

I'm afraid that you have misunderstood what I was saying.

I'm happy to admit that this is partly my fault. Since we were discussing the TOE I was talking only about proven theories. I should have made the distinction between proven and hypothetical theories as I did in my last response to you. I apologise for the resulting confusion.

My last post to you should however have cleared this up. I will however explain again....

As mentioned above there are proven theories and hypothetical ones and they change status from 'hypothetical' to 'proven' as they proceed through the scientific method.

For an idea to be considered scientific and worth consideration, proponents must put forward clear outlines of practical ways in which their proposed theory can be tested. If proposed methods of testing aren't forthcoming or are shown to be flawed then the proposal is rejected cannot be considered a theory.

If the proposed methods of testing (falsifying) the idea are sound then the idea can be considered an hypothetical theory.

The next stage is to carry out the proposed tests. If an hypothetical theory fails the testing process it is either rejected outright (no longer considered a theory in any sense) or it remains hypothetical (an hypothesis) until alternative testing can be devised.

If an hypothetical theory survives the testing process it becomes a proven theory.

Is that any clearer?

This isn't a case of me playing word games or back peddling. It just seems that I have not explained myself properly.

If the proposed methods of testing (falsifying) the idea are sound then the idea can be considered an hypothetical theory.

The next stage is to carry out the proposed tests. If an hypothetical theory fails the testing process it is either rejected outright (no longer considered a theory in any sense) or it remains hypothetical (an hypothesis) until alternative testing can be devised

How do scientists test TOE?
At present their is NO TEST for TOE. so how is it a Theory since it is Not Testable. you are saying that it is Observed but you are now changing yet again the Term Falsifying

Per the standard Definition:





Are all swans white?

In the philosophy of science, falsifiability or refutability is a quality or characteristic of a scientific hypothesis or theory. Falsifiability is considered a positive (and often essential) quality of a hypothesis because it means that the hypothesis is testable by empirical experiment and thus conforms to the standards of scientific method. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false, rather it means that if it is false, then observation or experiment will at some point demonstrate its falsehood.

For example, the assertion that "all swans are white" is falsifiable, because it is logically possible that a swan can be found that is not white. Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice.[1] For example, "It will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.[citation needed]

The concept first popularized by Karl Popper, who, in his philosophical criticism of the popular positivist view of the scientific method, concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory talks about the observable only if it is falsifiable. "Falsifiable" is often taken to loosely mean "testable." A adage states it loosely as "if it's not falsifiable, then it's not scientific". But the state of being falsifiable or scientific says nothing about its truth, soundness or validity, for example the unfalsifiable statement "That sunset is beautiful."

So by the Accepted definition of Falsifiablity ID is able to be Falsifid so their for it makes it a Valid Theory.

I wish you would stick with the accepted definitions and stop moving your target.

CMcmillan,

ID proposes that organisms cannot change or devolp via natural processes - such as natural selection - and that an intelligent designer is required to create the complexities we find in nature.

Here is a definition from a pro ID website:

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

The examples you provided merely show that it is possible to direct changes in organisms via artificial selection, hybridisation and other means. They do not demonstrate that such changes can only occur when guided by an intelligence.

CMcMillan wrote:How do scientists test TOE?
At present their is NO TEST for TOE.

See the examples I provided for DPinkerton. If the TOE was untestable it wouldn't survive the scientific method and wouldn't even be considered an hypothetical theory.

So by the Accepted definition of Falsifiablity ID is able to be Falsifid so their for it makes it a Valid Theory.

Even if it were true that ID were falsifiable, at best that would make it an hypothetical theory (hypothesis). To be considered a proven theory on a par with the TOE it would have to survive testing and this has not happened. If ID is testable, why hasn't it been tested?

I wish you would stick with the accepted definitions and stop moving your target.

I am using accepted definitions. If you read the links I provided for DPinkerton, you will see that they back up what I have been saying all along.

Thank you

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?


Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Per the website you have Linked. ID is listed as a Scientific Theory,


Also
http://www.c4id.org.uk/
Scientists and Scholars
David Berlinski Homepage
David DeWolf Homepage
Design Inference
Evolutionary Informatics
Richard Sternberg's Homepage
Richard Weikart's Homepage
Stephen C. Meyer Homepage
The Emperor Has No Clothes
Christopher Langan's Homepage
John Mark Reynolds Homepage

Since other scientists are studying ID and it has been tested and verified as an actual working theory.
You really should do more reading into ID because it is a Theory and it in the process of being falsified all the time just like TOE

And for some Peer Reviews

http://www.discovery.org/a/1772

This article appears in the peer-reviewed* volume Darwinism, Design, and Public Education published with Michigan State University Press. In “The Cambrian Explosion,” Stephen C. Meyer, Marcus Ross, Paul Nelson, and Paul Chien show that the pattern of fossil appearance in the Cambrian period contradicts the predictions or empirical expectations of neo-Darwinism and other materialistic theories of evolution. They argue that the fossil record displays several features—a hierarchical top-down pattern of appearance, the morphological isolation of disparate body plans, and a discontinuous increase in information content—that are strongly reminiscent of the pattern of evidence found in the history of human technology. Thus, they conclude that intelligent design provides a better, more causally adequate, explanation of the origin of the novel animal forms present in the Cambrian explosion.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

I wish you would just admit,
That ID is a science that its Questioning TOE. It is studied by scientists it has peer reviews just like when the theory of Evolution came about it was Radical. So is ID but it doesn't make it any less valid of a Theory than TOE.
This is the bottom Line IT IS A SCIENCE it IS A THEORY,. MANY Universitys are studying it.
Just admit that TOE and ID have a Place because they both are Viable just as the 3 versions of Quantum Theory are valid.

Just curious guys, is it possible to "agree to disagree" and take this thread in another direction????

Of course it is.

ID and TOE are both Scientific Theory

So that is my Final say on it

CMcMillan wrote:Thank you

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?


Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

I was referencing the opening definition. The above is a pack of lies as the experiments referenced do no exist. Behe had to admit as much in a court of law (see the Dover trial).

Since other scientists are studying ID and it has been tested and verified as an actual working theory.

I've provided details of referenced examples of the TOH being tested and proven. The onus is on you to do the same for ID. It's going to be difficult though as even the most outspoken 'scientific' proponent of ID - Michael Behe - has never published a peer revied article on ID or conducted a single experiment that tests ID.

ID is an attack on the TOE that proposes no testable alternative in its place and will often resort to lies in order to make it look scientifically legitimate. A good example is Discovery institutes's us of the term 'peer review'. Most of the publications mentioned in your reference are either only peer reviewed by ID proponents, or don't actually meet the requirements needed to call themselves peer reviewed. Other papers have nothing to do with ID and only make the list because they are written by ID supporters.

CMcMillan wrote:Of course it is.

ID and TOE are both Scientific Theory

So that is my Final say on it

What mechanism does ID propose as an alternative to mutation and natural selection?

Blondie1 wrote:Just curious guys, is it possible to "agree to disagree" and take this thread in another direction????

It might be a good idea since CMcmillan would seemingly argue night was day. It does not however bode well with regard to any future discussion relating to Bigfoot.

How can you discuss the possible existence of BF if you reject the very tools needed to establish whether it is real and where it might fit in relation to known species? Presumably the various DNA studies are a complete waste of time as far as ID proponents are concerned?

If you reject evolutionary science without there being an alternative to take its place, you can believe BF to be anything you want without fear of contradiction. That makes no sense to and is no better than making things up as you go along.

Woooo
TOE has not been TESTED!!
It has been observed thats the difference. You have stated in prior as has science TOE CAN NOT be TESTED. Since it would take Millions of years.
Seriously you flip flopping around.
ND can be observedcthe cambrian explosion.
Where you fail your Pushing now NS and TOE and they are 2 different Theories they are not the same.

You do realise that NS is being contested over and over!

There are four points which show natural selection [NS]is invalid or wrong
1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory
2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits already present and cant deal with the generation of new species genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit
3) NS deals with the transmission of favorable traits and the eradication of unfavorable traits so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer are and can be transmitted and become common invalidates NS out right Some argue that harmful genes can be transmitted and become common when accompanied by good genes but this makes natural selection wrong ie

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005”

seeing bad genes can become common this thus makes natural selection wrong which says bad genes should be come rare or less common
4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion

“Punctuated equilibrium is a theory in evolutionary biology which states that most sexually reproducing species experience little change for most of their geological history, showing stasis in the fossil record, and that when phenotypic evolution does occur, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation (called cladogenesis).”
“The sudden appearance and lack of substantial gradual change of most species in the geologic record—from their initial appearance until their extinction—“
now the current thinking notes that speciation or punctuated equilibrium contradicts Darwin theory
“Thus punctuated equilibrium contradicts some of Darwin's ideas regarding the specific mechanisms of evolution, but generally accords with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection”

It is claimed that Goulds intention with PE was to be compatible with NS. Goulds intentions are irrelevant. As the consequence of PE is that it invalidates NS
Now NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit as it only deals with traits already present . A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on
NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

Woodwose wrote:

Blondie1 wrote:Just curious guys, is it possible to "agree to disagree" and take this thread in another direction????

It might be a good idea since CMcmillan would seemingly argue night was day. It does not however bode well with regard to any future discussion relating to Bigfoot.

How can you discuss the possible existence of BF if you reject the very tools needed to establish whether it is real and where it might fit in relation to known species? Presumably the various DNA studies are a complete waste of time as far as ID proponents are concerned?

If you reject evolutionary science without there being an alternative to take its place, you can believe BF to be anything you want without fear of contradiction. That makes no sense to and is no better than making things up as you go along.

WOw so now you attack me. Really you are just as pig headed too.
Seriously grow up. So instead of Admiting that we have different views and so do scientists you attack me saying its me.
Lets see TZ, and DP are also debating you on this. Grow up

Because 1 point was just not enough Well said, and well done my friend!

This is what un-moderated forums would be like I guess. I say keep going. Let's see where and how it ends. It might not. This could be our Ketchum thread I guess. 10 pages already.

Toe- I have 10 on the end of my feet

ID-My name with my picture, date of birth, etc...


Sorry just had to interject some humor here... (ok I'm ducking for cover now)

giggles

CMcMillan wrote:Woooo
TOE has not been TESTED!!
It has been observed thats the difference. You have stated in prior as has science TOE CAN NOT be TESTED.