Science Self-Corrects

To sum up, for something to be scientific and science:

(1) for valid scientific study of events that are either impractical or impossible for anyone to reproduce, scientific reproducibility never includes reproducing the event itself and ONLY requires reproducing the evidence for the event as opposed to the event itself.

(2) it is totally irrelevant to how indirect the evidence is (both for in (1) and more generally ) for that has absolutely no baring on how scientific or unscientific the evidence is. Some evidence can make up totally scientific proof even if ALL of it is extremely indirect. There doesn't have to be an eye witness to an event that sees it at the exact moment it happened to have absolute scientific proof from indirect evidence that the event did take place. This, of course, includes evidence for events that happened a very long time ago before there existed eye witnesses.

Originally posted by PatNovak
First of all, you are changing the subject. Your previous argument had nothing to do with reproducibility. Your last argument was that people shouldn't "believe something when it can't tell the entire story." I responded with an example that showed your argument to be false. Your responded by making an entirely new argument without mentioning your previous ...[text shortened]... g organisms, and see evidence of evolution, without witnessing every second of the entire event.

No, my comments have always been about the need to be able to reproduce something.

If you can't reproduce it, then it isn't science.

The purpose of science is to figure out how things work so that other people can verify that it works by doing it for themselves. If you accept that something is true when there are simply 'gaps in information' then you believe something is true based on faith.

I'm not saying that people should not study evolution. I'm not saying that people should not believe in evolution. I am saying that if you believe something without being able to reproduce it, then you believe in something you can't do for yourself. Your belief is based on faith.

Originally posted by Eladar
No, my comments have always been about the need to be able to reproduce something.

If you can't reproduce it, then it isn't science.

The purpose of science is to figure out how things work so that other people can verify that it works by doing it for themselves. If you accept that something is true when there are simply 'gaps in information' then you b ...[text shortened]... uce it, then you believe in something you can't do for yourself. Your belief is based on faith.

Which is simply an argument based on YOUR faith in religion. Religious folk INSIST on people believing things about science on faith as if that is going to equate religious views with science.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Which is simply an argument based on YOUR faith in religion. Religious folk INSIST on people believing things about science on faith as if that is going to equate religious views with science.

It is not based on my faith in religion. It is based on an observation between fact and belief.
It is a faulty belief that if you base your belief on something other than 'religion' you do not have a belief. If you choose to make no choice you still have made a choice.

Originally posted by Eladar
No, my comments have always been about the need to be able to reproduce something.

If you can't reproduce it, then it isn't science.

The purpose of science is to figure out how things work so that other people can verify that it works by doing it for themselves. If you accept that something is true when there are simply 'gaps in information' then you b ...[text shortened]... uce it, then you believe in something you can't do for yourself. Your belief is based on faith.

Your statement "if you can't reproduce it, then it isn't science" is not correct. Please see the previous posts in this thread. Science requires the EVIDENCE to be reproducible, not the event.

Faith is believing something without reproducible evidence. If your believe something based on reproducible evidence, you are not believing on faith. There is reproducible evidence of evolution, therefore believing in evolution is not faith.

I think sonhouse has it correct. This is merely an attempt by you to equate science and religion so you can argue that they are equally valid. Science is the belief in something based on reproducible evidence, faith is belief without reproducible evidence. No matter how many times you repeat your false definitions of science and faith, your definitions will still be just as incorrect as the first time you stated them.

Originally posted by Eladar
No, my comments have always been about the need to be able to reproduce something.

If you can't reproduce it, then it isn't science.

The purpose of science is to figure out how things work so that other people can verify that it works by doing it for themselves. If you accept that something is true when there are simply 'gaps in information' then you b ...[text shortened]... uce it, then you believe in something you can't do for yourself. Your belief is based on faith.

Obviously, you are clearly implying here, like you did previously several times before, that evolution theory isn't science because we don't reproduce the evolution process -an argument that has been debunked many times both by me and others in this thread by the trivial observation that the event/process itself doesn't need to be reproducible for it to be science if the evidence for the event/process, as opposed to just the event/process itself, is reproducible because that would still mean it being reproducible in the context of what is defined as scientific thus your 'argument' is clearly based on a completely false premise on how science works and what science is.

Perhaps you actually chose to ignore our repeated debunks or perhaps you just pretend that you didn't read these debunks that has been repeated over and over again with many different words -which? Either way, you are making yourself look pretty silly to any casual reader of this thread.
What is your COUNTERARGUMENT to our basic debunk? -so far you haven’t given any.

As I said before:

“If I took a photograph of a lighting strike striking my house, to make it scientific proof that this happened, I do NOT have to make the same lighting strike hit my house again! I ONLY have to present the photograph for observation and scrutiny for that to be science.”

Also see PatNovak's last post esp the first paragraph that confirms what I said here.

Originally posted by PatNovak
Your statement "if you can't reproduce it, then it isn't science" is not correct. Please see the previous posts in this thread. Science requires the EVIDENCE to be reproducible, not the event.

Faith is believing something without reproducible evidence. If your believe something based on reproducible evidence, you are not believing on faith. There is repr ...[text shortened]... e and faith, your definitions will still be just as incorrect as the first time you stated them.

Can you come up with a line of evidence that is reproducible when it comes to origins?

The answer is no. We don't see evolution because it takes too long. All we see are fossils and people draw conclusions from the fossils. This is not reproducing, this is looking at one set of data

You don't see new fossils. Why? Because it takes too long. This means it is impossible to study fossils as reproducible science. It fits in the area of faith.

Originally posted by Eladar
Can you come up with a line of evidence that is reproducible when it comes to origins?

The answer is no. We don't see evolution because it takes too long. All we see are fossils and people draw conclusions from the fossils. This is not reproducing, this is looking at one set of data

You don't see new fossils. Why? Because it takes too long. This means it is impossible to study fossils as reproducible science. It fits in the area of faith.

Again, you are using incorrect definitions. As others have stated in this thread, evolution makes no attempt to explain the origins of life, and is irrelevant to the topic. Your statement makes as much sense as complaining that economics doesn't explain quantum mechanics. You show an embarrassing lack of reading comprehension when you continually make the same arguments over and over after they have been thoroughly debunked.

All of your arguments are based on misdefining words like science, faith and evolution, and continuing to misdefine them even after you've been told the correct definition. It is getting really difficult to take you seriously.

Originally posted by PatNovak
Again, you are using incorrect definitions. As others have stated in this thread, evolution makes no attempt to explain the origins of life, and is irrelevant to the topic. Your statement makes as much sense as complaining that economics doesn't explain quantum mechanics. You show an embarrassing lack of reading comprehension when you continually make the s ...[text shortened]... r you've been told the correct definition. It is getting really difficult to take you seriously.

As long as you define it a certain way, you can feel good about yourself. I get it.

You believe that your beliefs aren't really beliefs because of the way you define your words. I hope that makes you feel better about yourself and helps you feel superior to others as it does for the others who have been responding to my posts.

Not sure what that buys you, but if it helps you sleep better at night so be it.

Originally posted by PatNovak
Again, you are using incorrect definitions. As others have stated in this thread, evolution makes no attempt to explain the origins of life, and is irrelevant to the topic. Your statement makes as much sense as complaining that economics doesn't explain quantum mechanics. You show an embarrassing lack of reading comprehension when you continually make the s ...[text shortened]... r you've been told the correct definition. It is getting really difficult to take you seriously.

Taking him seriously would be your first mistake. Second mistake would be thinking you can have a rational debate with someone who is quite clearly irrational.

Originally posted by PatNovak
The evidence has to be observable, testable, and repeatable. The entire event does not have to be these things. By your standard, studying a supernova is not a scientific process because we can't make a supernova on our own. The lightning strike example that humy gave is another good example.

Using your example of accepting calendars as evidence of time ...[text shortened]... are going to accept calendars as evidence, you should accept the evidence of radiometric dating.

The problem with radiometic dating is that there are unproven assumptions that the atheist must believe on faith in evilution.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n4/assumptions

Originally posted by Eladar
Can you come up with a line of evidence that is reproducible when it comes to origins?

The answer is no. We don't see evolution because it takes too long. All we see are fossils and people draw conclusions from the fossils. This is not reproducing, this is looking at one set of data

You don't see new fossils. Why? Because it takes too long. This means it is impossible to study fossils as reproducible science. It fits in the area of faith.

Can you come up with a line of evidence that is reproducible when it comes to origins?

If you are talking about evolution, Yes. If not, what are you talking about?

We don't see evolution because it takes too long.

FALSE: we have numerous examples of observed microevolution in recorded history. Since macroevolution is just a series of microevolution events, this alone proves that given enough time macroevolution would result from a series of microevolution events.
We also see evidence for microevolution events within the fossil record.

You don't see new fossils. Why? Because it takes too long. This means it is impossible to study fossils as reproducible science.

Here we go again, the same old debunked crap about the process having to be reproducible rather than the evidence for it for it to be science. Read any of your previous posts on this and coma back to us.

Originally posted by humy

Can you come up with a line of evidence that is reproducible when it comes to origins?

If you are talking about evolution, Yes. If not, what are you talking about?

We don't see evolution because it takes too long.

FALSE: we have numerous examples of observed microevolution in recorded history. Since macroevolution ...[text shortened]... idence for it for it to be science. Read any of your previous posts on this and coma back to us.

I'm talking about origins. I'm talking about a working model that explains how the Universe came into existence, how life came into being and demonstrates exactly how we evolved from there.

To claim that we have simply gaps in information means that you believe there is info out there that will eventually be found. It may not be in your life, but the information will be found. You have faith it is there.

Originally posted by Eladar
As long as you define it a certain way, you can feel good about yourself. I get it.

You believe that your beliefs aren't really beliefs because of the way you define your words. I hope that makes you feel better about yourself and helps you feel superior to others as it does for the others who have been responding to my posts.

Not sure what that buys you, but if it helps you sleep better at night so be it.

Now you are talking a load of totally delusional crap. You clearly don't “get it”.
Unlike with you, how we "feel" has nothing to do with our observations and logical analysis.

Originally posted by Eladar
I'm talking about origins. I'm talking about a working model that explains how the Universe came into existence, how life came into being and demonstrates exactly how we evolved from there.

To claim that we have simply gaps in information means that you believe there is info out there that will eventually be found. It may not be in your life, but the information will be found. You have faith it is there.

I'm talking about a working model that explains how the Universe came into existence

The same old creationist tactic: when you have lost the argument, just change the subject and hope nobody notices.
Sorry! That doesn't work on me!