RE: Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth
April 24, 2013 at 2:41 pm
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2013 at 2:45 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(April 24, 2013 at 2:32 pm)Love Wrote: You are not reading my posts properly and you're twisting their meaning. I did not come anywhere near close to saying that any old garbage can get through the scientific peer review system. If you re-read my posts properly, you will see that my points are very plain and simple: (1) nothing in science is taken seriously unless it has been verified in the peer review system,1A verification requires reproducible evidence with at least the possibility of falsification- and this is a requirement.
Quote:and (2) the peer reviewers are human beings, and there is a distinct possibility that one reviewer of the submitted evidence could potentially interpret it in a completely different manner from another reviewer.2b there are many reviewers, each with incentives to challenge any given interpretation. This isn't a weakness of the method.......it's one of it's most obvious strengths.
Quote:To repeat, this is one of the main reasons why the mathematical formalisms in quantum mechanics are interpreted in a multitude of different ways.No, the main reason is that thusfar experiments in these areas have not been conclusive enough (largely because they are exceedingly difficult to devise)to put the level of confidence required behind one interpretation or another forward as "the" interpretation- Which is business as usual, and hasn't prevented us from reaching a "best explanation" in the past. Perhaps here it will, I'm not a fortune teller - but regardless it does not to help establish any non-point you've been attempting to make.
The general gist of your objections - from the start- have been that science does not provide, (to your statisfaction, as what else could we be refrencing here) something which it lays no claim to providing - in the timeframe that you demand that it do so - namely the present (nowhere have you given a nod - especially troublesome in -this- thread, to varying interpretations of some other area of science, like biology - that have been laid to rest not in spite of differing interpretations, but -because- of them). To which I say "no shit..and?"
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
