Discussion:
evolution not testable -> not a theory
(too old to reply)
Dale
2015-04-25 05:11:00 UTC
Permalink
testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,

creating the environment for evolution,

and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve

maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are

(we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)

evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable

evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture

much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Jeanne Douglas
2015-04-25 12:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
Why?
--
JD

Je suis Charlie.
Checkmate
2015-04-25 12:31:41 UTC
Permalink
In article <hlwdjsd2-***@news.giganews.com>, hlwdjsd2
@NOSPAMgmail.com says...
Post by Dale
testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
Why?
Don't ask questions. Just take yourself out of the picture.
--
Checkmate
The most widely-read author in AUK
"Usenet, without a net!" (TM)
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright © 2015
all rights reserved
Dale
2015-04-25 23:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
Why?
because, you are part of the environment you have to start again
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
WangoTango
2015-04-27 23:28:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Dale
testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
Why?
because, you are part of the environment you have to start again
That's nonsense.
We can observe and predict weather, using climatology theory, and it
will rain even if there is no one there to verify it.
You have made an ignorant claim and just saying it is *so* doesn't make
it any more correct.
Semantics and a lame attempt at obfuscation, dude
2015-04-25 16:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
creating the environment for evolution,
and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
(we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
viral evolution is real and observable.

try again.
--
If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers
containing "***@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)

https://dizum.com/faq.html
[16] Q: One of your users is harassing me. What should I do?

A: You should probably ask them to stop or try to ignore them. If that
does not work, you might want to consider contacting an appropriate law
enforcement agency. We are unable to control what users say on Usenet, nor
are we able to determine whether harassment is taking place.

http://squte.com/user/2083/full
Bob Casanova
2015-04-25 17:26:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:32:27 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Semantics and a lame attempt at
obfuscation, dude"
Post by Semantics and a lame attempt at obfuscation, dude
Post by Dale
testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
creating the environment for evolution,
and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
(we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
viral evolution is real and observable.
...as is evolution among all or nearly all groups of living
things, from bacteria to mammals.
Post by Semantics and a lame attempt at obfuscation, dude
try again.
Bad suggestion; he will. And he'll be as wrong as usual.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Semantics and a lame attempt at obfuscation, dude
2015-04-25 17:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:32:27 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Semantics and a lame attempt at
obfuscation, dude"
Post by Semantics and a lame attempt at obfuscation, dude
Post by Dale
testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
creating the environment for evolution,
and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
(we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
viral evolution is real and observable.
...as is evolution among all or nearly all groups of living
things, from bacteria to mammals.
observable in the fossil record as well. i guess this "dale" guy likes to
stick his fingers in his ears, cover his eyes, and holler a lot. he
sounds like a political conservative.
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Semantics and a lame attempt at obfuscation, dude
try again.
Bad suggestion; he will. And he'll be as wrong as usual.
LOL, i think you're probably right about that one.
--
If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers
containing "***@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)

https://dizum.com/faq.html
[16] Q: One of your users is harassing me. What should I do?

A: You should probably ask them to stop or try to ignore them. If that
does not work, you might want to consider contacting an appropriate law
enforcement agency. We are unable to control what users say on Usenet, nor
are we able to determine whether harassment is taking place.

http://squte.com/user/2083/full

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's
political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it[10] but
popularized it.[11] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times
article, Phillips stated his analysis based on studies of ethnic voting:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20
percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but
Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the
Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the
South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become
Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the
blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement
with the local Democrats.[1]
Bob Casanova
2015-04-25 17:24:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:11:00 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Dale <***@dalekelly.org>:

Let's see how many errors Dale makes *this* time...
Post by Dale
testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
OK, that's #1...
Post by Dale
creating the environment for evolution,
...#2 (the presence of humans doesn't stop evolution)...
Post by Dale
and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
...#3 (because "not even wrong"; actually, not even
coherent)...
Post by Dale
maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
...#4 (cosmology has nothing to do with evolution)...
Post by Dale
(we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
...#5 (math has both)...
Post by Dale
evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
...#6 (it's been tested repeatedly, and never shown
false)...
Post by Dale
evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
...#7 (it's a theory, because it has explanatory and
predictive power)...
Post by Dale
much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
... and that's #8; faith is irrelevant when the conjecture
has been formulated as a hypothesis, tested, passed the
tests, used to form a general theory which has predictive
power, and the theory's predictions have been confirmed.

Good work, Dale.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Smiler
2015-04-25 22:09:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:11:00 -0400, the following appeared in
Let's see how many errors Dale makes *this* time...
Post by Dale
testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
OK, that's #1...
Post by Dale
creating the environment for evolution,
...#2 (the presence of humans doesn't stop evolution)...
Post by Dale
and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
...#3 (because "not even wrong"; actually, not even coherent)...
Post by Dale
maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
...#4 (cosmology has nothing to do with evolution)...
Post by Dale
(we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
...#5 (math has both)...
Post by Dale
evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
...#6 (it's been tested repeatedly, and never shown false)...
Post by Dale
evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
...#7 (it's a theory, because it has explanatory and predictive
power)...
Post by Dale
much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
... and that's #8; faith is irrelevant when the conjecture has been
formulated as a hypothesis, tested, passed the tests, used to form a
general theory which has predictive power, and the theory's predictions
have been confirmed.
Good work, Dale.
You forget his mistake #9. The posting of that crap to this group.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Bob Casanova
2015-04-26 17:21:24 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 22:09:31 +0000 (UTC), the following
Post by Smiler
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:11:00 -0400, the following appeared in
Let's see how many errors Dale makes *this* time...
Post by Dale
testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
OK, that's #1...
Post by Dale
creating the environment for evolution,
...#2 (the presence of humans doesn't stop evolution)...
Post by Dale
and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
...#3 (because "not even wrong"; actually, not even coherent)...
Post by Dale
maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
...#4 (cosmology has nothing to do with evolution)...
Post by Dale
(we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
...#5 (math has both)...
Post by Dale
evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
...#6 (it's been tested repeatedly, and never shown false)...
Post by Dale
evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
...#7 (it's a theory, because it has explanatory and predictive
power)...
Post by Dale
much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
... and that's #8; faith is irrelevant when the conjecture has been
formulated as a hypothesis, tested, passed the tests, used to form a
general theory which has predictive power, and the theory's predictions
have been confirmed.
Good work, Dale.
You forget his mistake #9. The posting of that crap to this group.
Which group is that? He posted to:

alt.atheism,alt.talk.creationism,alt.philosophy,sci.skeptic,alt.usenet.kooks

I'd argue that the last one is no mistake.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
f***@gmail.com
2015-04-26 17:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 22:09:31 +0000 (UTC), the following
Post by Smiler
You forget his mistake #9. The posting of that crap to this group.
alt.atheism,alt.talk.creationism,alt.philosophy,sci.skeptic,alt.usenet.kooks
I'd argue that the last one is no mistake.
--
Bob C.
He should also add alt.talk.immagulliblefuckingidiot
Bob Casanova
2015-04-27 17:23:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 10:45:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
Post by f***@gmail.com
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 22:09:31 +0000 (UTC), the following
Post by Smiler
You forget his mistake #9. The posting of that crap to this group.
alt.atheism,alt.talk.creationism,alt.philosophy,sci.skeptic,alt.usenet.kooks
I'd argue that the last one is no mistake.
He should also add alt.talk.immagulliblefuckingidiot
Maybe, but alt.usenet.kooks has the advantage of actual
existence.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
b***@m.nu
2015-04-25 19:58:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:11:00 -0400, Dale <***@dalekelly.org> wrote:

THere is so much wrong with this entire post. starting with the topic.
What you should have said is falsafiable not testable.....
Post by Dale
testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
lets see.... I dont guess you have heard of other planets.... we have
confirmation of at least 1000+ now... some in very good areas and good
sizes for life, maybe there is no live on those but what about the
other 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 and then there are large
moons think there is no life there either?

next humans have nothing to do with the start of evolution, so taking
someone out of the picture has nothing to do with it.
Post by Dale
creating the environment for evolution,
life helped to create the enviroment. the early plant life in the
ocean helped to create oxygen
Post by Dale
and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
makes no sense at all
Post by Dale
maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
still making no sense
Post by Dale
(we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
so if there is mold on another planet you dont think that is proof of
evolution?
Post by Dale
evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
you therefore are an idiot because you are inside your little box and
cant get out
Post by Dale
much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
much like everything else you said that statement shows us that you
lack the basic education to be able to form proper ideas and propper
statements that give proof of anything except you stupidity
Dale
2015-04-26 05:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@m.nu
What you should have said is falsafiable
falsification is a logical process applied with the intent of making a
hypothesis a mathematical theorem, has nothing to do with empiricism
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Checkmate
2015-04-26 05:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
What you should have said is falsafiable
falsification is a logical process applied with the intent of making a
hypothesis a mathematical theorem, has nothing to do with empiricism
YEAH! What he said...
--
Checkmate
The most widely-read author in AUK
"Usenet, without a net!" (TM)
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright © 2015
all rights reserved
Bob Casanova
2015-04-26 17:16:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 01:25:25 -0400, the following appeared
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
What you should have said is falsafiable
falsification is a logical process applied with the intent of making a
hypothesis a mathematical theorem, has nothing to do with empiricism
Added to the previous "Erroneous Eight", this makes it
"Nonsensical Nine"...

Scientific hypotheses don't become "mathematical theorems",
and the attempt to falsify a hypotheses by testing it is
nothing but empirical:

empirical
Definition of empirical in English:
adjective
Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or
experience rather than theory or pure logic
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Dale
2015-04-26 22:30:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
falsify a hypotheses by testing
using something like

A&B
notA(not&)nt(notB)
etc...
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Bob Casanova
2015-04-27 17:21:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 18:30:33 -0400, the following appeared
Post by Dale
Post by Bob Casanova
falsify a hypotheses by testing
Nice snip; let's try again (spelling of singular
"hypothesis" corrected; mea culpa). Read it this time:

Scientific hypotheses don't become "mathematical theorems",
and the attempt to falsify a hypothesis by testing it is
nothing but empirical:

empirical
Definition of empirical in English:
adjective
Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or
experience rather than theory or pure logic
Post by Dale
using something like
A&B
notA(not&)nt(notB)
etc...
I have no idea what you're trying to say. But neither do
you, so that's not the problem it might be.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Smiler
2015-04-27 23:54:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 18:30:33 -0400, the following appeared in
Post by Dale
Post by Bob Casanova
falsify a hypotheses by testing
Nice snip; let's try again (spelling of singular "hypothesis" corrected;
Scientific hypotheses don't become "mathematical theorems",
and the attempt to falsify a hypothesis by testing it is nothing but
adjective Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or
experience rather than theory or pure logic
Post by Dale
using something like
A&B notA(not&)nt(notB)
etc...
I have no idea what you're trying to say. But neither do you, so that's
not the problem it might be.
I don't believe that George Boole would have understood it either.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
b***@m.nu
2015-04-26 19:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
What you should have said is falsafiable
falsification is a logical process applied with the intent of making a
hypothesis a mathematical theorem, has nothing to do with empiricism
what the hell are you talking about?
b***@m.nu
2015-04-27 02:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by b***@m.nu
What you should have said is falsafiable
falsification is a logical process applied with the intent of making a
hypothesis a mathematical theorem, has nothing to do with empiricism
Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory
is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is
called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an
argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this
sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit
fraud" but "show to be false". Some philosophers argue that science
must be falsifiable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

lets make up a theroy...

lets say...all glass will break if you stare at it....

one must ask is it falsafiable? yes or no

if yes..
then you must find was to falsify it.
then you test the different ways you have falsified the hypothesis

when your hypothesis is shown to be incorrect then you drop it and
move on.

when you falsify something it really has nothing to do with math. you
can not falsify math

1+1 = 2

is it falsifiable....
no
because it is an equation it is not something that is testable

you cant say that 1 + 1 = 3 because 1 can never = more than 1
george152
2015-04-25 20:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
creating the environment for evolution,
and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
(we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
Fruit flies.
Gliding tree snakes
Semantics and a lame attempt at obfuscation, dude
2015-04-25 20:12:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by george152
Post by Dale
testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
creating the environment for evolution,
and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
(we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
Fruit flies.
Gliding tree snakes
MRSA
--
If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers
containing "***@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)

https://dizum.com/faq.html
[16] Q: One of your users is harassing me. What should I do?

A: You should probably ask them to stop or try to ignore them. If that
does not work, you might want to consider contacting an appropriate law
enforcement agency. We are unable to control what users say on Usenet, nor
are we able to determine whether harassment is taking place.

http://squte.com/user/2083/full

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's
political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it[10] but
popularized it.[11] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times
article, Phillips stated his analysis based on studies of ethnic voting:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20
percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but
Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the
Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the
South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become
Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the
blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement
with the local Democrats.[1]
WangoTango
2015-04-27 23:27:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
No, it wouldn't.
Just as I can observe other natural phenomena while being there,
evolution is very testable, has been tested, and the hallmark of any
theory it has made predictions that have proven correct.
Loading...