Evolutionry/religious nonsense

never know what a good Inquisition can do to stoke up the wheels of "Special Creation and geocentrism".

. I think they have a belief about what constitutes "evidence" that is counter to how most sciences work.Just saying that something is " undeniably evident" without reference to anything that serves even as a small example or can be seen in the field seems is all they need.

.

I assume you are excluding ID here.

Thank you for making that point though, I've been trying to make that clear for some time now. We have no scientific evidence to explain how it happened by natural causes.

That is exactly the point ID starts from. ID proponents want progress in the biological sciences to go forward because it will either prove or disprove the ID hypothesis. So yes, ID is falsifiable, it just hasn't happened so far.

When abiogenesis happens in the lab without any direct injection of infomation, abiogenesis by 'natural causes' will have been proven right and ID proven wrong.

Call me when it happens.

So-called ID is a claim. Anyone making a claim has the burden of proof. As Carl Sagan pointed out, those making extraordinary claims assume an extraordinary burden of proof. The claim that there is a design and a putative intelligence behind that design is an extraordinary claim. You call me when you've got any evidence for that.

It's a theory in spite of your wish to claim otherwise.

The theory that life arose spontaneously by natural causes (excluding any intelligent interaction) is equally extraodinary and unsupported by evidence.

Farmer is quick to add "So far" and I agree. Let the theories duke it out.

ID does make the grade as a theory in scientific terms. It is not testable, not replicable. The same applies to any claim about abiogenesis. These aren't claims, they're facts. Absent the attributes of a theory in scientific terms, ID remains a claim, and a claim only. You've got a very steep evidentiary slope to climb, and so far, you have provided zero evidence.

I dont grace it as a theory any more than I would the term "Ancient alien theorists". A theory is a scientific explanation to a phenomenon where ALL the evidence supports and NO evidence refutes. ID has no evidence to date.
Adding that its non-testable asserts the fact that it is a claim going -in and not derived as a conclusion of evidence.

I agree: ID is nonsense billed as “god’s Creation.” The Bible is filled with contradictions, errors and omissions. How can anyone rationalize all those mistakes as being the “word of god?” Many comic book stories have more credibility and facts about our existence.

It could be stated as a "hypothesis based upon belief"

I call it "blind faith."

OK, no match then. No one is willing to step into the ring with ID.

dont go patting yerself on the back. Why do you say that evo is as unfalsifiable as ID?? Thats an incorrect assertion.

Palermos explained it pretty well. Was going to put in a link to his video but can’t find it now. Here’s the gist of it.

shows you how little informed he is. All recent "dicoveries within the fossil record"
have been made via analyses and employing field "flsifiability"

viz--If such and such a species derived from species X , it must be found in an area that represents an environment representative of its derivative species and of a specific tim sequence of stratigraphy. At least 8 new genera and three new families hqve been found by paleoecologists in the last 15 years.


Anyway, what the hell is actually wrong with tripping over some findings in the field and then seeing how they fit??

I think Palermo should study severl interlaced subjcts of evo/devo.

There are more based upon pprediction and even Darwin proved developmental speciation as per biogeography for such things as sessile species such as mussels and barnacles.

Oh well, if a philosopher says so, it must be true!

NB This guy also has degrees in chemical engineering.

...however he appears to have 'moved on' in self marketable terms by positioning himself in some of the popular controversial areas of epistemology such as the relationship between concepts of 'science' and concepts of 'truth'.
Discussion of such relationships is dismissed by pragmatists like Rorty as futile...paraphrasing."Truth" is like "God", there is nothing to be said about it hence the term popular with theologians "ineffability".

Nothing at all. But the same is true for both sides, a point you don’t seem to appreciate.

There are also entire studies of "WHAT DO THESE GENES DO"? that guys like Mario Capecchi had considered in their (entirely falsifiable studies) for gene expression and gene function. Have you ever heard of KNOCKOUT MICE or KNOCKOUT GUINEA PIGS?? . Capecchi and his colleagues developed strains of mice that were specific areas of genes were "Knocked out or turned off (that required another bold look at what gene functions were). Capecchi and his guys were doing this and amazingly tallying up basic work on gene expression since the 1980's). They won a Nobel Prize in med and the use of knockout mice is now a standard means for research in genetics and evolution and its an entire area that Dr Palermo seems to ignore.

When I had my kidney cancer, I benefitted from a p53(gene) KO mouse investigation that raised the function of specific gens in determining how my stage cancer would react to all kinds of treatment. I benefitted by having my cancer excized in one swoop with matastisis being checked at the door.

The relationships between gens "turned off and turned on" have benefitted from KO mice studies. Really basic but really genius research.
We will see the de-extinction of some classes of animals due to the gene maps enables by KO animal studies.

When Venter did the mapping of the human genome, he took a bold methodology to do his and , it was based on a sttement of falsifiability of genetics and gene expression by single genes or groups .(Its common stuff today but back in the 1980's it was bold science)

Hardly Creationist, when falsifiable studies become the bases of resewrch.

I would appreciate it IF the "Other side" actually did anything. Can you name some basic research that say (Discovery Institute) has funded that fulfills your orldview?

I recall Steve Austen and his sneaking into the GSA annual conference in LAs Vegas about 10 yeasr ago. He sponsored a "field trip" that was supposed to turn the stratigraphic sequence dating techniques "On their ear". He presented the Grand Canyon as an xample of a Worldwide Flood deposit. His entire sequence was interlayred by sequences of desert cross bedded sand duns that any beginning student, competent in stratigraphic methodology , could not only use falsification techniques (IF A REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROLLED THESE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS--these sediments should b composed of entirely those that are water deposited and, specifically, fluvial in nature (including deposits of coals that represent dam deposits of ancient lumber ).
Well some grad students did take his paper apart and reported back to the Discovery Institute (who sponsors Dr Austen ever since he became a Fundamental Christian). They clearly howed that Austens dposits in the Grand Canyon contained many hiatuses (evidence of non water erosion), sand dunes(evidence of desert windblown deposits) and palludal (swamp nd mud flat deposits that were surrounded byn unconformities that represent normal land masses (sorta like a continent).

Ill be anticipating hering about some research that i in areas I hope Im competent in. If it areas of computer tech as an example, Ill hqve to punt and send info to som friends who have developed such apps as RockLogger (tm) .

PS, Palermo has, in his report and talk, been contracted by the Discovery Institute. You seem to state that your methods are purely scientific yet it seems you draw heavily from their playbook.

Not that theres anything wrong with iolating a point of actual research but Im going to have to disagree heavily with Palermos' view that science and evolution studies are on the same level as Creationism. You understand that that approach is almost like present day politics ,where you Accuse the other side of lying and doing activities that you are already doing)

If we dint have philosophers telling us what we need to do, wed never have figured out how to work a cell phone.