Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

gilbo12345

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    7,028
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    231

Everything posted by gilbo12345

  1. Hello all, when I tried to get to the forum from a google search result I was redirected to this site. http://filestore321.com/download.php?id=b1eed2ed This isn't the first time its happened, and I've noticed it happens when I click on a search result leading to the forum main menu. I was able to enter the forum after re-entering the link from a new webpage, (the site above doesn't allow you to move back out of it). I hope this helps.
  2. gilbo12345

    Polystrate Trees

    I am creating a new thread as was requested by Bill Ludlow. I am assuming that he will respond here since it was his request to make a new thread for this subject. So for those who don't see what these pictures demonstrate, they are showing fossilized trees that span multiple strata. The irony is that these strata are (apparently) "millions" of years old. However if that was the case then how could the trees become fossilized due to spending "millions" of years above ground and therefore be subject to rot and decay. In order for these tree fossils to form they need to be covered by the layers in a short span of time. In fact the vertical position of the trees can also attest to this since dead trees fall, over time, hence if a tree is able to exist for "millions" of years without decay it would surely have fallen over and thus these vertical positions would not occur. This ultimately contradicts the Old Earth interpretation of the age of the Earth and thus can be used as evidence against such a position.
  3. gilbo12345

    Atheists: Is Murder Acceptable With You?

    The fact that Goku is on this forum is a promising sign
  4. gilbo12345

    Darwin's Glaring Omission

    Irrelevant, unless you're wishing to invoke the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Educated guesswork.. Sounds like an oxymoron to me, a guess is a guess no matter how educated one might be Considering the fact that there is no verified process by which abiogenesis could have occurred once; I think it is grossly negligent or naïve for "scientists" to assume that the process could happen multiple times and in different stages of intense Earth conditions. Until they can support their claims the numbers don't mean much to me, (and I assume to anyone else either). Thanks
  5. gilbo12345

    Darwin's Glaring Omission

    Would it necessarily be so coincidental? In a fluid resource-rich environment a molecule that by virtue of its chemical composition tended toward forming chains...if such chains broke would that not be some form of self-replication? And if more than one self-replicating molecule emerged would not the survival and propagation of the more robust be a form of natural selection? Ah and yet you are missing one of the issues with Chemistry. Chirality. Compounds are chiral in that they have "left" and "right" handed forms. DNA, proteins and RNA are all made out of one type of chiral form. Yet compounds exist as a 50-50 mix of "left" and "right", adding the wrong type would destroy the continuity of the chain. So how could such compounds form naturally when there is a 50% chance of failure, (which compounds as more of the correct type is used up). How in the world can they possibly know that?... If those multiple first utterances of life were destroyed wouldn't there be no evidence? Or is this a case of "scientists" making claims to sound more important?
  6. gilbo12345

    Defining "transitional"

    Sorry Mike, I'll try and provide some more insights for you
  7. gilbo12345

    Defining "transitional"

    Thanks Piasan. I've been away for too long. Its great to be back again.
  8. gilbo12345

    Defining "transitional"

    Hey Mike I'd add -that there needs to be a "line of transition" demonstrating the changes from one organism to the other, (this would necessarily require many stages) - the fossils of all the trillions of failed "attempts" by evolution.
  9. I think it's quite funny how many evolutionists deem themselves as the scientific elite, yet when its all said and done their arguments and "evidence" is mere assumptions. Here is a quote of a post I made in the Darwin's Evidence thread. Do evolutionists really think that simply assuming culminating change over time is scientific. Or is all the talk of being superior scientifically just a facade.
  10. gilbo12345

    Misleading Whale Exhibit - Update

    I'd like to see the evidence that supports this claim of humans having the genes to develop a fully functional tail, (developing a coccyx isn't a tail Goku). Missing the point.... Yet you used your intelligence to utilise the rock as a paper weight.... Hence intelligence is STILL required when there is a design involved... (There is no way for you to dodge this fact since a design by definition denotes the use of intelligence to account for said design). Actually its not a good thing since you claimed human tail, which is what you had confused the Coccyx for... The coccyx is not a tail, you need to understand that Goku. I know how much you want it to be a tail, your emotional need for evolution to be true, but you need to come to grips with reality and understand that the coccyx is simply a part of the spine and thus is not a tail. You stated.... "I would say that the fact that we have the genes for a tail, that we have a tail as an embryo, and that some people are born with a tail is more than some superficial consistent evidence for ToE, but is strong evidence in favor of it." and again "The spine may develop early, but a human embryo has extra vertebrae that are then eaten away by the body later. The tail is essentially an extension of the spine, so when a human embryo has an extension of the spine (extra vertebrae) what logical reason is there to say it only has the appearance of a tail rather than being a tail or the beginnings of a tail since it is later phased out?" Which IMPLIES recapitulation, seriously did you not read what I wrote, or do you not understand what recapitulation is? Here is what recapitulation is The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism—often expressed in Ernst Haeckel's phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"—is a largely discredited biological hypothesis that in developing from embryo to adult, animals go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory You believe that humans "evolved" from bacteria to fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals to humans. These animals mostly had tails, (and fish had gills). Now when you are talking about embryos having tails and gill slits then you ARE implying or even discussing recapitulation. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. If its a part of the spine, then it isn't a "tail".. tail 1 (tÄl) n. 1. The posterior part of an animal, especially when elongated and extending beyond the trunk or main part of the body. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tail Does the Coccyx extend beyond the trunk of the body?... No.... So its merely a part of the spine. You need to stop playing word games Goku, this may work in an atheist-centred blog or something but you're not going to fool anyone here. Which is Gokuese for 'I know that the coccyx is not a tail, but I am just going to call it one because I have an emotional investment in evolution'. And so begins the evolution evidence merry-go-round... When one piece is debunked on a thread, evolutionists point to something else, yet when that gets debunked on a different thread then they'll point to the evidence that was debunked in the previous thread... Way to dodge my point. Actually I was discussing your ability to call out something as "strong evidence"... Since if you think this is "strong evidence" and it is debunked... which it has been... Then your reliability to determine what is "strong evidence" would be called in to question, yes? Some advice, play your cards close to your chest. Don't be like other evolutionists and try and speak out with undue confidence. As Adam would say. Words they mean things. Funny how words requiring intelligence (like engineering) gets used when discussing nature and biological function... Yet then this is believed to have been caused by a blind, un-thinking, un-engineering, un-creating process. Did I say it was synonymous? (Don't put words in my mouth). I was asking you for a demonstration of this process you claim that occurred... How do you know that that methodology was used by nature unless you have some examples within nature to demonstrate?... Or was this you making a statement of faith Its not just distance but also duplication and entanglement of the artery around the vein. IF this is so simple for evolution, (not sure how you can possibly know that), then can you do as I asked and provide a demonstration of evolution designing this in action. Um... No... Since as I said, genetic algorithms are a product of human intelligence and thus cannot be a "proof of concept" for natural phenomena... IF you want evidence for nature, then go TEST nature. Which is the big issue for gradualism and why irreducible complexity was invented to attempt to solve that problem. Just a question, what viability was there for cells to shift from a single celled organism (the most efficient organism known to humankind), to a multi-celled organism (inefficient and thus reduces fitness). Did I say that equations are not blind or were sentient? Or are you attempting to put words in my mouth.... (Why do you keep doing this? It only makes you look dishonest...) Which is what I said.... The algorithms are a product of human thinking, not evolution. Wrong.... Nature doesn't have the intelligence or sentience required to use algorithms... All you are doing is spouting airy rhetoric. Now I must ask you, do you understand that your "blind and unthinking" process is actually BLIND and UNTHINKING? Since how can you claim that nature uses genetic algorithms with the understanding that nature isn't sentient? Its called the Coccyx not "the tail"... Again stop playing word games. Again, if its a part of the spine then why not call it "the spine"? Why create a differentiation when there is none? And since the coccyx IS a section of the spine, you've just contradicted your own claims... So embryos have "tails" which then actually develop into the spine.... I think its a bit anal to be calling shots on organism parts when the organism is still in development. The fact that the "tail" of the embryo develops into the spine demonstrates that it wasn't actually a tail after all. Also still waiting for your examples of humans having tails today.... (I've already seen them a few years ago, but am curious as to what argument attempt you'll use with them).
  11. gilbo12345

    200,000 Convert To Christianity

    Certainly, as someone who used to be forceful in attempting to convert, I've seen first-hand how doing such can actually push people away from God.
  12. gilbo12345

    Kent H*vind Released

    I think Mark may have been pointing to "Obama's" attempt to weaponize the IRS against right-wing groups.
  13. gilbo12345

    Misleading Whale Exhibit - Update

    When an "explanation" is being assumed as an explanation that does make it an assumption Goku. You can't just wish this fact away because you don't like it... And just how does this make your assuming "evolution did it" not an assumption? Does you assuming that an old Earth is a given somehow make your assumptions about evolution valid? Not sure how you think this is logical?!? Well since the coccyx (not tail) performs a function then..... it is a part of a design... If you believe that the coccyx (not tail) is merely an evolutionary left-over then I offer to pay for you to have yours surgically removed. Perhaps consider the fact that the coccyx (not tail), is an anchor for important muscles pertaining to motion.... Hmmm so if it does serve a purpose, then on what basis are you assuming that its merely an evolutionary left-over from ancestry?... You may find this link educational http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_function_of_the_coccyx?#slide=2 Wonder no more since you made an answer in the very post you ask this question... "I would say that the fact that we have the genes for a tail, that we have a tail as an embryo, and that some people are born with a tail is more than some superficial consistent evidence for ToE, but is strong evidence in favor of it." and again "The spine may develop early, but a human embryo has extra vertebrae that are then eaten away by the body later. The tail is essentially an extension of the spine, so when a human embryo has an extension of the spine (extra vertebrae) what logical reason is there to say it only has the appearance of a tail rather than being a tail or the beginnings of a tail since it is later phased out?" What you call "tail" in an embryo I call "developing spine".... I'd love to see examples of people being born with "tails"... Keep in mind, I remember someone attempting to pull this a few years ago... But before I go into that I would ask you to admit something. IF you claim that these are "strong evidence" in favour of evolution, then if said "strong evidence" gets quashed then wouldn't that A- Make evolution debunked in terms of this "strong evidence" of yours. B- Make your claims of "strong evidence" mean very little in terms of actual evidence or something of substance. Oh come off it Goku, you just did the same thing with "tails" in embryos... Also folds of skin =/= gill slits... There are no gills in human embryos. Wrong. The term "gill slit" is false and misleading. There are no "gill slits" in an embryo since a slit is an opening by definition. (I suggest you read the definition... here http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slit) Folds of skin are not openings aka slits. Therefore an embryo contains NO GILL SLITS, by definition... Because "Engineering" itself requires planning and intelligence... Evolution has no plan or intelligence, therefore is unable to engineer anything. I just love it how evolutionists write with over-reaching confidence.. Perhaps you'd care to demonstrate the process that was "more or less guaranteed" to demonstrate the engineering solution that is the penguins foot and arterial design. http://blogs.britannica.com/2011/01/penguin-feet-avoiding-frostbite-in-the-antarctic/ Firstly so you think that there being genetic algorithms is evidence for evolution... a blind.. unthinking... process being able to plan and engineer creations?.. Seriously... Perhaps you should EXPLAIN how your said evidence is actual evidence for what you are claiming. Secondly where do you think these "genetic algorithms" come from?.... HUMAN INGENUITY, (aka intelligence)..... So why not call it "the spine" instead of redefining it as a "tail"?
  14. Simplistically yes. In reality no. At least Christians have a causal agent for the creation of life. Atheists believe it all just "happened naturally", despite being unable to demonstrate a viable natural process nor demonstrate how the natural laws and prerogatives (chirality, thermodynamics) which contradict abiogenesis are overcome. Which is worse than magic since at least with magic you have a causal agent, the magician; you'd have us believe something happened naturally despite it defying nature and having no natural process.... Therefore the Christian position is much more logical and tenable than the atheist one...
  15. Which are all examples of "looking".... These I agree with, however with that said cause and effect will be difficult to determine. If that is the case then I retract the hubris statement.
  16. Where do you think the elements / minerals / compounds for abiogenesis came from?..... Rock.... So you do believe in mud becoming people.
  17. I haven't read the study, (using phone internet), but from what I have read it seems to me like an example in hubris. Simply because the mice with the deleted non-coding regions didn't look different... Doesn't mean that the non-coding region is junk. Indeed, their "study" hinges on assuming that the non-coding regions would demonstrate a physical difference in the mice... Surely these scientists (and I use that term loosely), know that DNA codes for more than just physical appearance... Surely...
  18. .... Show me a paper / article discussing the validity of evolution that DOESN'T presuppose that evolution is real or is a "fact".... What do you think Darwin did? Did he not presuppose? Or did Darwin conduct 150 years of research BEFORE he wrote his book?... (Funny since he died when he was 73, and the fact that he had zero training in science and scientific methods, what-so-ever). What "research" was conducted? (And before you do I don't want articles that are based on the presumption that "evolution is true", since that would be proving Mark, Gneiss Girl and myself correct). Perhaps you can answer this with your examples of "research"... A scientific hypothesis is created from an observation, and is then tested via experimentation. Observation- Similarities in fossils. Hypothesis- Evolution was the cause of similarities. Experiment- ???? Now what experimentation, or research, was conducted to determine that evolution was indeed the cause of similarities in fossils? If you can't answer this simple question then on what basis can you claim "Evolution is not presupposed. It has been concluded after 150 years of research."
  19. gilbo12345

    Misleading Whale Exhibit - Update

    That requires knowledge of what the "original" function was... Which itself would require belief in evolution, in order to believe that a change in function had occurred away from the "original" function.... Hence "vestigial organs" are based on believing evolution is true.... Yet "vestigial organs" are deemed evidence for evolution... Yet another case where the "evidence" for evolution turns out to be circular reasoning. Evolutionists aren't you tired of your "evidence" being circular reasoning? I mean if it were me I'd have sought the truth of the matter, not just keep believing something that is based on logical fallacies.
  20. gilbo12345

    Changing Races

    I'm glad you were able to get what you wanted. Sadly there are many who won't accept the scientific evidence against races, since its one of the pillars of the identity politics that are used by SJWs and the regressive left, to either push an agenda or silence a difference in opinion. In fact there has been ads on tv here in Australia for a show about 3 Aussie celebrities who (apparently) trace their ancestry over time. In the ad one of them talks about having "other race's" genetics.
  21. gilbo12345

    Is Judgement At Hand?

    Hello all just wondering if this video is evidence for the following passage in Isaiah. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQGNvKRWvig 20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight. I saw this mentioned in the comments section of the video and it has me thinking. Also feel free to discuss these worrying trends of how bad things are being deemed "good" by the left and political correctness.
  22. gilbo12345

    Is Judgement At Hand?

    I'd like to hear from everyone, including the evolutionists / atheists regarding the video in the OP. Could you please state whether you agree with whether we should be proud of paedophiles...
  23. gilbo12345

    I'm Not A Yec (But Obviously I Am An Ec)

    As someone who has 1 and a half modes of communication, "arguing" and "kinda arguing" I feel that this may be due to becoming somewhat jaded over the years discussing these issues. That is my excuse anyway And I don't mean any disrespect to anyone, just attempting to provide a possible cause.
  24. gilbo12345

    Assuming Change Over Time

    To my understanding there has been no study of non-coding regions, its always been a single gene at a time... (Which provide separate phylogenetic trees ). However there may have been some progress in the field that I don't know about, I happily admit that I am not all-knowing. I think, (and this is my guess too) that due to the amount of genetic information within non-coding regions; I hypothesise (because I don't know for sure) that most of the differences between people are found there; and how coding genes actually need to be the same in order to produce the same protein for use; I think there would be much less similarity within non-coding regions than coding regions. Oh certainly, if the numbers don't add up, they don't add up. I'm not for supporting things that contradict, I thought that was the evolutionist's position (joke) Certainly. Everyone is biased, (even me), so I can't expect one side of the issue to be entirely blameless.
  25. gilbo12345

    Assuming Change Over Time

    So this is your "response" for all the points of my post that you cut out... 1- Any mention to how you were wrong about controlled experiments requiring more interpretation and observational studies needing little / none? 2- Did I say it wouldn't be natural? "With some experience, you can determine the likely cause(s), based entirely on the application of methological naturalism. No controlled experiment is required, or is even possible in this context."- Nandos How does "the application of methodological naturalism" enable you to conduct science without experimentation? Consider that methodological naturalism is the belief that all is natural applied to the scientific method... So how is this belief applied to enable you to do science without experimentation? 3- So you're "doubling down" on your strawman, and thus not going to man up and admit to your fallacious arguments... I called it. "Where have I discussed controlled experiment specifically?... Once again you are attacking strawmen. I think its really dishonest of you to conflate my "experiments" with only controlled experiments, when I never made such a statement on this thread... It demonstrates the "measure of the man". Are you going to man up and admit to your dishonesty or will you try and worm your way out of admitting you've been creating strawmen? However how can you claim that digging up a soil sample and testing it in a lab, (form microbiological content and nutrients) is NOT a controlled experiment?" 4- digging up a soil sample and testing it in a lab, (form microbiological content and nutrients) is NOT a controlled experiment? What do you think "testing it in a lab" entails.... (in reference to your claims that this was a "natural experiment") 5- Also you have no means to test causation since confounding factors can affect your results. So you admit that your observational study is unable to test causation... That is exactly what I have been trying to teach you for the last few posts... Also you admit that you need to control something in order to determine causation... Thus the requirement of controlled experiments to determine causation... 6- (in reference to your continued claim that measuring soil nutrients is an "observation") Did I say it was a controlled experiment?... Still doubling down on your strawman I see... Where do you think the measurements will be made? IN A LAB, IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT... Is this what you consider an "observational study"? However consider the fact that an observational study forbids input from the observer, (think Star Trek and how they treat primitive cultures / races). Therefore measuring variables cannot be considered an "observational study"... "Cohort, cross sectional, and case-control studies are often referred to as observational studies because the investigator simply observes. No interventions are carried out by the investigator." http://emj.bmj.com/c.../1/54.full.html In fact "measuring data" is included in controlled experiments, field studies and (to a much lesser extent) natural experiments... Ergo there is no sense in claiming that taking measurements are an "observational study" since you'd also be claiming that doing so within an experiment is also an "observational study"... Which makes no sense since you'd be claiming that you conduct a natural experiment within a controlled experiment.... This isn't Inception Nandos... (natural experiment = observational study). How about you call "taking measurements".... "taking measurements"... Call things by what they are, not what you want them to be. 7- (in reference to you admitting that observation doesn't allow you to determine the roles of variables... in other words causation) Ah so simply measuring something cannot determine causation... Exactly what I've been trying to teach you!... Are you starting to listen?... Wouldn't that be a "Kodak Moment"! Also, its not infer... its assume. 8- (in reference to you claiming that observations can determine causation) You just admitted TWICE that since you cannot control anything you cannot determine causation "I cannot claim to have investigated the effect of light on tree growth, because I have no level of control on the light that is there." "since you have not taken any steps to control the level of nutrients, you can only infer the role they might have." "Observational research (or field research) is a type of correlational (i.e., non-experimental) research in which a researcher observes ongoing behaviour." http://atlasti.com/o...ional-research/ Ever heard of the statement, correlation cannot determine causation? 9- (in reference to you claiming that because observations can refute a hypothesis, that means it can be used to support one too) This is correct. However, refuting hypotheses isn't determining causation... Sooooo.... Yeah... So your argument is because observations can do X, that means they can also do Y...???!!!!??? Are you kidding me? Etc... Plenty more but can't be bothered to post them all. Ummm this has nothing to do with observational studies... Oh yeah you chose to ignore this.. "However consider the fact that an observational study forbids input from the observer, (think Star Trek and how they treat primitive cultures / races). Therefore measuring variables cannot be considered an "observational study"... "Cohort, cross sectional, and case-control studies are often referred to as observational studies because the investigator simply observes. No interventions are carried out by the investigator." http://emj.bmj.com/c.../1/54.full.html In fact "measuring data" is included in controlled experiments, field studies and (to a much lesser extent) natural experiments... Ergo there is no sense in claiming that taking measurements are an "observational study" since you'd also be claiming that doing so within an experiment is also an "observational study"... Which makes no sense since you'd be claiming that you conduct a natural experiment within a controlled experiment.... This isn't Inception Nandos... (natural experiment = observational study). How about you call "taking measurements".... "taking measurements"... Call things by what they are, not what you want them to be." Once again you are switching between the terms observation, observational study and observational science... Oh yeah you ignored this, Natural experiments share some features with randomized experiments, but there are key differences that give rise to both inferential and conceptual problems that are often overlooked. In this type of experiment, it is often not immediately obvious which groups are comparable, leading researchers to often compare the wrong groups. Moreover, the valid comparison may not estimate the speciï¬c causal effect in which researchers are interested, but some other causal effect instead. Although these issues are critical in any research design, they are more pressing in a natural experiment where, by deï¬nition, the assignment of subjects to groups is outside the control of the researcher. As discussed later, arbitrary events or interventions are appealing to study because they may provide a useful source of variation, but they often require additional assumptions to allow for the comparisons that researchers want to make. Researchers often fail to realize that these conceptual problems exist and consequently fail to explicitly state the additional assumptions required, to use the best design for their substantive question, or to realize that they are no longer answering the causal question they began with. sekhon.berkeley.edu/papers/SekhonTitiunik.pdf · And this... You just admitted TWICE that since you cannot control anything you cannot determine causation "I cannot claim to have investigated the effect of light on tree growth, because I have no level of control on the light that is there." "since you have not taken any steps to control the level of nutrients, you can only infer the role they might have." "Observational research (or field research) is a type of correlational (i.e., non-experimental) research in which a researcher observes ongoing behaviour." http://atlasti.com/o...ional-research/ Ever heard of the statement, correlation cannot determine causation? And this... Again... Perhaps you should READ and address my arguments... Rather than just ignoring them "A natural experiment / observational study is deemed a pseudo-experiment. This is because unlike a controlled experiment there is no independent variable nor are there any controls. Its simply observing nature... Now how does one determine causation from mere observation? You can't... The reason why is because there is literally no way to know which variable was the cause of what you observe... Perhaps there is an unknown or unseen variable, (microbiological agents?). Therefore to determine a "cause" from an observational study would really be based on interpretation... Its how you interpret your observations... THIS is the biggest problem I've seen from the atheists that visit here. They believe that simply observing something allows them to ASSUME what caused the observation..." "A confounding variable is a variable, other than the independent variable that you're interested in, that may affect the dependent variable. This can lead to erroneous conclusions about the relationship between the independent and dependent variables." http://www.biostatha...onfounding.html So I call you out on your strawman... And in response you shift to a completely different issue.... Don't look now, your intellectual dishonesty is showing. Actually what I said is that probablility isn't used IN experiments... and it isn't... Statistical analysis of the results, AFTER THE EXPERIMENT to determine whether the results are statistically significant is not a part of the experiment itself... So I was correct. However you too were correct in that statistics is used AFTER the experiment to confirm whether the results are statistically significant. My response was due to my misunderstanding that you were claiming that statistics are used IN an experiment, (which you didn't claim). So I am happy to admit when I have made a mistake... Unlike some people..... Hmmm... Provide some examples of experiments that support evolution..... Then I can't make that claim. Ok so I say that only experiments establish cause and effect.... I have provided examples.... Not sure which though... (I did ask you how an observation of a plant growing provides causation for that growth). ... So you deem macro-evolution within the category of experiments?... Now considering that you have failed to provide any examples of experiments that support macro-evolution... It would seem that you are completely wrong, and thus... again... don't know what you are talking about. And you then admit that these are under the definition of experiments or experimentation... So I was right then... You don't get to just say that macro-evolution is supported by experiment... Only providing examples will do that for you. I notice you still haven't bothered to read and understand my reply... Ah the old failsafe... If it seems you're failing a debate, side-track the topic by asking for definitions. Considering that we've been discussing experiments for a few pages, perhaps you should have asked this question at the START of the topic... Otherwise I am forced to interpret this as an attempt to side-track the topic. Also consider the fact that I have provided explanations of the 3 types of experiments in my last reply... So to ask me for these definitions again is stupid. Again I never said it was... Seriously go buy some glasses this is the third post I have had to expose your strawman attempt multiple times..... All I have said is that it is NOT AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY... Please try and comprehend this. Actually I had it right... "Correlation doesn't determine causation".... "Correlation does not imply causation is a quip that events or statistics that happen to coincide with each other are not necessarily causally related. The reality is that cause and effect can be indirect and due to a third factor known as a confounding variable, or entirely coincidental and random. The assumption of causation is false when the only evidence available is simple correlation. To prove causation, a controlled experiment must be performed." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation To prove causation, a controlled experiment must be performed. Again you don't know what you are talking about... Even when you are starting falsification in the face you STILL cling to the absurd notion that somehow simply observing something lets you determine causation. What if the actual cause is something you cannot observe?... (like a specific bacterial compound). But hey don't take my word for it, I know you won't listen to a silly Creationist.. Just listen to these other idiots who agree with me... "Correlation does not imply causation is a quip that events or statistics that happen to coincide with each other are not necessarily causally related. The reality is that cause and effect can be indirect and due to a third factor known as a confounding variable, or entirely coincidental and random. The assumption of causation is false when the only evidence available is simple correlation. To prove causation, a controlled experiment must be performed." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation In general, we should all be wary of our own bias: we like explanations. The media often concludes a causal relationship among correlated observances when causality was not even considered by the study itself. Without clear reasons to accept causality, we should only accept the existence of a correlation. Two events occurring in close proximity does not imply that one caused the other, even if it seems to makes perfect sense. http://www.stats.org/causation-vs-correlation/ Nandos who is discussing impacts? And what does this have to do with belief in methodological naturalism... It seems as if you are attempting to dig yourself out of the grave you created for your argument... Answer the question I asked you. So how is this belief, (the belief that all is natural), is applied to enable you to do science without experimentation? I find it funny that you are now contradicting what you stated previously... You just admitted TWICE that since you cannot control anything you cannot determine causation "I cannot claim to have investigated the effect of light on tree growth, because I have no level of control on the light that is there." "since you have not taken any steps to control the level of nutrients, you can only infer the role they might have." "Observational research (or field research) is a type of correlational (i.e., non-experimental) research in which a researcher observes ongoing behaviour." http://atlasti.com/o...ional-research/ Ever heard of the statement, correlation cannot determine causation?
×

Important Information

Our Terms