altered their environment to the point of allowing them to live pretty much anywhere on or in the Earth.
That'd be the green plants, you know, the ones that released huge quantities of a poisonous gas, destroying 98% of life on earth.
Humans are pathetic by comparison.
Awesome post! Please allow me to elaborate for those that didn't get it.
Oxygen IS pollution produced by photosynthesizing organisms. Before plants, the earths atmosphere was radically different than it is today. There was almost no free oxygen in our atmosphere. Once life began to photosynthesize for energy, oxygen was released as a byproduct of that process, just as CO2 is a byproduct of our respiration. Oxygen is actually plant pollution. That pollution killed off nearly all of the early life on earth, radically changed the climate, and gave rise to what we have today.
So it appears that releasing gas that fundamentally changes the atmosphere is a completely natural, 100% organic function. If anything, by driving SUV's we are actually restoring our planet to it's natural, original condition before photosynthesis came along and screwed it all up!
I agree that cbhacking made an excellent post. He did a great job of explaining how the evolutionary model works. But in response to my question, he offers the following:
I understand enough basic genetics to know that even with genetic evidence it's non-trivial to trace direct ancestry, and without it the task is nearly hopeless.
In other words, "it's hard". I agree, it's very hard.
He also used the donkey and horse as evidence for evolution. However, I said in my first post that we can point to several examples of species that share a common ancestor, but we have never found that ancestor. dbhacking gave an example of my point, and then said that we don't have any true record of that ancestral species because... it's hard. Even if we were to find a common ancestor for the donkey and the horse, it would be hard to prove that it was truly the ancestor of both the donkey and horse.
I'll take it a step further. Neanderthal and humans lived side by side, they were able to interbreed and their offspring was fertile, yet they were different species. Neanderthal either went extinct by dying off being bred into modern day humans. We have found Neanderthal fossils, even some Neanderthal DNA, and we have proven that Neanderthals were not a direct ancestor to homo sapiens, but, like we've heard so often before, we share a common ancestor. Like I said in my original post, "all species share a common ancestor" if you go back far enough.
I offer a possible explanation as to why it's so hard to find fossils of ancestral species. It considers that evolution happens in spurts. Basically, a species established in a stable environment will not evolve fast enough to detect, even over a biological timeline. But once that environment changes, the evolutionary pace quickens to adapt to the new environment. One species would evolve into many competing for the same resources. Those that are best adapted to the new environment survive and continue to evolve. It is possible that more than one set of adaptions will be successful, especially if a population is divided. This could produce "evolutionary cousins" like the horse and donkey, but the species that evolved into both of them would not have survived long enough to leave much of a fossil record. Species living during this evolutionary spurt would be the ancestral species we are looking for, but since the changes is so rapid, no distinct species is around long enough to leave a fossil record that is easy to find.
And that is my point. I do not "object" to evolution. I am bringing up the point that if you even ask a question about evolution or show where evidence is missing, I get ridiculed. Most religions allow for more questioning over the existence of God than pseudo-scientists allow for evolution.
Even if we never found a single fossil, ever, the evidence for evolution would be robust - There's biogeography, there's genetics, there's morphometics, there's observed natural selection in the modern world, and so on.
Right! I agree and even said as much. TFS is about finding the "missing link". Well, no it's not. The missing link is that elusive species A that evolved into species B. You said yourself that we have not found it when you said, "Even if we never found a single fossil..." meaning that we have not found that single fossil.
But don't you think it's odd that we haven't found it? There are about 10 million known species alive today. We estimate that there are about 100 million species total. Since most of these species didn't exist 60 million years ago, mathematically, that's approximately 1.6 NEW species a year. Even if we only know about 10% of species, shouldn't we find 1-2 NEW species every 10 years? (Of course, NEW means that it didn't exist last year... not NEW as in it's been around but we just found it). So far, in the past thousand years or so, we have cataloged zero newly evolved species.
Now, again, I'm not saying evolution is false. And you can stop trying to convince me that's it true because you are preaching to the choir, so to speak. But do you really think it's scientifically valid to ridicule those that bring up facts that even you yourself confirm? Where in the scientific method is it valid to throw out data, or lack thereof, that doesn't fit your model? Maybe the model needs to be refined a bit (or is it "laughable" to even suggest such heresy?)
Here's a valid model that would explain why missing links remain missing: Evolution happens in spurts after radical environmental change, but slows to a stand still in a stable environment. During these "spurt" periods, an evolutionary parent may go extinct rather quickly, not leaving much in the way of fossil evidence (of course, by extinct, I mean evolved to the point of a new species). Once evolution produces a species that is successful, evolution stops until that species is no longer successful, say, due to a change in the local environment. For example, the special ancestors of elephants may have evolved fairly rapidly to adapt to a changing environment until it because successful in the form we see elephants today. None of those evolutionary steps on the way to becoming an elephant lasted long enough to produce enough fossils to be found. Since we only know of 10% of living species, our knowledge of extinct ones are exponentially smaller and finding fossils from a species that was short lived is next to impossible.
But rather than bring up a logical argument like that one, your response was "Your objection is laughable." The most awesome part is when you railed against religion for its inability to have an open mind or accept new ideas. That's rich!
And I fully agree that there is a ton of evidence to support evolution, including evidence that shows that two separate species share a common ancestor. However, and this is my point, we have no record that species at all. We have no record of any parental species whatsoever.
It's like the parent said: "You've shown me two of your cousins, five of your brothers, three of your sisters, two uncles, and a niece. But you can't show me your mother or father, so clearly you were miracled into existence."
First, I never assumed we were "miracled into existence". Next, bad example. Even if we never met our own parents, we can assume we have them because everyone else has parents, and we've actually met some of them. We've even seen kids being born to parents. So it's actual parents are not required to prove that we have them. Now what we had never seen anyone's parents and no record or memories of them ever existing?
It's rather irrelevant, anyway. Let me rephrase your complaint:
"You've shown me two of your cousins, five of your brothers, three of your sisters, two uncles, and a niece. But you can't show me your mother or father, so clearly you were miracled into existence."
Yep. Makes perfect sense.
Congratulations! You have effectively argued against my example. Now, how about you take a whack at my point.
Let me keep you from having to scroll up:
Actually, they just want a fossil that we can point to and say, "This species evolved into that species." For example we keep finding primate fossils that are very close relatives to man. Unfortunately, we have never found a fossil that is a direct ancestor of man. All we can say is that man and whatever fossil shared a common ancestor. Well, no kidding! All animals share a common ancestor, even if was microscopic and swam in some muddy pool. For that matter, we have not found a fossil or even a species that is a direct ancestor to any other species.
Seriously, we've evolved from field rats to every mammal on the planet in a very short 65 million years. We have discovered millions of species through fossils, and yet, you can not point to a single animal, living or extinct, and say that it evolved into this other different species over here, living of extinct. Man has only roamed the planet for roughly 200,000 years. This article is about a fossil that is 230,000,000 years old. So we can find the fossils of a dinosaurs that lived 230 million years old, but we can not find a single fossil from just 200,000 years ago?
And forget man. You're thinking small. How about we broaden the search? Surely, of all the species that have ever existed, and all the species that are STILL EVOLVING TODAY, you would think that we could find one species somewhere that is a direct ancestor of another.
And again, since you're reading comprehension is obviously weak, I never said that the the lack of this evidence is proof that evolution is false. I said that this is a pretty big fucking piece of evidence that we have not found YET and if I even bring it up, I'm instantly ridiculed. It's almost as if I walked into a %place-of-worship% and started saying that %Deity% doesn't exist.
Do you see what I did there? You take it upon faith that an ancestral species exists for all species and if anyone brings it up, you act as if someone is questioning your faith.
Sorry, pet hate. Also, nobody's telling you that you can't question it. What you actually can't do is make shit up that seems to be a hole (when it isn't), tell your followers that this proves evolution is all lies, exclaim that as a result it is now 100% certain that god did it, and then (and this is the bit that gets people like me really upset) demand to use my tax money to spread your dumbass beliefs to everyone else's children.
DING-DING-DING-DING!!! We have a winner! This is EXACTLY what I was talking about when I said "I just get really offended when someone tells me I can't bring up questions about it." See, if I question it, some kind of ignorant, Bible thumpin' bumpkin that is using ignorance to prove the existence of God.
You are no different that the person you are trying to pain me as. Except, rather than "make shit up that seems to be a hole (when it isn't)," you make shit up that seems to be my argument, when it isn't.
What could possibly go wrong with accellerating brain function in rats.
I for one welcome our new super intelligent rat overlords.
Don't worry, it may not have accelerated brain function. It was probably just the rats saying, "Holy F*CK! I better learn this trick so the guy in white coat can stop shocking the sh*t out of my skull!"
In the ongoing "discussion" with the creationists, it has occasionally been pointed out that whenever a biologist finds a fossil that fills in a gap in the fossil record, one result is to replace the one gap with two gaps. Thus, no such discovery can ever persuade the creationists; it just adds to their list of known gaps in the fossil record To them, evolutionary theory can't be ready for prime time until all the fossil gaps are filled in. They don't acknowledge the patterns that biologists find in the (admittedly very sketchy) fossil record.
Actually, they just want a fossil that we can point to and say, "This species evolved into that species." For example we keep finding primate fossils that are very close relatives to man. Unfortunately, we have never found a fossil that is a direct ancestor of man. All we can say is that man and whatever fossil shared a common ancestor. Well, no kidding! All animals share a common ancestor, even if was microscopic and swam in some muddy pool. For that matter, we have not found a fossil or even a species that is a direct ancestor to any other species.
That is my problem with evolution. That's not to say I don't believe evolution. I just get really offended when someone tells me I can bring up questions about it. I also get offended when people say that I don't believe evolution because of religion. Yes, I'm a Christian, but my faith is in no way threatened by evolution.
And there is the ol' 404 error, but that's a link for another/. story.
If plans in the same area will be able to produce more bio-mass per squared meter, then the soil will be deprived of nitrogen and other nutrients faster, accelerating the process of desertification
Many legumes form a symbiotic relationship with a microorganism in the soil that will capture nitrogen from the atmosphere and make it available to the plant. Look up "Nitrogen Fixation". This is one of the benefits of three sisters farming, where farmers plant beans with other crops such as corn and squash.
If we could engineer this into other plants, it would eliminate the need to add nitrogen fertilizers to the soil. In the mean time, we could simply grow beans in off seasons to replenish the nitrogen in the soil. Better yet, we could start our research from bean plants. Growing a crop of soybeans or peanuts, harvesting the seed for food and using the rest of plant for bio fuel. No ammonium nitrate required.
I have my doubts on whether the foodcrisis can be solved by technical means.
The food crisis HAS been solved by technical means. Or at least it has so far. The problem is that organisms tend to reproduce to the point where the resources will support them. In other words, we make more food to feed more people, who make more people, so we need more food for the people, who make more people....
My point is, however, that there is no way we could feed 6 billion people on 1700's agricultural technology.
This is like a modern-day godwin's law situation, you've automatically lost the argument.
How did I lose? How is Al Qaeda evil? Sure, they do terrorists acts, but wasn't the Boston Tea Party also a terrorist act? What you call a terrorist, someone else calls a freedom fighter. Besides, they do a lot of good in the Arab world. They provide FEMA type services to countries with no FEMA to speak of. They bring in food to feed the poor and house the homeless. You don't think Al Qaeda should be funded? Are you against feeding and housing homeless brown people? Sure, they have a terrorist wing, but we won't be funding that, just the humanitarian aspect.
Do I think Planned Parenthood is on the same level as Al Qaeda. You know... I kinda do. Just like Al Qaeda, they see nothing wrong with their actions. They actually think they are doing good. The only difference is that half of PP's victims request their services. That's the only half that survives, btw.
Tell you what, take any argument you have FOR funding Planned Parenthood and do what I did above by putting Al Qaeda in its place. You will find that it is the exact same argument and makes the exact same amount of sense.
So just as absurd, illogical and cold hearted that you would consider giving YOUR tax dollars to fund Al Qaeda, that is EXACTLY how I feel about my tax dollars being given to Planned Parenthood.
And, as a side note, it violates the 10th Amendment.
any moneys received to pay for anything at all are moneys that PP doesn't have to pay. The money that would have been used to pay for whatever can now be used to fund something else, including abortions. For example, if the federal government pays for PP's light bill, then PP can use the money that WOULD have paid the light bill and use it to fund abortions.
By that logic, shouldn't it be illegal for devout Christians to get any kind of money from the government, whether it be welfare, a tax credit, or a paycheck for services rendered? If a cop happens to be a Christian, his government paycheck goes toward paying for the light bill, and the money that he would have been spent on paying the light bill can now go to the collection plate. Therefore, it is no different from the government giving that money directly to the church.
Right. Individual citizens don't get government funding. Try again.
I get it -- you don't like Planned Parenthood. Well, I do -- I think they do good work and I hope they keep on doing good work (and I'm not talking about abortion either, though I'm glad that service is available to women who need it.)
Sorry, but you're wrong there. I love Planned Parenthood. I agree they do good work and I hope they keep on doing it. Unfortunately, they also provide abortions. I have a problem with that. I know you think abortions are a good thing, but I don't Not only do the majority of tax payers agree with me, but federal law also states that it funding abortions is forbidden. However, the fact remains that any moneys received to pay for anything at all are moneys that PP doesn't have to pay. The money that would have been used to pay for whatever can now be used to fund something else, including abortions. For example, if the federal government pays for PP's light bill, then PP can use the money that WOULD have paid the light bill and use it to fund abortions. How is that different than the feds funding the abortions and making PP pay the light bill?
So, if PP didn't provide abortions, I would have no problem with my tax dollars funding them. Hell, I'd probably send them a check myself. Just as I support other women's health providers that do not provide abortion, yet for some strange reason, do NOT get tax payer dollars like PP. Why not shift the funding to those other women's health providers and make everyone happy? (Oh, that's right. The providers I support do not make political contributions to support YOUR political agenda.)
But Planned Parenthood is NOT about women's health
That pretty much says it all -- you have no clue what they do, or maybe you do, but the fact that they also do abortions overshadows everything else they do.
I've used Planned Parenthood. Well, not me directly, but I've had "partners" use their services, which I paid for. No, not abortion services, women's health services. At the time, PP was our only option and I'm glad they provided the services they did at a price we could afford. In other words, you have no clue as to what I know. You claim that I'm ignorant as an attempt to belittle my argument. Unfortunately, you are the one with no clue as to what I know or how I feel.
Do abortions overshadow everything else they do? Yep. Just as terrorist activities overshadow everything else Al Qaeda does.
Am I comparing Al Qaeda to Planned Parenthood? Sorta. I'm using to show how ridiculous your argument is. Take this statement:
We don't fund Al Qaeda for a reason reason, no matter how much good their humanitarian wing does. Fact is that the majority of Americans are against terrorism. Al Qaeda does terrorism, therefor they shall not be funded, even though a minority of Americans have no problem with terrorism.
Replace Al Qaeda with Planned Parenthood. Replace humanitarian with women's health. Replace terrorism with abortions.
Now tell me what the difference is between the two arguments. You can even use the word replacement trick with your own argument:
But Al Qaeda is NOT about humanitarian acts
That pretty much says it all -- you have no clue what they do, or maybe you do, but the fact that they also do terrorism overshadows everything else they do.
There are people that think terrorism is not that bad, just as you think that abortions are not that bad. Why are they any less wrong than you are.
As you're probably aware, the Hyde Amendment [wikipedia.org] prohibits the government from paying for abortions with federal funds.
I've responded to that in other posts. I'm not going to copy and paste it here. But I have to ask, would it be OK to fund Al Qaeda's "feed the poor" programs as long as it didn't go toward their flight training programs?
I notice you completely ignored the fact that Planned Parenthood takes tax payer dollars and uses it fund political campaigns.
No, they mean general health services for women like cancer screening, birth control and information on/treatment for STDs. Less than 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to abortion services, which includes counseling sessions about abortion that involve laying out a woman's other choices like adoption. When you attack PP, 97% of your attack is against run-of-the-mill medical care being made available to women who have difficulty getting it otherwise.
3%? I was told it was 10% by another poster above this one. And then another person, dougmc said that the Hyde Amendment bans all funding for abortions. So which is it? 10%, 3%, or 0%? Well, I can tell you that it is not 0%. See, if tax dollars goes to pay the water bill at Planned Parenthood, then that's money that PP doesn't have to spend on water. The money that they saved goes back into their general budget, which some of it (3%, 10%) goes to fund abortions.
And like I said before, if the number is that low, then why not spin off their abortion services to a separate company? It would be much harder to cut funding if PP didn't perform abortions. Better yet, why not fund a separate organization that performs all the PP services sans the abortions? Why Planned Parenthood? They are not the only organization capable of providing cancer screening and STD prevention.
Also, you completely ignored the fact that Planned Parenthood gets tax payer dollars and then turns around and gives to support political candidates, who then fund PP, who then supports political candidates.... You're OK with that?
Strange. They are all Democrats and two Republicans. Is it any surprise that its the Democrats wanting to defend their funding? Is it any surprise that Democrats would block a bill would pay troops and avoids a government shutdown simply because it blocked funding for PP?
Planned Parenthood spends less than 10% of its budget on abortions. The bulk of their mission is providing cancer screenings for women, providing STD testing, as well as contraception, regular and emergency. The Republican proposal would have prevented PP from seeking Medicaid reimbursement for these non-abortion services under the rhetoric that some of that money would go towards overhead for abortions.
Well, then cutting that 10% shouldn't be that big of a deal. Since supposedly no federal money goes to that 10%, there is absolutely no reason that the aborting providing part of Planned Parenthood couldn't be spun off and relaunched as it's own independent division. I would have no problem funding Planned Parenthood at that point.
So tell me, why won't Planned Parenthood do this? They could guarantee their funding and their new abortion spinoff would still provide all the abortions that they always have. So, answer the question; Why won't Planned Parenthood stop performing abortions?
Here's a better question for you. You say that you don't want your money going to abortions. Let's assume that that's due any sort of deference, as if anyone could earmark their tax bill to fund only those government projects they support. But would you support cutting all Medicaid payments to any hospital or doctor's office or clinics that does even one abortion? If you wouldn't, why not? If you would, don't you see why in a democracy you are, to borrow Locke's phrase, forced to be free?
Depends on WHY the abortion is performed. I follow the rape/endanger to the mother's life rule. If the pregnancy is due to a rape or a mother could die if she carries the baby to term, then I'm OK with aborting that pregnancy, even if my tax dollars has to pay for it. Well, I'm not exactly OK with it, but I'm not going to force someone to pay the consequences of actions that were beyond their control. I'm for personal responsibility. That means you shouldn't have to pay for the actions of others, rape in this case.
However, if a facility, or even a company provides abortions for reasons like, "I just got a promotion to Burger King shift manager and can't have a kid right now", then Hell NO! I want NONE of my tax dollars going to that organization at all. If a woman decides to kill her child (you call it terminating a pregnancy), then she needs to pay for it on her own (if her PRIVATE insurance covers it, fine). I do not want my tax dollars going to fund abortions in any way, shape or form.
And don't give me that bullshit saying that I'm against women's health. I'm for full funding of not just women's health, but prenatal care as well, provided that the people who CARE for the child are not KILLING another down the hall.
With over a $1.5 trillion deficit, congrats, you've just reduced the deficit by.025%. The coming forced austerity is going to be a lot worse than if Congress got it's head out of its ass and worked to cut the deficit.
Fixing our budget problems is easy.
1) Take a sheet of paper and divide it into two columns. Title the sheet "Budget" 2) Under the left column list all absolutely necessary for government as spelled out by the Constitution (see 10th Amendment) 3) STOP
The deal also adds money for one of Boehnerâ(TM)s favored projects, a program that provides low-income District students with money to attend private schools.
There you have it folks: in a budget that is designed to cut government spending, a person who is supposedly in favour of a smaller government inserts a rider that funds his pet projects with public money. This is at the same time as he's simultaneously removing funding from women's health projects, yet lacks the necessary reproductive organs that should really be a pre-requisite for anyone who should have an opinion about it.
First of all, DC is under the control of congress. If congress wants to fund something in DC, that's just like a state deciding what goes on within its borders.
Also, the program you mentioned is also called the voucher program. It takes money from underperforming school districts and gives it low income students within those districts so they can attend private schools just like the rich kids, giving them equal opportunity. You seriously have a problem with that?
As for cutting "women's health"... when you say women's health, you mean abortion. I do not want my tax dollars going to fund abortions. And even if my tax dollars do not go DIRECTLY toward abortions, if they pay the light bill, they are helping to pay for abortions. See, paying the light bill is money that Planned Parenthood doesn't have to spend, meaning the money can go toward abortions.
Also, I don't want my tax dollars going toward paying for a political campaign. Planned parenthood has spent millions supporting politicians directly, through lobbying efforts, and even "fund raising events" that are targeted toward particular politicians. In other words, they take your tax dollars and give it back to supporting the candidates that give them tax dollars. Yes, politicians are using tax dollars to fund their own campaigns.
Now if planned parenthood were solely a women's health provider, I wouldn't have that much of a problem with it. Sure, it violates the 10th Amendment and should be something reserved to the states, but I could get over it. But Planned Parenthood is NOT about women's health. If they were, they would have dropped abortions long ago to ensure funding and therefor ensure their ability to provide cheap/free women's health services. The fact that they insist on providing abortions proves that that is their primary mission.
Think of it this way, would you like it if YOUR tax dollars were funding the NRA? Would you like the NRA using those tax dollars to fund Republican politicians? What if the NRA gave guns to poor people; would it make the funding OK if they said the tax dollars were only used to fund firearm safety courses? Also, keep in mind that it would actually make MORE sense to fund the NRA over Planned Parenthood as the right to bear arms is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Abortion is not.
"A theory can be perfectly valid without being testable."
No, see... scientific theories have to be falsifiable (and hence testable); otherwise they are not scientific theories. If you want to introduce more folksy uses of the term "theory" then other rules may apply, but the context of this discussion is generally about scientific theories and introducing other uses of the word looks to me like mischief.
A theory can be disproved without being tested. All you need to do is disprove a single premise of the larger theory. At that point the theory is either modified to include the new information or thrown out completely. For example, science could discover that the universe is not expanding at all. Maybe they could discover that only what we have observed is expanding, "and since we have this new side scanning telescope, we learned that most of the universe is collapsing." This could feasibly disprove the big bang theory without testing it directly.
Or are you saying that the big bang theory is somehow testable? Can you recreate the conditions that existed before time to confirm that indeed a big bang happens? Or are you saying that the big bang theory is not a theory at all?
Then test and reproduce the big bang for me. Evolve a field mouse to an elephant. Recreate the moon. Make a star from scratch, complete with planets. Create matter from raw energy. Show me the curvature of space/time and recreate it in a lab. Prove that a space traveler does not age when traveling at the speed of light...
Build a city by yourself. Can't? I guess I have to take it on faith that cities exist then.
Moron, I wasn't saying that the existence of the moon is not testable. I was saying that the theories that attempt to explain how the moon was created are not testable. Well, they are not testable without a model built to a 1:1 scale anyway. The point is that we have some pretty good theories as to how things came to be that are believed by a large number of scientists, even though they can not create a test to prove or disprove their theories. That's called faith. The GGP, who I was responding to said that if it can not be tested, it's religion. None of the things I proposed can be tested. Are any of the religion?
Just because something can't be tested with our current technology, doesn't mean it's faith.
Um... yeah, it kinda does. If it has not been tested, and yet it is believed, that's faith.
Don't confuse faith with religion. I'm not making that comparison. The GGP did. He said anything that is not testable is religion. You stated yourself that there are things we can not test right now or even ever, yet they are accepted as scientific fact. Sure, we can test a model. You said we can create a mini big bang in particle accelerators. Do those go through expansion? Isn't expansion part of the larger big bang theory? It can not be tested, yet it is accepted as fact. Does that make it religion? The GGP thinks so and I disagree.
Give me any statement in science and I'll tell you what I would need to see to conclude it's false. For example, evolution can be show to be false if a mouse evolves into an elephant within our life time. Now take faith. What would you need to see to conclude God doesn't exist? Or angels, or creationism, etc.
First, evolution can not be tested, at least not withing our lifetime. Christianity could fall under the same test. Jesus said he was coming back. If we wait until the end of time and we don't see the return of Jesus, that disproves it. Does that mean that Christianity is not religion? We have tons evidence to support evolution, but nothing that constitutes absolute proof. We can not create a test that will prove evolution. Even if we did, we would never see the same results twice. Part of evolution is the pure randomness of it. Again, that doesn't mean it's not an accurate theory. It just means that it is not testable. GGP said that if it is not testable, then it is religion.
TFA didn't use the term religion. It used the term "faith". Again, there is a difference.
All of your examples COULD be reproduced, in theory. It's the practicality of it that gets in the way. Building a star isn't actually that complicated (collect enough material to get a mass that can support fusion). We just don't have the technology (or need) to do it. Evolution? Sure, if you want to try to recreate the exact conditions that the field mouse lived in, and wait around for a few million years, go right ahead.
The point is that so much that makes up science is not reproducable or testable.
So, you've never noticed all of this advanced technology all around us? It's all based on science, and it works. Ford didn't build up a car and pray that it worked. Intel didn't throw a bunch of silicon together and say, "I hope God will make this thing run Windows 95."
Advanced science that we don't use or see in our day to day life can seem like 'faith', but that's only because it hasn't yet trickled down into our lives. When relativity first popped up, most people couldn't comprehend it. Today, it gets taught to college freshmen with little problem.
Let me know when praying for people to get better works. If I'm having a heart attack one day, and the person with me starts praying for my heart to get better, I will slap them and yell, "Get me to a hospital, you moron!"
Again, I'm not the one who said all that was untestable is religion. I think you meant to respond to the GGP. I was saying that being untestable does NOT mean it's religion. That is what the GGP said. A theory can be perfectly valid without being testable.
That which is not reproducible or testable is not science.
That which is not theoretically testable, you mean. First you have to do it once if you want to repeat it. But if you want to test for evolution you're going to need an awfully long test. So far nobody has shown a really great reason why evolution can't work, though, via tests or otherwise. That doesn't make it science fact or whatever, but it doesn't make it science falsehood either.
As much as it pains me to say, you're right drinkypoo. Then again, that was my point. I wasn't saying that any of the things I mentioned were false. I said they were not testable or reproducable (and yes, they happened once before). And just because they can not directly be tested or reproduced does NOT make them religion, as the post I replied to stated.
So much of what we accept to be 100% scientifically valid is not testable. That doesn't not mean it's not true. It also does not mean it is religion.
Slashdot Mirror
That'd be the green plants, you know, the ones that released huge quantities of a poisonous gas, destroying 98% of life on earth.
Humans are pathetic by comparison.
Awesome post! Please allow me to elaborate for those that didn't get it.
Oxygen IS pollution produced by photosynthesizing organisms. Before plants, the earths atmosphere was radically different than it is today. There was almost no free oxygen in our atmosphere. Once life began to photosynthesize for energy, oxygen was released as a byproduct of that process, just as CO2 is a byproduct of our respiration. Oxygen is actually plant pollution. That pollution killed off nearly all of the early life on earth, radically changed the climate, and gave rise to what we have today.
So it appears that releasing gas that fundamentally changes the atmosphere is a completely natural, 100% organic function. If anything, by driving SUV's we are actually restoring our planet to it's natural, original condition before photosynthesis came along and screwed it all up!
Eat that, GW hippies!
I agree that cbhacking made an excellent post. He did a great job of explaining how the evolutionary model works. But in response to my question, he offers the following:
I understand enough basic genetics to know that even with genetic evidence it's non-trivial to trace direct ancestry, and without it the task is nearly hopeless.
In other words, "it's hard". I agree, it's very hard.
He also used the donkey and horse as evidence for evolution. However, I said in my first post that we can point to several examples of species that share a common ancestor, but we have never found that ancestor. dbhacking gave an example of my point, and then said that we don't have any true record of that ancestral species because... it's hard. Even if we were to find a common ancestor for the donkey and the horse, it would be hard to prove that it was truly the ancestor of both the donkey and horse.
I'll take it a step further. Neanderthal and humans lived side by side, they were able to interbreed and their offspring was fertile, yet they were different species. Neanderthal either went extinct by dying off being bred into modern day humans. We have found Neanderthal fossils, even some Neanderthal DNA, and we have proven that Neanderthals were not a direct ancestor to homo sapiens, but, like we've heard so often before, we share a common ancestor. Like I said in my original post, "all species share a common ancestor" if you go back far enough.
I offer a possible explanation as to why it's so hard to find fossils of ancestral species. It considers that evolution happens in spurts. Basically, a species established in a stable environment will not evolve fast enough to detect, even over a biological timeline. But once that environment changes, the evolutionary pace quickens to adapt to the new environment. One species would evolve into many competing for the same resources. Those that are best adapted to the new environment survive and continue to evolve. It is possible that more than one set of adaptions will be successful, especially if a population is divided. This could produce "evolutionary cousins" like the horse and donkey, but the species that evolved into both of them would not have survived long enough to leave much of a fossil record. Species living during this evolutionary spurt would be the ancestral species we are looking for, but since the changes is so rapid, no distinct species is around long enough to leave a fossil record that is easy to find.
Your objection is laughable
And that is my point. I do not "object" to evolution. I am bringing up the point that if you even ask a question about evolution or show where evidence is missing, I get ridiculed. Most religions allow for more questioning over the existence of God than pseudo-scientists allow for evolution.
Even if we never found a single fossil, ever, the evidence for evolution would be robust - There's biogeography, there's genetics, there's morphometics, there's observed natural selection in the modern world, and so on.
Right! I agree and even said as much. TFS is about finding the "missing link". Well, no it's not. The missing link is that elusive species A that evolved into species B. You said yourself that we have not found it when you said, "Even if we never found a single fossil..." meaning that we have not found that single fossil.
But don't you think it's odd that we haven't found it? There are about 10 million known species alive today. We estimate that there are about 100 million species total. Since most of these species didn't exist 60 million years ago, mathematically, that's approximately 1.6 NEW species a year. Even if we only know about 10% of species, shouldn't we find 1-2 NEW species every 10 years? (Of course, NEW means that it didn't exist last year... not NEW as in it's been around but we just found it). So far, in the past thousand years or so, we have cataloged zero newly evolved species.
Now, again, I'm not saying evolution is false. And you can stop trying to convince me that's it true because you are preaching to the choir, so to speak. But do you really think it's scientifically valid to ridicule those that bring up facts that even you yourself confirm? Where in the scientific method is it valid to throw out data, or lack thereof, that doesn't fit your model? Maybe the model needs to be refined a bit (or is it "laughable" to even suggest such heresy?)
Here's a valid model that would explain why missing links remain missing:
Evolution happens in spurts after radical environmental change, but slows to a stand still in a stable environment. During these "spurt" periods, an evolutionary parent may go extinct rather quickly, not leaving much in the way of fossil evidence (of course, by extinct, I mean evolved to the point of a new species). Once evolution produces a species that is successful, evolution stops until that species is no longer successful, say, due to a change in the local environment. For example, the special ancestors of elephants may have evolved fairly rapidly to adapt to a changing environment until it because successful in the form we see elephants today. None of those evolutionary steps on the way to becoming an elephant lasted long enough to produce enough fossils to be found. Since we only know of 10% of living species, our knowledge of extinct ones are exponentially smaller and finding fossils from a species that was short lived is next to impossible.
But rather than bring up a logical argument like that one, your response was "Your objection is laughable." The most awesome part is when you railed against religion for its inability to have an open mind or accept new ideas. That's rich!
Excellent point and excellent example.
And I fully agree that there is a ton of evidence to support evolution, including evidence that shows that two separate species share a common ancestor. However, and this is my point, we have no record that species at all. We have no record of any parental species whatsoever.
It's like the parent said: "You've shown me two of your cousins, five of your brothers, three of your sisters, two uncles, and a niece. But you can't show me your mother or father, so clearly you were miracled into existence."
First, I never assumed we were "miracled into existence". Next, bad example. Even if we never met our own parents, we can assume we have them because everyone else has parents, and we've actually met some of them. We've even seen kids being born to parents. So it's actual parents are not required to prove that we have them. Now what we had never seen anyone's parents and no record or memories of them ever existing?
How far back do you want to go?
It's rather irrelevant, anyway. Let me rephrase your complaint:
"You've shown me two of your cousins, five of your brothers, three of your sisters, two uncles, and a niece. But you can't show me your mother or father, so clearly you were miracled into existence."
Yep. Makes perfect sense.
Congratulations! You have effectively argued against my example. Now, how about you take a whack at my point.
Let me keep you from having to scroll up:
Actually, they just want a fossil that we can point to and say, "This species evolved into that species." For example we keep finding primate fossils that are very close relatives to man. Unfortunately, we have never found a fossil that is a direct ancestor of man. All we can say is that man and whatever fossil shared a common ancestor. Well, no kidding! All animals share a common ancestor, even if was microscopic and swam in some muddy pool. For that matter, we have not found a fossil or even a species that is a direct ancestor to any other species.
Seriously, we've evolved from field rats to every mammal on the planet in a very short 65 million years. We have discovered millions of species through fossils, and yet, you can not point to a single animal, living or extinct, and say that it evolved into this other different species over here, living of extinct. Man has only roamed the planet for roughly 200,000 years. This article is about a fossil that is 230,000,000 years old. So we can find the fossils of a dinosaurs that lived 230 million years old, but we can not find a single fossil from just 200,000 years ago?
And forget man. You're thinking small. How about we broaden the search? Surely, of all the species that have ever existed, and all the species that are STILL EVOLVING TODAY, you would think that we could find one species somewhere that is a direct ancestor of another.
And again, since you're reading comprehension is obviously weak, I never said that the the lack of this evidence is proof that evolution is false. I said that this is a pretty big fucking piece of evidence that we have not found YET and if I even bring it up, I'm instantly ridiculed. It's almost as if I walked into a %place-of-worship% and started saying that %Deity% doesn't exist.
Do you see what I did there? You take it upon faith that an ancestral species exists for all species and if anyone brings it up, you act as if someone is questioning your faith.
Sorry, pet hate. Also, nobody's telling you that you can't question it. What you actually can't do is make shit up that seems to be a hole (when it isn't), tell your followers that this proves evolution is all lies, exclaim that as a result it is now 100% certain that god did it, and then (and this is the bit that gets people like me really upset) demand to use my tax money to spread your dumbass beliefs to everyone else's children.
DING-DING-DING-DING!!! We have a winner! This is EXACTLY what I was talking about when I said "I just get really offended when someone tells me I can't bring up questions about it." See, if I question it, some kind of ignorant, Bible thumpin' bumpkin that is using ignorance to prove the existence of God.
You are no different that the person you are trying to pain me as. Except, rather than "make shit up that seems to be a hole (when it isn't)," you make shit up that seems to be my argument, when it isn't.
What could possibly go wrong with accellerating brain function in rats.
I for one welcome our new super intelligent rat overlords.
Don't worry, it may not have accelerated brain function. It was probably just the rats saying, "Holy F*CK! I better learn this trick so the guy in white coat can stop shocking the sh*t out of my skull!"
In the ongoing "discussion" with the creationists, it has occasionally been pointed out that whenever a biologist finds a fossil that fills in a gap in the fossil record, one result is to replace the one gap with two gaps. Thus, no such discovery can ever persuade the creationists; it just adds to their list of known gaps in the fossil record To them, evolutionary theory can't be ready for prime time until all the fossil gaps are filled in. They don't acknowledge the patterns that biologists find in the (admittedly very sketchy) fossil record.
Actually, they just want a fossil that we can point to and say, "This species evolved into that species." For example we keep finding primate fossils that are very close relatives to man. Unfortunately, we have never found a fossil that is a direct ancestor of man. All we can say is that man and whatever fossil shared a common ancestor. Well, no kidding! All animals share a common ancestor, even if was microscopic and swam in some muddy pool. For that matter, we have not found a fossil or even a species that is a direct ancestor to any other species.
That is my problem with evolution. That's not to say I don't believe evolution. I just get really offended when someone tells me I can bring up questions about it. I also get offended when people say that I don't believe evolution because of religion. Yes, I'm a Christian, but my faith is in no way threatened by evolution.
And there is the ol' 404 error, but that's a link for another /. story.
Am I the only one who read, "Cylon"?
Do they have a plan?
If plans in the same area will be able to produce more bio-mass per squared meter, then the soil will be deprived of nitrogen and other nutrients faster, accelerating the process of desertification
Many legumes form a symbiotic relationship with a microorganism in the soil that will capture nitrogen from the atmosphere and make it available to the plant. Look up "Nitrogen Fixation". This is one of the benefits of three sisters farming, where farmers plant beans with other crops such as corn and squash.
If we could engineer this into other plants, it would eliminate the need to add nitrogen fertilizers to the soil. In the mean time, we could simply grow beans in off seasons to replenish the nitrogen in the soil. Better yet, we could start our research from bean plants. Growing a crop of soybeans or peanuts, harvesting the seed for food and using the rest of plant for bio fuel. No ammonium nitrate required.
I have my doubts on whether the foodcrisis can be solved by technical means.
The food crisis HAS been solved by technical means. Or at least it has so far. The problem is that organisms tend to reproduce to the point where the resources will support them. In other words, we make more food to feed more people, who make more people, so we need more food for the people, who make more people....
My point is, however, that there is no way we could feed 6 billion people on 1700's agricultural technology.
WTF? Comparing Planned Parenthood to Al Qaeda?
This is like a modern-day godwin's law situation, you've automatically lost the argument.
How did I lose? How is Al Qaeda evil? Sure, they do terrorists acts, but wasn't the Boston Tea Party also a terrorist act? What you call a terrorist, someone else calls a freedom fighter. Besides, they do a lot of good in the Arab world. They provide FEMA type services to countries with no FEMA to speak of. They bring in food to feed the poor and house the homeless. You don't think Al Qaeda should be funded? Are you against feeding and housing homeless brown people? Sure, they have a terrorist wing, but we won't be funding that, just the humanitarian aspect.
Do I think Planned Parenthood is on the same level as Al Qaeda. You know... I kinda do. Just like Al Qaeda, they see nothing wrong with their actions. They actually think they are doing good. The only difference is that half of PP's victims request their services. That's the only half that survives, btw.
Tell you what, take any argument you have FOR funding Planned Parenthood and do what I did above by putting Al Qaeda in its place. You will find that it is the exact same argument and makes the exact same amount of sense.
So just as absurd, illogical and cold hearted that you would consider giving YOUR tax dollars to fund Al Qaeda, that is EXACTLY how I feel about my tax dollars being given to Planned Parenthood.
And, as a side note, it violates the 10th Amendment.
any moneys received to pay for anything at all are moneys that PP doesn't have to pay. The money that would have been used to pay for whatever can now be used to fund something else, including abortions. For example, if the federal government pays for PP's light bill, then PP can use the money that WOULD have paid the light bill and use it to fund abortions.
By that logic, shouldn't it be illegal for devout Christians to get any kind of money from the government, whether it be welfare, a tax credit, or a paycheck for services rendered? If a cop happens to be a Christian, his government paycheck goes toward paying for the light bill, and the money that he would have been spent on paying the light bill can now go to the collection plate. Therefore, it is no different from the government giving that money directly to the church.
Right. Individual citizens don't get government funding. Try again.
I get it -- you don't like Planned Parenthood. Well, I do -- I think they do good work and I hope they keep on doing good work (and I'm not talking about abortion either, though I'm glad that service is available to women who need it.)
Sorry, but you're wrong there. I love Planned Parenthood. I agree they do good work and I hope they keep on doing it. Unfortunately, they also provide abortions. I have a problem with that. I know you think abortions are a good thing, but I don't Not only do the majority of tax payers agree with me, but federal law also states that it funding abortions is forbidden. However, the fact remains that any moneys received to pay for anything at all are moneys that PP doesn't have to pay. The money that would have been used to pay for whatever can now be used to fund something else, including abortions. For example, if the federal government pays for PP's light bill, then PP can use the money that WOULD have paid the light bill and use it to fund abortions. How is that different than the feds funding the abortions and making PP pay the light bill?
So, if PP didn't provide abortions, I would have no problem with my tax dollars funding them. Hell, I'd probably send them a check myself. Just as I support other women's health providers that do not provide abortion, yet for some strange reason, do NOT get tax payer dollars like PP. Why not shift the funding to those other women's health providers and make everyone happy? (Oh, that's right. The providers I support do not make political contributions to support YOUR political agenda.)
But Planned Parenthood is NOT about women's health
That pretty much says it all -- you have no clue what they do, or maybe you do, but the fact that they also do abortions overshadows everything else they do.
I've used Planned Parenthood. Well, not me directly, but I've had "partners" use their services, which I paid for. No, not abortion services, women's health services. At the time, PP was our only option and I'm glad they provided the services they did at a price we could afford. In other words, you have no clue as to what I know. You claim that I'm ignorant as an attempt to belittle my argument. Unfortunately, you are the one with no clue as to what I know or how I feel.
Do abortions overshadow everything else they do? Yep. Just as terrorist activities overshadow everything else Al Qaeda does.
Am I comparing Al Qaeda to Planned Parenthood? Sorta. I'm using to show how ridiculous your argument is. Take this statement:
We don't fund Al Qaeda for a reason reason, no matter how much good their humanitarian wing does. Fact is that the majority of Americans are against terrorism. Al Qaeda does terrorism, therefor they shall not be funded, even though a minority of Americans have no problem with terrorism.
Replace Al Qaeda with Planned Parenthood.
Replace humanitarian with women's health.
Replace terrorism with abortions.
Now tell me what the difference is between the two arguments. You can even use the word replacement trick with your own argument:
But Al Qaeda is NOT about humanitarian acts
That pretty much says it all -- you have no clue what they do, or maybe you do, but the fact that they also do terrorism overshadows everything else they do.
There are people that think terrorism is not that bad, just as you think that abortions are not that bad. Why are they any less wrong than you are.
As you're probably aware, the Hyde Amendment [wikipedia.org] prohibits the government from paying for abortions with federal funds.
I've responded to that in other posts. I'm not going to copy and paste it here. But I have to ask, would it be OK to fund Al Qaeda's "feed the poor" programs as long as it didn't go toward their flight training programs?
I notice you completely ignored the fact that Planned Parenthood takes tax payer dollars and uses it fund political campaigns.
No, they mean general health services for women like cancer screening, birth control and information on/treatment for STDs. Less than 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to abortion services, which includes counseling sessions about abortion that involve laying out a woman's other choices like adoption. When you attack PP, 97% of your attack is against run-of-the-mill medical care being made available to women who have difficulty getting it otherwise.
3%? I was told it was 10% by another poster above this one. And then another person, dougmc said that the Hyde Amendment bans all funding for abortions. So which is it? 10%, 3%, or 0%? Well, I can tell you that it is not 0%. See, if tax dollars goes to pay the water bill at Planned Parenthood, then that's money that PP doesn't have to spend on water. The money that they saved goes back into their general budget, which some of it (3%, 10%) goes to fund abortions.
And like I said before, if the number is that low, then why not spin off their abortion services to a separate company? It would be much harder to cut funding if PP didn't perform abortions. Better yet, why not fund a separate organization that performs all the PP services sans the abortions? Why Planned Parenthood? They are not the only organization capable of providing cancer screening and STD prevention.
Also, you completely ignored the fact that Planned Parenthood gets tax payer dollars and then turns around and gives to support political candidates, who then fund PP, who then supports political candidates.... You're OK with that?
Look HERE.
Strange. They are all Democrats and two Republicans. Is it any surprise that its the Democrats wanting to defend their funding? Is it any surprise that Democrats would block a bill would pay troops and avoids a government shutdown simply because it blocked funding for PP?
Planned Parenthood spends less than 10% of its budget on abortions. The bulk of their mission is providing cancer screenings for women, providing STD testing, as well as contraception, regular and emergency. The Republican proposal would have prevented PP from seeking Medicaid reimbursement for these non-abortion services under the rhetoric that some of that money would go towards overhead for abortions.
Well, then cutting that 10% shouldn't be that big of a deal. Since supposedly no federal money goes to that 10%, there is absolutely no reason that the aborting providing part of Planned Parenthood couldn't be spun off and relaunched as it's own independent division. I would have no problem funding Planned Parenthood at that point.
So tell me, why won't Planned Parenthood do this? They could guarantee their funding and their new abortion spinoff would still provide all the abortions that they always have. So, answer the question; Why won't Planned Parenthood stop performing abortions?
Here's a better question for you. You say that you don't want your money going to abortions. Let's assume that that's due any sort of deference, as if anyone could earmark their tax bill to fund only those government projects they support. But would you support cutting all Medicaid payments to any hospital or doctor's office or clinics that does even one abortion? If you wouldn't, why not? If you would, don't you see why in a democracy you are, to borrow Locke's phrase, forced to be free?
Depends on WHY the abortion is performed. I follow the rape/endanger to the mother's life rule. If the pregnancy is due to a rape or a mother could die if she carries the baby to term, then I'm OK with aborting that pregnancy, even if my tax dollars has to pay for it. Well, I'm not exactly OK with it, but I'm not going to force someone to pay the consequences of actions that were beyond their control. I'm for personal responsibility. That means you shouldn't have to pay for the actions of others, rape in this case.
However, if a facility, or even a company provides abortions for reasons like, "I just got a promotion to Burger King shift manager and can't have a kid right now", then Hell NO! I want NONE of my tax dollars going to that organization at all. If a woman decides to kill her child (you call it terminating a pregnancy), then she needs to pay for it on her own (if her PRIVATE insurance covers it, fine). I do not want my tax dollars going to fund abortions in any way, shape or form.
And don't give me that bullshit saying that I'm against women's health. I'm for full funding of not just women's health, but prenatal care as well, provided that the people who CARE for the child are not KILLING another down the hall.
With over a $1.5 trillion deficit, congrats, you've just reduced the deficit by .025%. The coming forced austerity is going to be a lot worse than if Congress got it's head out of its ass and worked to cut the deficit.
Fixing our budget problems is easy.
1) Take a sheet of paper and divide it into two columns. Title the sheet "Budget"
2) Under the left column list all absolutely necessary for government as spelled out by the Constitution (see 10th Amendment)
3) STOP
#3 is the most important part.
Today's breathless response has been cut/pasted courtesy of the Tea Party.
Ad hominem: attacking the person instead of the argument. A form of this is reductio ad Hitlerum.
Now, why don't you try to argue some of his points.
I found this line particularly representative:
There you have it folks: in a budget that is designed to cut government spending, a person who is supposedly in favour of a smaller government inserts a rider that funds his pet projects with public money. This is at the same time as he's simultaneously removing funding from women's health projects, yet lacks the necessary reproductive organs that should really be a pre-requisite for anyone who should have an opinion about it.
First of all, DC is under the control of congress. If congress wants to fund something in DC, that's just like a state deciding what goes on within its borders.
Also, the program you mentioned is also called the voucher program. It takes money from underperforming school districts and gives it low income students within those districts so they can attend private schools just like the rich kids, giving them equal opportunity. You seriously have a problem with that?
As for cutting "women's health"... when you say women's health, you mean abortion. I do not want my tax dollars going to fund abortions. And even if my tax dollars do not go DIRECTLY toward abortions, if they pay the light bill, they are helping to pay for abortions. See, paying the light bill is money that Planned Parenthood doesn't have to spend, meaning the money can go toward abortions.
Also, I don't want my tax dollars going toward paying for a political campaign. Planned parenthood has spent millions supporting politicians directly, through lobbying efforts, and even "fund raising events" that are targeted toward particular politicians. In other words, they take your tax dollars and give it back to supporting the candidates that give them tax dollars. Yes, politicians are using tax dollars to fund their own campaigns.
Now if planned parenthood were solely a women's health provider, I wouldn't have that much of a problem with it. Sure, it violates the 10th Amendment and should be something reserved to the states, but I could get over it. But Planned Parenthood is NOT about women's health. If they were, they would have dropped abortions long ago to ensure funding and therefor ensure their ability to provide cheap/free women's health services. The fact that they insist on providing abortions proves that that is their primary mission.
Think of it this way, would you like it if YOUR tax dollars were funding the NRA? Would you like the NRA using those tax dollars to fund Republican politicians? What if the NRA gave guns to poor people; would it make the funding OK if they said the tax dollars were only used to fund firearm safety courses? Also, keep in mind that it would actually make MORE sense to fund the NRA over Planned Parenthood as the right to bear arms is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Abortion is not.
"A theory can be perfectly valid without being testable."
No, see... scientific theories have to be falsifiable (and hence testable); otherwise they are not scientific theories.
If you want to introduce more folksy uses of the term "theory" then other rules may apply, but the context of this discussion is generally about scientific theories and introducing other uses of the word looks to me like mischief.
A theory can be disproved without being tested. All you need to do is disprove a single premise of the larger theory. At that point the theory is either modified to include the new information or thrown out completely. For example, science could discover that the universe is not expanding at all. Maybe they could discover that only what we have observed is expanding, "and since we have this new side scanning telescope, we learned that most of the universe is collapsing." This could feasibly disprove the big bang theory without testing it directly.
Or are you saying that the big bang theory is somehow testable? Can you recreate the conditions that existed before time to confirm that indeed a big bang happens? Or are you saying that the big bang theory is not a theory at all?
Build a city by yourself. Can't? I guess I have to take it on faith that cities exist then.
Moron, I wasn't saying that the existence of the moon is not testable. I was saying that the theories that attempt to explain how the moon was created are not testable. Well, they are not testable without a model built to a 1:1 scale anyway. The point is that we have some pretty good theories as to how things came to be that are believed by a large number of scientists, even though they can not create a test to prove or disprove their theories. That's called faith. The GGP, who I was responding to said that if it can not be tested, it's religion. None of the things I proposed can be tested. Are any of the religion?
Just because something can't be tested with our current technology, doesn't mean it's faith.
Um... yeah, it kinda does. If it has not been tested, and yet it is believed, that's faith.
Don't confuse faith with religion. I'm not making that comparison. The GGP did. He said anything that is not testable is religion. You stated yourself that there are things we can not test right now or even ever, yet they are accepted as scientific fact. Sure, we can test a model. You said we can create a mini big bang in particle accelerators. Do those go through expansion? Isn't expansion part of the larger big bang theory? It can not be tested, yet it is accepted as fact. Does that make it religion? The GGP thinks so and I disagree.
Give me any statement in science and I'll tell you what I would need to see to conclude it's false. For example, evolution can be show to be false if a mouse evolves into an elephant within our life time. Now take faith. What would you need to see to conclude God doesn't exist? Or angels, or creationism, etc.
First, evolution can not be tested, at least not withing our lifetime. Christianity could fall under the same test. Jesus said he was coming back. If we wait until the end of time and we don't see the return of Jesus, that disproves it. Does that mean that Christianity is not religion? We have tons evidence to support evolution, but nothing that constitutes absolute proof. We can not create a test that will prove evolution. Even if we did, we would never see the same results twice. Part of evolution is the pure randomness of it. Again, that doesn't mean it's not an accurate theory. It just means that it is not testable. GGP said that if it is not testable, then it is religion.
TFA didn't use the term religion. It used the term "faith". Again, there is a difference.
All of your examples COULD be reproduced, in theory. It's the practicality of it that gets in the way. Building a star isn't actually that complicated (collect enough material to get a mass that can support fusion). We just don't have the technology (or need) to do it. Evolution? Sure, if you want to try to recreate the exact conditions that the field mouse lived in, and wait around for a few million years, go right ahead.
The point is that so much that makes up science is not reproducable or testable.
So, you've never noticed all of this advanced technology all around us? It's all based on science, and it works. Ford didn't build up a car and pray that it worked. Intel didn't throw a bunch of silicon together and say, "I hope God will make this thing run Windows 95."
Advanced science that we don't use or see in our day to day life can seem like 'faith', but that's only because it hasn't yet trickled down into our lives. When relativity first popped up, most people couldn't comprehend it. Today, it gets taught to college freshmen with little problem.
Let me know when praying for people to get better works. If I'm having a heart attack one day, and the person with me starts praying for my heart to get better, I will slap them and yell, "Get me to a hospital, you moron!"
Again, I'm not the one who said all that was untestable is religion. I think you meant to respond to the GGP. I was saying that being untestable does NOT mean it's religion. That is what the GGP said. A theory can be perfectly valid without being testable.
That which is not reproducible or testable is not science.
That which is not theoretically testable, you mean. First you have to do it once if you want to repeat it. But if you want to test for evolution you're going to need an awfully long test. So far nobody has shown a really great reason why evolution can't work, though, via tests or otherwise. That doesn't make it science fact or whatever, but it doesn't make it science falsehood either.
As much as it pains me to say, you're right drinkypoo. Then again, that was my point. I wasn't saying that any of the things I mentioned were false. I said they were not testable or reproducable (and yes, they happened once before). And just because they can not directly be tested or reproduced does NOT make them religion, as the post I replied to stated.
So much of what we accept to be 100% scientifically valid is not testable. That doesn't not mean it's not true. It also does not mean it is religion.