Is it common practice in science to be wrong but assert that you weren't wrong but rather "miscalculated"?
Has it become a convenience in scientific speculation to reach calculations with figures reaching indescribable/unverifiable distances and time scales to protect validity of the theory?
If a theory utilizes immeasurable time scales and distances can they ever be proven wrong?
Say evolution consensus recently determined homo sapien origins to 500,000 years
new discovery forces consensus to claim evolution of modern humans occured 100,00 years sooner than previous figure.
How do they date the rock cast of bones, and stone tools?
How in anyway can this be verified emperically, except by sifting around the artifact of interest for organic matter to date to verify a nonorganic material such as a fossil, which is a rock cast from millions of years of organic material being replaced.
I find it strange that with theories such as the big bang which was created by a Jesuit Catholic priest Georges Le Maitre and Evolution, if you simply use large distances and time periods, you can shelter your theory indefinitely even if it doesn't match the reality of new discoveries.
The methodology used to date things is based on principles, axioms, "common sense", etc. I don't think the handful of people who claim to actually do the procedure and can verify this claim even bother to go through it half the time. They just put an sanctioned number on it and call it a day.
Samuel Wood
IMO, most of what we "know" on human evolution are theories and aren't really solid since there is little fossil evidence (missing link after all). While many people postulate these species may belong to a human's ancestor, there's isn't really a way to confirm if the descendants of said species weren't evolutionary dead ends.
Having said that, what is cromagnon and neandrethals are considered to be humans by many scientists (considering they hold many cultural similarities and the difference between those species and man of that time is like the difference between races in modern man).
Doesn't mean evolution is wrong, but trying to credit or discredit it on only human's fossil record is not very smart.
Thomas Hughes
>Is it common practice in science to be wrong but assert that you weren't wrong but rather "miscalculated"? kekerino You're "wrong" when your theory cannot predict or rationalize your observations. You "miscalculate" when you reach the wrong deductive conclusions, within a theory's a priori internal logic, about what observations that theory actually predicts.
Say for instance Jamal has a babby trig test that asks him to find how tall a vertical tree on level ground is, given that it has a 15' shadow and the angle between the ground and the top of the tree, from the tip of the shadow, is 45 degrees. If he says it's 20' tall, he's miscalculated - he's misused the properties of right triangles. If instead we have an identical situation except with the tree leaning 15 degrees from vertical, directly away from the shadow, and he correctly uses the properties of right triangles to claim it's 15', he's wrong - the method does not apply to the physical situation and cannot give you the tree's height, so you need a "better" theory which can.
As for the rest of your post, yes, consensus evolves over time, and which theories and methods we -choose- to use to draw conclusions changes over time according to what is better equipped to explain current available evidence. In a sense every theory we have today is "wrong" because it fails to explain every single thing about the universe, but that doesn't in any way mean that they exclusively make wrong predictions, mostly make wrong predictions, or that they aren't the single best ways we currently have of explaining their respective sections of the physical world.
>if you simply use large distances and time periods, you can shelter your theory indefinitely even if it doesn't match the reality of new discoveries. Don't be daft. This position quickly reduces to solipsism
Tyler Gray
>Scientists change their beliefs with new evidence. >This is proof that all of established science is wrong.
Hudson Murphy
Science is as right as possible given data at hand.
Carter Long
Actual scientists will be the first ones to say that what they're professing are theories. These are models that scientists work off of because they best fit all the data available, or at least it's agreed that they best fit all data available. Multiple theories on the same issue can exist with equal validity, and often times those kinds of things happen in science.
It's people who report what scientists say and twist their words that make false promises, and pretend like science is the necessary truth.
Lucas Lewis
>Scientists conveniently change units of measure and figures surrounding the accuracy of their beliefs >keeps changing them to never be wrong. >endlessly bash alternative theorists as foolish >gives self prize
James Martin
>so maybe it is, maybe it isn't. >believe us over religion
Jonathan Hill
>It's people who report what scientists say and twist their words that make false promises, and pretend like science is the necessary truth.
Isn't there a commandment in the Bible that says not to lie?!?
Grayson Ward
Big bang theory yes (as well as all of modern physics). But the evidence for evolution is in every organisms dna
Cooper Harris
>Is it common practice in science to be wrong but assert that you weren't wrong but rather "miscalculated"? Idiotic strawman. If you miscalculated then you're wrong. Scientists were wrong about how old humans are, because no earlier human fossils had been found. So what?
>If a theory utilizes immeasurable time scales and distances can they ever be proven wrong? The only reason such timescales are used is because we measured them. You're an idiot.
>Has it become a convenience in scientific speculation to reach calculations with figures reaching indescribable/unverifiable distances and time scales to protect validity of the theory? How exactly does finding earlier human fossils challenge the validity of evolution?
>How do they date the rock cast of bones, and stone tools? Ever heard of google?
>How in anyway can this be verified emperically, except by sifting around the artifact of interest for organic matter to date to verify a nonorganic material such as a fossil, which is a rock cast from millions of years of organic material being replaced. So instead of looking it up, you are just going to guess how it's done, and then act shocked that your guess is stupid. Textbook strawman argument.
Shitty bait. Enjoy you (You)
Blake Brooks
Veeky Forums is so autistic it has zero resistance to trolling. Everyone falls for it.
Nicholas Martinez
>i was just pretending to be retarded guys lmoo! xD
Isaiah Martin
No, science can only be as right as possible given data at hand.
A particular set of data doesn't presuppose its own most effective rationalization. Data never "speaks for itself," it is only ever made to speak by the work of man.
Anthony Flores
>mnjwonder.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-many-neanderthal-fossils-have-been.html >While exact numbers don't seem to be available from this, simple summing of the ones above yield a minimum number of 66 individuals. I remember seeing somewhere that we actually have remains of almost 200 Neanderthal individuals, but I cannot substantiate that at the moment.
NICE TRY
Nolan Carter
This
Nathaniel Cox
>Idiotic strawman that was not a strawman, they wre wrong and continue to preach they're right on topic they were wrong.
>The only reason such timescales are used is because we measured them. You're an idiot. excuse me for assuming it was impossible to measure distance with units of time. so to confirm a star is 1000 light years away, you would have to travel 1000 years in time across space.
we've never done this, at best scintists guess or estimate without any experiment and as you say THEY WERE WRONG.
>you are just going to guess how it's done, and then act shocked that your guess is stupid. Textbook strawman argument.
that is how it's done. also again not a strawman.
Alexander Williams
>humans evolve 200000 years ago >be wrong >humans evolved 300000 years ago >be wrong >humans evolved 500000 years ago >repeat indefinitely despite never having measured these time periods
dna is a complex information system, information systems have never been observed creating themselves from complex amino acids in nature, or in controlled conditions.
they really should rename this board /scifi/
Parker Reed
And you should be send back in time to 1940 and you should be put on a train to Auschwitz, where you should be gassed and incinerated because you are a fucking moron.
Luke Ortiz
kek you think people were gassed at Auschwitz,
William Watson
>it's a "babby's first scientific discourse" episode The red is what has changed, a far cry from the shit you're pulling. Journalism has blown such findings out of proportion to move units.
Nicholas Bennett
>babby's first scientific discourse >posts a graph with less information than my meme of known evolution fakery
Whats also not taken into account is the degree to which artists and scientists attempt to paint a face and recreate entire subpecies from individual fossils which are already greatly damaged and subject to various conditions.
>Journalism has blown such findings out of proportion to move units.
yes which is why ive had enough of their shit and investigating myself.
Joseph Allen
>known evolution fakery That's from a Chick tract, user. Not to mention it gets most of its info from "Dr" Kent Hovind.
>Whats also not taken into account is the degree to which artists and scientists attempt to paint a face and recreate entire subpecies from individual fossils which are already greatly damaged and subject to various conditions. I honestly can't tell what you're trying to say here. Are you ripping on the artistic renditions, or virtual reconstructions of the skull. The artistic renditions, while imaginative, have a basis in reality via using living apes and humans as a template. The virtual reconstructions are rarely ever used, save for the heavily distorted (Sahelanthropus) and fragmentary (Rudolfensis) findings, and even then, they have been refined.
>yes which is why ive had enough of their shit and investigating myself. Then perhaps sites such as researchgate and others would be useful to you.
Joseph Flores
And with a wave of the hand all sketchiness revolving around the bones are brushed aside as no problemo
While scientists continue spouting horseshit , then you fall back on your absurd miscalculations and no true Scotsman bullshit about why evolution is a failed theory.
So any answer I give you won't work, because it still says you're claims are either bullshit or the result of misconceptions? Got it.
Lucas Anderson
*your
Luis Carter
>excuse me for assuming it was impossible to measure distance with units of time. >so to confirm a star is 1000 light years away, you would have to travel 1000 years in time across space
bait.jpeg
Lincoln Hughes
>dna is a complex information system, information systems have never been observed creating themselves from complex amino acids in nature, or in controlled conditions
>confuses evolution and abiogenesis
Seriously, gtfo
Mason Fisher
>dna is a complex information system, information systems have never been observed creating themselves from complex amino acids in nature, or in controlled conditions. evolution has nothing to do with biogenesis you dumbfuck, how can a process implicit in organisms exist before an organism does? You clearly have no knowledge of biology.
Tyler Sanchez
>evolution has nothing to do with biogenesis
yea because the evolving life has to come from somewhere, and evolutionists know life forming chemicals didn't create themself but can't say god/gods.
>ad hominem
>how can a process implicit in organisms exist before an organism does?
how can an organism reproduce without preliminary information to be passed on through dna in the first place.
where did the original dna information come from?
>evolutionists say microbes
>where did the information processing chemicals in the microbes' dna come from and how did it arrange ITSELF?
>evolutionists answer: muh billions and billions of years, youre a retard for not believing in billions of immeasurable years and lightning creating life.
Jose Flores
>posts link to low quality site that would be unnacceptable from a creationist.
Caleb Flores
Abiogenesis is indeed a rather hard nut to crack, but there is research going on to get closer to a possible beginning of simple biochemistry from anorganic chemistry hydrothermal vents are a possible candidate for a suitable environment.
>life forming chemicals didn't create themself actually, amino acids simple nucleotides (RNA) have been created in reactors that mimic a possible early earth environment. Once you get concentrated RNA, you get the possibility of ligation and recombination, resulting in RNA chains. These RNA chains can catalyse chemical reactions (ribozymes)
Once you get on single self replicating ribozyme, you got yourself a growing population of simple biochemical molecules. Further replication and recombination leads to diversification and the possibility of more chemical reactions. Now you have the RNA world (google it) which also answers >where did the original dna information come from?
DNA is secondary to RNA and serves as a more durable long term memory So it evolved from RNA based biochemistry
Not that I expect you to understand anything of what I just said Go read your historical fiction book
Xavier Perez
Science is never wrong.
Science is data collection. Philosophy is the interpretation of the scientific data. Engineering is the utilization of the philosophical interpretation.
Andrew Torres
And you enjoy your Science fiction
but I have facts.
The entire premise of evolutionary paradigm is in itself an Enlightenment era pushback against Papal Dogma's monopoly on the human mind.
Im not saying anyone is right or wrong, we just need to set the playing field in debate where asking where god/god's came from is no different from asking if aliens or evolution out of a big bang are any less feasible explanations.
what should be measured here is a balance between the two ways of experiencing reality.
Understand that the world being created in 6 days, sounds just as far fetched as billions of years.
Neither have empiracal proof, therefore the only plausible way to understand or know anything and prove it is to be able to demonstrate science within material reality rather than extrapolating upon micro/macrocosmic theory.
Consider the GREAT ATTRACTOR OR/ GRAVITY sound strangely close to what one would call a god.
Josiah Foster
It sincerely distresses me that people reply to posts like this seriously. Day in day out this shit is given legitimacy encouraging them to continue
Isaac Cox
The entire premise of evolutionary theory is based on observation different and common traits in related organisms
Modern science has tested and refined the theory of evolution with new technology, experiments and models. It is intriguingly coherent (if you actually read the papers and understand what they mean)
It really has little to do with politics.
For the rest of your post, I have a really hard time trying to understand what you want to say and I read it several times.
Also note that the "big bang" goes to astrophysics and is an entirely different theory.
Samuel Price
You must not know about the majority of creationists sites, huh?
Landon Davis
>nearly all experts agree Lucy was just a 3 foot tall chimpanzee
Thomas Allen
Both the Big Bang and evolution require immeasurable expanses of time which was my point,if we can't verify it and are often proven wrong why keep applying such theories
Cameron Morales
>Can science be wrong ? Yes, but not by much.
Blake Gonzalez
no, I just know what a north korea tier website look like.
