</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) Yes, of course I realize that statistics is a special branch of mathematics. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Than you realize statistics don't prove anything possible or impossible.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by As for the AiG article, proof is exactly the point! That is what I asked for, not opinion or speculation. You are allowed your opinion, but it is simply that. Just because someone posed a question that you and others may find stupid does not mean that it should not be refuted on their site. Anyway, on to other things...
I have a lot of posts to adress single-handedly. <sigh><hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
One of the problems of communication in this debate is the definition of theory, proof, fact, law, hypothesis and other words used in science to describe the nature of existence. The misuse of these terms is wide spread and thrown around like pies in a food fight. The worst abused word is proof. Demands of proof are often made with assumptions that are impossible to satisfy. eg.
Have they ever produced a supernova in a laboratory? I posted a description of what these scientific terms mean in science and they were ignored.
When you asked for proof concerning the AIG article. What sort of PROOF are you looking for? I presented a clear case for the weak academic basis for the article, NOT SPECULATION, that the article was highly flawed to the point that it couldn't be taken seriously from an academic point of view. The basis for my response is based on sound academics and the nature of what is taught in a basic genetics course. One question I would ask AIG to provide the name and qualifications of the skeptic. It is simple good academics to document both sides of an arguement. With out this the article is reduced to a stage show with a straight man and the fool.
This article had nothing to with the question of NEW INFORMATION in the genetics of evolution. If the Professor was worth his salt he would not have published such a rediculous article.