N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2016,02:16) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 24 2016,01:39) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2016,01:16) | | Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 23 2016,15:58) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2016,06:52) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 23 2016,06:38) | | Talk about starting with your desired conclusions! Gary, can you see the weaknesses of that approach when someone else does it? |
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Even you start off with conclusions. |
Oh the humanity!
Gary, this is why you don't understand science. |
Did you or did not at some point in your sordid life conclude that given the evidence you were given Darwinian theory makes more sense than what Ken Ham and others have been trying to teach you? |
And what does that have to do with anything?
Check the evidence. Ham is untruthful about stuff and is wrong in his claims, and the evidence again and again supports standard geological interpretations and evolutionary theory, so we draw conclusions from that, as is appropriate. |
Oh, so you too regularly start off with a conclusion.
And you think it's appropriate to draw from it even more conclusions, just because they make sense to you. How sad. |
The procedure that you and I both describe has nothing to do with starting with one's desired conclusions.
Let's recap:
1) Start with the evidence (you said "given the evidence"),
2) Assess hypotheses in light of the evidence (you asked whether evolutionary theory or Ham's ideas made more sense),
3) Arrive at conclusions (as you said, "conclude").
How on Earth does that constitute us starting with our desired conclusions?
Also note that when following proper scientific procedure, one sets up mutually exclusive multiple working hypotheses precisely in order to avoid working to confirm a favored hypothesis. Then set up tests (falsifiable predictions) that are capable of disproving one or more of the hypotheses, and after that run the tests as cleanly as possible. You don't do any of that, and you don't even seem to understand why you should.
Back to your claim that plants sleep. You said, "Sleep is the growth and repair part of a two part cycle found in all cells and the multicellular plant and animal bodies that are emergent from them. The other part of the cycle is a food gathering/production phase that wears cells down over time, which results in their needing to sleep again."
How does that apply to plants? Their growth phase is their "food gathering/production" phase. Why do plants "need" a rest cycle? How does photosynthesis "wear down" a plant cell, such that it needs a "recovery phase"? What exactly are plants doing during their recovery phase that is not simply halting the light-dependent parts of photosynthesis because no light is available?
You do realize that in the absence of supplying your own operational definition, we revert to the standard operational definitions of sleep versus wakefulness being measured by EEG patterns, according to which plants are neither awake nor asleep, but dead? This suggests that the concept of "asleep/awake" does not apply to plants.
|
