Darwin destroyed in new book

[alang1216]

So you are just for the hell of it saying that Mendel agrees with you ???
Then you are the silly man I always say you are

View attachment 934998

I said no such thing, nor did I quote a long-dead scientist to back up my point. Got any sources from this century?

 

[Crepitus]

Well, that ;is even easier to dismiss

1)There is not just 1 evolution !!!!
2) Until YOU distinguish micro-evolution (the breeds of dogs)from Macro,No one knows what you are defending
3) And 'common ancestor' is the surely disproved aspect of any evolulutionary theory. Even Gould said that the Cambrian explosions destoryed gradualist views of evolution

Oh my gosh you're draining the IQ outta this room so fast none of us are gonna be able to form coherent sentences in a hour.

 

[Libby von H]

I said no such thing, nor did I quote a long-dead scientist to back up my point. Got any sources from this century?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you are just for the hell of it saying that Mendel agrees with you ???

Who cares? That isn't the way science works. That's The way religion works. Just a bunch of authoritarian shamans running around declaring infallible truth. That's why you're so Confused.

 

[Libby von H]

Who cares? That isn't the way science works. That's The way religion works. Just a bunch of authoritarian shamans running around declaring infallible truth. That's why you're so Confused.

I have looked at how people react to you and this post is a good example of what they dislike about you.
I am supposed to be taking the religion line and he the science line. Let him debate me and I will hand him his asss on almost any science topic. HE said no great scientists were believers and I posted this to embarass him

Here we are again, WITH CITATION

"
over 65% of Nobel prize winners between 1901 and 2000 believed in God!!!

The statistics were taken from Baruch Shalev’s 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (Los Angeles, 2005)1 and, far from being over–stated, the number of theists may even have been higher still, as the he records that just over 65% of the overall winners identified as Christian,2 whilst over 20% were Jewish "

Poster esp hates Jews , don't overlook that

 

[Libby von H]

Who cares? That isn't the way science works. That's The way religion works. Just a bunch of authoritarian shamans running around declaring infallible truth. That's why you're so Confused.

Actually wrong on both counts
HEre is a real scientist on the 4 things you get wrong

MICHAEL POLANYI
a series of observations which at one time were held to be important scientific facts, were a few years later completely discredited and committed to oblivion, without ever having been disproved or indeed newly tested, simply because the conceptual framework of science had meanwhile so altered that the facts no longer appeared credible.

“We cannot ultimately specify the grounds (either metaphysical or logical or empirical) upon which we hold that our knowledge is true. Being committed to such grounds, dwelling in them, we are projecting ourselves to what we believe to be true from or through these grounds. We cannot therefore see what they are. We cannot look at them because we are looking with them.”
― Michael Polanyi,


AND your central silliness is here pointed out
The amount of knowledge which we can justify from evidence directly available to us can never be large. The overwhelming proportion of our factual beliefs continue therefore to be held at second hand through trusting others, and in the great majority of cases our trust is placed in the authority of comparatively few people of widely acknowledged standing.
Michael Polanyi

THEN HE DESTROYS YOUR CONCLUSION
I hold that the propositions embodied in natural science are not derived by any definite rule from the data of experience, and that they can neither be verified nor falsified by experience according to any definite rule.
Michael Polanyi

YOU FORCED ME TO EMBARASS YOU BY NOT ADMITTING YOU WERE WRONG> SCIENCE IN NO WAY IS DONE THE WAY YOU IMAGINE

 

[alang1216]

View attachment 935037

So nothing from this century or even in the last 100 years. You really should get up to speed.

 

[Libby von H]

So nothing from this century or even in the last 100 years. You really should get up to speed.

Polanyi is recent

 

[Failzero]

Finds in Europe destroy the “ Out of Africa “ theory ( Finds in Caves in Germany and Turkey of 8+ Million year old hominid / Human ancestor ) are forcing a rethink .

 

[Libby von H]

So someone said artificial selection proves the reality of Natural Selection.
Well.logically artificial must be acting on natural selection in the real world. So it proves the opposite.
I am saying that you "imagine" a separate world without natural selection but with folks breeding dogs, cats, etc.
pure fantasy if natural selection is always at work.
THere are 200 AKC breeds of dogs at the moment and they are all dogs. So in your view they are all at the same % fllipping to a new species. That must be the case because something prior (in the past) gave us all at one time 200 dog breeds. It is silly beyond belief that you can think that Either be a Nominalist and say they are not essentially dogs or admit the silliness of attributing species to 200 so varied living things

 

[Libby von H]

I said no such thing, nor did I quote a long-dead scientist to back up my point. Got any sources from this century?

SO Euclid is wrong because old

That is a classic fallacy: 2+2 used to be 4

 

[alang1216]

Polanyi is recent

An economist you cite? Why?

 

[alang1216]

SO Euclid is wrong because old

The most serious difficulties with Euclid from the modern point of view is that he did not realize that an axiom was needed for congruence of triangles, Euclid's proof by superposition is not considered as a valid proof. Does that mean none of what he did had value?

That is a classic fallacy: 2+2 used to be 4

Another fallacy is selecting a historical scientist and claiming, that because he was ignorant of later findings or made an incorrect statement, his entire field of study is invalid forever.

 

[Libby von H]

An economist you cite? Why?

He was a Philosopher in later life after a brilliant career as a scientist. You aren't talkinga about his brother are you , Karl Polanyi ????

 

[Libby von H]

knows The most serious difficulties with Euclid from the modern point of view is that he did not realize that an axiom was needed for congruence of triangles, Euclid's proof by superposition is not considered as a valid proof. Does that mean none of what he did had value?


Another fallacy is selecting a historical scientist and claiming, that because he was ignorant of later findings or made an incorrect statement, his entire field of study is invalid forever.

Look, any student of Math past grammar school knows alang does not know what he's talking about. That is an old Richard Dawkins/ Stephen Hawking ploy.

Finds in Europe destroy the “ Out of Africa “ theory ( Finds in Caves in Germany and Turkey of 8+ Million year old hominid / Human ancestor ) are forcing a rethink .

Both wrong , you and them , as far as the findings that have material culture related to religion.

Göbekli Tepe​

I am not a huge fan of National Geographic but you will not be able to say they are biased

The Birth of Religion, according to National Geographic​

The June issue of National Geographic contained a fascinating article pondering the origins of religion in human civilization – Charles C. Mann, “The Birth of Religion,” in National Geographic June 2011, 34-59. Mann’s article discusses the archaeological find of an ancient temple at Gobekli Tepe, in contemporary Turkey, which overturns traditional theses concerning the birth of religion.

 

[Failzero]

Look, any student of Math past grammar school knows alang does not know what he's talking about. That is an old Richard Dawkins/ Stephen Hawking ploy.

Both wrong , you and them , as far as the findings that have material culture related to religion.

Göbekli Tepe​

I am not a huge fan of National Geographic but you will not be able to say they are biased

The Birth of Religion, according to National Geographic​

The June issue of National Geographic contained a fascinating article pondering the origins of religion in human civilization – Charles C. Mann, “The Birth of Religion,” in National Geographic June 2011, 34-59. Mann’s article discusses the archaeological find of an ancient temple at Gobekli Tepe, in contemporary Turkey, which overturns traditional theses concerning the birth of religion.

The New first Friday folks finds in that region of Turkey push religion back 12-14 thousand years

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have looked at how people react to you and this post is a good example of what they dislike about you.
I am supposed to be taking the religion line and he the science line. Let him debate me and I will hand him his asss on almost any science topic. HE said no great scientists were believers and I posted this to embarass him

Here we are again, WITH CITATION

"
over 65% of Nobel prize winners between 1901 and 2000 believed in God!!!

The statistics were taken from Baruch Shalev’s 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (Los Angeles, 2005)1 and, far from being over–stated, the number of theists may even have been higher still, as the he records that just over 65% of the overall winners identified as Christian,2 whilst over 20% were Jewish "

Poster esp hates Jews , don't overlook that

Again.. who cares? A billion peolle believe Mohammed rode a winged horse into the sky. This has no bearing on science.

Why not show the results of a poll of scientists who consider the ToE to be true? I think we know why.

And some free advice: grow up. You're whiny and petty.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The New first Friday folks finds in that region of Turkey push religion back 12-14 thousand years

Which is jus a contrived benchmark. Organized religion was a byproduct of peole organizing. The goofy magical beliefs were already present, probably since the first day a primate became self aware.

 

[Failzero]

Yes

Which is jus a contrived benchmark. Organized religion was a byproduct of peole organizing. The goofy magical beliefs were already present, probably since the first day a primate became self aware.

there are many examples of the Rotund lounging Goddess figurines dating back 20K years plus

 

[Libby von H]

Again.. who cares? A billion peolle believe Mohammed rode a winged horse into the sky. This has no bearing on science.

Why not show the results of a poll of scientists who consider the ToE to be true? I think we know why.

And some free advice: grow up. You're whiny and petty.

That's whiney, droput