Evolution Is Not A Theory..........................

[Dragon]

Because as everybody knows, once we learn a thing, it's absolute, etched in stone, and we have never found information later that blasted a theory all to shit.

Morons.

Ironic.

Indeed. Talk about not getting it.

The very fact that information can be found later that has blasted a theory all to shit is why there is no such thing as absolutely certain knowledge. The claim to possess absolutely certain knowledge amounts to proof that the person making the claim actually possesses no significant knowledge whatever.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which version of science are we using to day?

 

[Photonic]

Which version of science are we using to day?

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which version of science are we using to day?

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can't explain why those theories haven't worked out so we change the words. got it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

..........................It's a science:

A million life forms have a skelton, mouth at the top or front, a rectum at the bottom or end, a brain, lungs, a heart, a digestive system, genitals within centimeters of the rectum...they are born or hatched, grow to fruition, reproduce and slowly die. Humans are just one species. If one doesn't eat and shit every few days they die.

Only some kind of ignorant human with the IQ of an idiot or someone who has been brainwashed from birth could fail to see that.

Uhh, sorry, but evolution IS a theory. Its one of the most well supported theories in all of science.

 

[Photonic]

Which version of science are we using to day?

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can't explain why those theories haven't worked out so we change the words. got it.

And those theories would be...?

 

[Dragon]

Which version of science are we using to day?

The latest one.

Believers in dogmatic religion have a problem, it seems, with the inherent uncertainty in science. It's completely different from the formula of "this is absolutely so because Authority says it is" that underlies dogma. Science operates on a different principle: "we think this is so because we observe the following evidence that it is so, but it remains possible that we're wrong." It's not as emotionally satisfying to those who are used to pronouncements of Absolute Truth From On High.

Despite this uncertainty, the advantage of science is that there IS evidence behind its assertions, while there is often NO evidence behind the pronouncements of dogma. Because of this, the pronouncements of dogma, despite the greater certainty with which they are presented, are much less likely to be true.

 

[newpolitics]

I don't believe I contested evolution.
I contested Sky's statement that we know where we come from.

This is where you guys always fail. And I don't need scientists to validate my faith. I just have a problem with retards who make ridiculous claims and pretend their idiocy is scientifically based.

But we do know where we come from! We have an awfully nice selection of now extinct inhabitants of the genus homo, and we can ballpark when the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived.

I don't believe "we can ballpark" is a synonym for "know".

You're demanding absolute and precise knowledge is really arrogant. There are no guarantees that there ever will be answers to the degree that you apparently require, although I am not sure who you think you are to be asking of such precision. No one has that right. We have to earn it, as a species, by putting together the pieces, if they even still exist. it is akin to piecing together a crime scene. I know that is disquieting, but the certainty that is available through religious faith does not reflect reality simply because that belief is personally and/or emotionally satisfying. In fact, the satisifaction your mind gets from having faith has no bearing on whether your beliefs reflect reality. You are basically bending the universe and all of its laws to fit your mind, so that you feel good about it... it is so proposterous it makes me want to puke. It is the height of egocentricity, the height of hubris. I do not know how you are missing this. Believing in science is a humbling prospect, one where all of the knowledge is not known, where people actually have to work and study and put in sweat and toil simply to acquire the data that then needs to be put into a working model and then theory, all when there is no guarantee that will ever find what you are looking for... creationists simply take a fairy tale, call it true, and tell everyone else they are wrong. It is completely hilarious, insulting, disrespectful, disingenuous, and enraging all at the same time. the anti-intellectualism that faith has come to breed is simply no longer acceptable to me. I only wish I could more poetically express my rage towards these faith-based monstrosities creationists call arguments.

 

[Photonic]

But we do know where we come from! We have an awfully nice selection of now extinct inhabitants of the genus homo, and we can ballpark when the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived.

I don't believe "we can ballpark" is a synonym for "know".

You're demanding absolute and precise knowledge is really arrogant. There are no guarantees that there ever will be answers to the degree that you apparently require, although I am not sure who you think you are to be asking of such precision. No one has that right. We have to earn it, as a species, by putting together the pieces, if they even still exist. it is akin to piecing together a crime scene. I know that is disquieting, but the certainty that is available through religious faith does not reflect reality simply because that belief is personally and/or emotionally satisfying. In fact, the satisifaction your mind gets from having faith has no bearing on whether your beliefs reflect reality. You are basically bending the universe and all of its laws to fit your mind, so that you feel good about it... it is so proposterous it makes me want to puke. It is the height of egocentricity, the height of hubris. I do not know how you are missing this. Believing in science is a humbling prospect, one where all of the knowledge is not known, where people actually have to work and study and put in sweat and toil simply to acquire the data that then needs to be put into a working model and then theory, all when there is no guarantee that will ever find what you are looking for... creationists simply take a fairy tale, call it true, and tell everyone else they are wrong. It is completely hilarious, insulting, disrespectful, disingenuous, and enraging all at the same time. the anti-intellectualism that faith has come to breed is simply no longer acceptable to me. I only wish I could more poetically express my rage towards these faith-based monstrosities creationists call arguments.

It is highly ironic that someone who is dogmatically religious would demand absolute answers, considering all they have is vapid assumptions and conjecture (at the absolute best).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which version of science are we using to day?

The latest one.

Believers in dogmatic religion have a problem, it seems, with the inherent uncertainty in science. It's completely different from the formula of "this is absolutely so because Authority says it is" that underlies dogma. Science operates on a different principle: "we think this is so because we observe the following evidence that it is so, but it remains possible that we're wrong." It's not as emotionally satisfying to those who are used to pronouncements of Absolute Truth From On High.

Despite this uncertainty, the advantage of science is that there IS evidence behind its assertions, while there is often NO evidence behind the pronouncements of dogma. Because of this, the pronouncements of dogma, despite the greater certainty with which they are presented, are much less likely to be true.

It's funny that the believers in "religion" have never changed there position, but the believers in science change theirs. Why is that?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can't explain why those theories haven't worked out so we change the words. got it.

And those theories would be...?

I lost count 25 theories ago.

 

[Dragon]

It's funny that the believers in "religion" have never changed there position, but the believers in science change theirs. Why is that?

Because believers in religion don't bother about the facts, or about learning anything new. They receive fixed and for-all-time answers from Absolute Authority, and never check those answers against observable reality.

That they have never changed their position is not a point in their favor.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's funny that the believers in "religion" have never changed there position, but the believers in science change theirs. Why is that?

Because believers in religion don't bother about the facts, or about learning anything new. They receive fixed and for-all-time answers from Absolute Authority, and never check those answers against observable reality.

That they have never changed their position is not a point in their favor.

You know after 2000+ years there should have been some change in those belief's but there hasn't There has been one central truth to their belief that their is one God creator.

 

[Dragon]

You know after 2000+ years there should have been some change in those belief's but there hasn't There has been one central truth to their belief that their is one God creator.

I agree, there should have been. If dogmatists had any intellectual integrity, there WOULD have been.

That there has not is, as I said, not a point in their favor.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You know after 2000+ years there should have been some change in those belief's but there hasn't There has been one central truth to their belief that their is one God creator.

I agree, there should have been. If dogmatists had any intellectual integrity, there WOULD have been.

That there has not is, as I said, not a point in their favor.

Aren't you the one that thinks Hank Johnson is not ignorant? Yes you are, if that is the case you need to stop defending science because you are giving science a bad name.

 

[Dragon]

Aren't you the one that thinks Hank Johnson is not ignorant? Yes you are, if that is the case you need to stop defending science because you are giving science a bad name.

You obviously don't understand what is meant by "ignorant" on that thread. It's the same sort of thing as you are exhibiting here: a stubborn insistence, right in the face of mountains of proof, that one's clearly and obviously false beliefs are true. Not only did that video of Johnson not show that, but it COULDN'T show that as there was no proof offered to Johnson that he was wrong about the possibility of an island tipping over due to excess population. If that proof was shown to him, and THEN he continued to insist that it was a real danger, he would be showing ignorance of the Republican sort.

Or, I might add, of the creationist sort. They are quite similar.

 

[Cammmpbell]

..........................It's a science:

A million life forms have a skelton, mouth at the top or front, a rectum at the bottom or end, a brain, lungs, a heart, a digestive system, genitals within centimeters of the rectum...they are born or hatched, grow to fruition, reproduce and slowly die. Humans are just one species. If one doesn't eat and shit every few days they die.

Only some kind of ignorant human with the IQ of an idiot or someone who has been brainwashed from birth could fail to see that.

Uhh, sorry, but evolution IS a theory. Its one of the most well supported theories in all of science.

And the bible is bullshit. The Jews wrote it and they don't even believe it. It's myths, legends and old wives tales. One guy tells something to someone else and then person to person a thousand times and it's been embellished and exagerated by a factor of ten thousand.

Years ago when I attended a management seminar and one of the exercises was a story told to one participant then that person would take another outside the room and tell the next until everyone had participated. When the last person repeated what had been told to him and copies of the original story passed out to all of us it was remarkable. The end did not even resemble the way it started. The entire point had been lost.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

..........................It's a science:

A million life forms have a skelton, mouth at the top or front, a rectum at the bottom or end, a brain, lungs, a heart, a digestive system, genitals within centimeters of the rectum...they are born or hatched, grow to fruition, reproduce and slowly die. Humans are just one species. If one doesn't eat and shit every few days they die.

Only some kind of ignorant human with the IQ of an idiot or someone who has been brainwashed from birth could fail to see that.

Uhh, sorry, but evolution IS a theory. Its one of the most well supported theories in all of science.

And the bible is bullshit. The Jews wrote it and they don't even believe it. It's myths, legends and old wives tales. One guy tells something to someone else and then person to person a thousand times and it's been embellished and exagerated by a factor of ten thousand.

Years ago when I attended a management seminar and one of the exercises was a story told to one participant then that person would take another outside the room and tell the next until everyone had participated. When the last person repeated what had been told to him and copies of the original story passed out to all of us it was remarkable. The end did not even resemble the way it started. The entire point had been lost.

That is your belief in the bible no one is downing you for it. But what are you going to do with bigots.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Aren't you the one that thinks Hank Johnson is not ignorant? Yes you are, if that is the case you need to stop defending science because you are giving science a bad name.

You obviously don't understand what is meant by "ignorant" on that thread. It's the same sort of thing as you are exhibiting here: a stubborn insistence, right in the face of mountains of proof, that one's clearly and obviously false beliefs are true. Not only did that video of Johnson not show that, but it COULDN'T show that as there was no proof offered to Johnson that he was wrong about the possibility of an island tipping over due to excess population. If that proof was shown to him, and THEN he continued to insist that it was a real danger, he would be showing ignorance of the Republican sort.

Or, I might add, of the creationist sort. They are quite similar.

You aren't helping to convert people to science when you support someone like hank johnson

 

[koshergrl]

But we do know where we come from! We have an awfully nice selection of now extinct inhabitants of the genus homo, and we can ballpark when the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived.

I don't believe "we can ballpark" is a synonym for "know".

You're demanding absolute and precise knowledge is really arrogant. There are no guarantees that there ever will be answers to the degree that you apparently require, although I am not sure who you think you are to be asking of such precision. No one has that right. We have to earn it, as a species, by putting together the pieces, if they even still exist. it is akin to piecing together a crime scene. I know that is disquieting, but the certainty that is available through religious faith does not reflect reality simply because that belief is personally and/or emotionally satisfying. In fact, the satisifaction your mind gets from having faith has no bearing on whether your beliefs reflect reality. You are basically bending the universe and all of its laws to fit your mind, so that you feel good about it... it is so proposterous it makes me want to puke. It is the height of egocentricity, the height of hubris. I do not know how you are missing this. Believing in science is a humbling prospect, one where all of the knowledge is not known, where people actually have to work and study and put in sweat and toil simply to acquire the data that then needs to be put into a working model and then theory, all when there is no guarantee that will ever find what you are looking for... creationists simply take a fairy tale, call it true, and tell everyone else they are wrong. It is completely hilarious, insulting, disrespectful, disingenuous, and enraging all at the same time. the anti-intellectualism that faith has come to breed is simply no longer acceptable to me. I only wish I could more poetically express my rage towards these faith-based monstrosities creationists call arguments.

I'm not asking for that degree of precision. I'm challenging idiots who claim they have it. In other words, you just spent a lot of energy talking to a point that was never made.

Typical of the hysterical anti-Christian crowd.