Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who has done no real mathematics and whose book on Calculus is full of errors including an incorrect proof of the Intermediate Value Theorem upon which all the other theorems discussed are based.
His historical anecdotes appear to be pure fiction as well.
None of his books are hard science. Most are histories of various scientific theories, but some are histories of preposterous ideas like astrology. No wonder he is affiliated with Creation Science. The man has no understanding of real science at all.
You are correct. I have also heard that the evolution is just a theory. The fact is that this is to high of a tittle to give it. Evolution is barely an hypothesis poorly supported by conjecture. Rather it is a collection of proposterous anecdotes not supported by facts.
But you are incorrect that science will self edit and peer correct. It does not and will not. That is why this 19th Century idea sill floods the biology text books but has very little basis in reality.
Your posts crack me up!.Conjecture......ROFLMFAO: smack:.
You weren't thinking that the Christian apologists here were actually going to read your politely provided links, were you, PITTS? That's clearly not their agenda. They only parrot, they do not self-educate. The information they'd glean would terrify them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
You are correct. I have also heard that the evolution is just a theory. The fact is that this is to high of a tittle to give it. Evolution is barely an hypothesis poorly supported by conjecture. Rather it is a collection of proposterous anecdotes not supported by facts.
But you are incorrect that science will self edit and peer correct. It does not and will not. That is why this 19th Century idea sill floods the biology text books but has very little basis in reality.
(FYI: It's "title", not "tittle". You really ought to read a bit more, NIKK).
It's the "just" part of "just a theory" that you have so very wrong. What you hear down at the local church parking lot after Sunday sermon is not really based on anything but a bunch of people terrified that their life views might be entirely wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nea1
I cant believe I just read this. The whole post is just wrong.
You're so right, Nea! A clear demonstration of vapid ignorance on a specific topic, to be sure. What's really sad is that it's intentional on this poster's part, with no interest in learning anything factual on the subject. On any science subject!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
I am the one who wrote the post and I am not ignorant. BTW ignorance my part does not strengthen your arguement (of which you have given none). A persons education level does not change the value we give to a perticular arguement. The arguement stands on its own.
I say that evolution is an hypothesis not a theory, because as a scientific term, theory is too high for it.
You say? How odd to acknowledge that you're ignorant on a subject but that this does not strengthen others' arguments against your (admittedly ignorant) position. This in itself just further demonstrates your purposeful ignorance. What an amazingly illogical argument!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Its a sham, I mean shame that evolution is not really science, but rather a story that is supported when convenient by science.
You are correct that is evolution can be lowered down, then it can be considered just another hypothesis. However, it should never have been lifted up to the statust that it is at, because of the lack of evidence for it.
Lack of evidence? Again, your astounding lack of understanding of the modern evidence (within the last 15 or so, and in particular within the last 2 or 3, years) for evolution is obvious in your own baseless statements. You have been left in the dust of truly antiquated thinking, and yet you seem to enjoy this status. As expounded on in the following, from an obviously geologically educated and thoughtful person:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spank316
Your complete lack of understanding of geologic stratification taking place over millions of years allows you to draw an analogue to rapid acquiferous layering, when no such analogue can be reasonably drawn, nor does it even make the remotest amount of sense.
(snipped)
It's got nothing to do with geology and nothing to do with geologic aging and even the most basic, pre-school level understanding of geology would show you this.
(snipped)
Your lack of knowledge on both subjects as is made obvious in your posts here make you incapable of understanding the theory of evolution, or geology without doing some serious study.
Clearly you're parrotting other people's opinions of subjects you haven't taken the time to study, which means you have no objective way of testing whether or not what you are saying is based in reality or otherwise.
This means that your opinions are meaningless.
I don't mean to get personal here. I'm not saying that you're incapable of understanding these things for ever. I'm just urging you to go and pick up a book, and actually read peer reviewed work that discusses these topics, because all of your posts to date show a complete misunderstanding of basic science.
He also seems to be proud of this lack of knowledge! Frankly, I might go so far as to say both nikk and c34 may both be incapable, if their previous posts and attitude are considered. Talk about evidence of an earlier species, less intellectually capable. Some have obviously inherited a less inquisitive mind while others have clearly advanced. Neanderthals were, after all, overtaken and out-thunk by later anthropomorphic "versions", for which we've found all sorts of undeniable fossil and archeological artifacts. nikk and c34, of course, deny all of them:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
Evolution taught in the public schools today, has far more to do with indoctrination, then any fair assessment of the evidence.
Anyone who can not readily review and consider new evidence, accompanied by an openness and willingness to accept it when appropriate, is not a scientist. This stubborn attitude is in fact highly typical of literalist Christians, who are functionally unable to consider any alternatives to their now ancient and easily discredited fables.
Fact is, the evidence for evolution is complete, undeniable, easily supported and, cumulatively, overwhelming.
Sorry, nikk and c34; you both bring nothing to this table.
But what does it matter? Your so committed to the notion that theory is the same as fact that, for instance, if a scientist were to put forth a purely scientific case for the theoretical existence of invisible pink elephants, you would pronounce it a done deal - proven - end of story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanTerra
Where did that come from?
Answer: the Book of Canned Retorts, all nicely laid out by Ken Ham and others whose version of fact is, for example, that the banana is shaped like it is because God designed it just for us. (it was actually recently bred by agriculturalists to be what we now see... via applied genetics and natural evolution!)
If a true scientist were to put forth a scientific case for pink elephants, he'd have first provided evidence for extensive peer review, and for reproducing the exact experiment that hypothesized such animals. He'd provide the physical and intelletual evidence necessary before blurting out his ideas.
Christians, on the other hand, seem incapable of observing such logical constraints and process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyageur
We have a winner!
As I pointed out earlier, "But it's just a theory!" is in the same class as a dreadfully clueless understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. When someone broaches either, you know you're dealing with someone who has got the basic talking points down to slogans, but invariably can't begin to actually discuss them.
Maybe you'll explain to us how a law pertaining to closed systems has anything to do with the open systems we're discussing? (ie, evolving biological entities of various sorts)
These threads seem rife with questions from logical atheists asking Christians to explain their detailed understanding of, or concerns about, various scientific theories. Such requests always seem to go unanswered. Why is that?
Perhaps tigetmax can break this ugly trend and tell us all about the theistic contradictions in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Yes?
You weren't thinking that the Christian apologists here were actually going to read your politely provided links, were you, PITTS? That's clearly not their agenda. They only parrot, they do not self-educate. The information they'd glean would terrify them.
(FYI: It's "title", not "tittle". You really ought to read a bit more, NIKK).
It's the "just" part of "just a theory" that you have so very wrong. What you hear down at the local church parking lot after Sunday sermon is not really based on anything but a bunch of people terrified that their life views might be entirely wrong.
You're so right, Nea! A clear demonstration of vapid ignorance on a specific topic, to be sure. What's really sad is that it's intentional on this poster's part, with no interest in learning anything factual on the subject. On any science subject!
You say? How odd to acknowledge that you're ignorant on a subject but that this does not strengthen others' arguments against your (admittedly ignorant) position. This in itself just further demonstrates your purposeful ignorance. What an amazingly illogical argument!
Lack of evidence? Again, your astounding lack of understanding of the modern evidence (within the last 15 or so, and in particular within the last 2 or 3, years) for evolution is obvious in your own baseless statements. You have been left in the dust of truly antiquated thinking, and yet you seem to enjoy this status. As expounded on in the following, from an obviously geologically educated and thoughtful person:
He also seems to be proud of this lack of knowledge! Frankly, I might go so far as to say both nikk and c34 may both be incapable, if their previous posts and attitude are considered. Talk about evidence of an earlier species, less intellectually capable. Some have obviously inherited a less inquisitive mind while others have clearly advanced. Neanderthals were, after all, overtaken and out-thunk by later anthropomorphic "versions", for which we've found all sorts of undeniable fossil and archeological artifacts. nikk and c34, of course, deny all of them:
Anyone who can not readily review and consider new evidence, accompanied by an openness and willingness to accept it when appropriate, is not a scientist. This stubborn attitude is in fact highly typical of literalist Christians, who are functionally unable to consider any alternatives to their now ancient and easily discredited fables.
Fact is, the evidence for evolution is complete, undeniable, easily supported and, cumulatively, overwhelming.
Sorry, nikk and c34; you both bring nothing to this table.
Anyone who cannot readily review and consider new evidence, accompanied by an openness and willingness to accept it when appropriate, is not a scientist?
THANKYOU FOR MAKING MY POINT.
Because that is what is happening in the Public Schools today. Your so called teachers of science refuse to consider evidence that would put into question the Theory of Evolution. And that is why such openness is being blocked by the courts. Your teachers of science refuse to consider any other alternatives to their fables. And the biggest fable of all, is that evolution is complete and undeniable. The fact is, it is only undeniable because other alternatives and facts are being blocked by the courts. And it is your people who have used that method to surpress all other information. It is your people who's greatest weapon, is censorship.
i find it very heartening that for every creationist post there are six or seven fact-filled posts from people who reasonably understand science and the theory of evolution.
Yes, you fail to see my point. And that you say, "Your claim that humans aren't omniscient isn't exactly revolutionary", as though that observation was the end of my point, is indicative of that.
You ask "But so what?", as to human knowledge being incomplete. THAT was my point...that you failed to see.
You can see post, after post, after post in this thread pointing out "the ignorance" of people..."the religious" in particular...for not understanding that "theory" can have a different meaning than the laymans' definition...especially when used in science...and the implication that those people are somehow diminished because of that.
They certainly have less understanding than many. No way around that problem. What this thread was looking at is that this ignorance can be cured - but in a society like ours with reasonable access to science education it is interesting that it persists. It's especially interesting that certain misconceptions seem to be more prevalent in conservative religious groups with a tendency towards anti-intellectualism.
Quote:
I was pointing out that NOBODY really fully knows much of anything...but, "SO WHAT?" We are all, for all intents and purposes, "in the same boat"...relative to "knowledge".
Not true at all. The fact no one knows everything doesn't mean that some people don't know more that other people. A high school graduate knows more than a 2 year old even though none of them know everything.
Likewise, we don't have a theory which unifies QM and gravity. But that doesn't mean we know nothing about how to put a space ship in orbit.
Quote:
There is soooooooo much to "know"...and what we DO "understand" could, in fact, actually be a MISunderstanding
Yep, that's why scientific papers include error bars. Despite this we still put people on the moon and cured smallpox. Again, not knowing everything 100% doesn't mean we actually don't know what we do.
And new discoveries rarely completely invalidate an older theory. The new discoveries are typically in the extremes of what we can observe - the old theory works for the vast majority of common cases but the new information tweaks how things work in unusual conditions. So it's less misunderstanding the things we claim to know and more refining the areas where there was simply a lack of information.
Unless you're talking about freshman philosophy "but what if we all live in the Matrix" nonsense. That's best left to the philosophers to endlessly debate while the rest of us get on with getting stuff done in the real world.
Quote:
MOF...for most of human history...and even in 2010 in some parts of the world...people didn't/don't know anything about "science", or for that matter, much of anything beyond what it took/takes to get sufficient food, clothing, and shelter to survive...and what they didn't/don't know they attribute(d) to "otherworldly entities and forces". But I don't believe for a second that their lives had/have less meaning or value, or that they were/are in any way "lesser" as people...than others that have a acquired more "correct information" about things through "science".
THAT'S what I was adding to the conversation. And you are very welcome...I like "sharing". And "thank YOU" for adding to the conversation that you "didn't get it", and all the rest. Do you "see it" now?
OK, so basically you've got a disagreement with people who think that cultures with less access to modern education are subhuman. Anyone believe this? Anyone? I guess not. Like I said, I really don't know what your point is in posting this stuff here.
i find it very heartening that for every creationist post there are six or seven fact-filled posts from people who reasonably understand science and the theory of evolution.
In psychology, we're having similar problems. There is only one "theory of the mind" - meaning, one theory alone seeks to explain the whys and the hows of the development of the consciousness, and of the unconscious. That is psychoanalysis. However, in psych and social work programs, they teach that Cognitive-Behavioral therapy is also a theory. It's not a theory at all, merely an approach to dealing with problems. In CBT, one basically ignores the root causes of his problems, and learns to "cope" with those problems.
An example: someone is OCD, washing his hands 500 times per day. In CBT practice (not theory) you help the client to decrease the number of times per day he washes his hands. If the number drops even to a pitiful 400 times per day, you've "helped the client" to learn to "Cope." It doesn't explain the why -- why does he feel this compulsion? It only tries to stop it. He could benefit from learning why he's unconsciously selected the symbolism of hand-washing to lessen his mind's anxiety -- but instead he's taught how to wash less.
Psychoanalysis alone seeks to explain why he is thus compelled. Yet, programs the world over teach that the various therapeutic approaches represent various theory bases, when they do not do anything to seek to explain the whys of human behavior.
Sheesh. Freud gets a lot of knocks -- and he certainly wasn't 100% correct about everything -- but he and his followers alone have attempted to explain how people tick, why various personality traits and behaviors arise. Indeed, psychoanalysis is only a "theory" -- but a tried and tested one. The therapist can witness the inherent truths of the theory as the client improves through guidance toward the root causes of his difficulties.
You weren't thinking that the Christian apologists here were actually going to read your politely provided links, were you, PITTS? That's clearly not their agenda. They only parrot, they do not self-educate. The information they'd glean would terrify them.
(FYI: It's "title", not "tittle". You really ought to read a bit more, NIKK).
It's the "just" part of "just a theory" that you have so very wrong. What you hear down at the local church parking lot after Sunday sermon is not really based on anything but a bunch of people terrified that their life views might be entirely wrong.
You're so right, Nea! A clear demonstration of vapid ignorance on a specific topic, to be sure. What's really sad is that it's intentional on this poster's part, with no interest in learning anything factual on the subject. On any science subject!
You say? How odd to acknowledge that you're ignorant on a subject but that this does not strengthen others' arguments against your (admittedly ignorant) position. This in itself just further demonstrates your purposeful ignorance. What an amazingly illogical argument!
Lack of evidence? Again, your astounding lack of understanding of the modern evidence (within the last 15 or so, and in particular within the last 2 or 3, years) for evolution is obvious in your own baseless statements. You have been left in the dust of truly antiquated thinking, and yet you seem to enjoy this status. As expounded on in the following, from an obviously geologically educated and thoughtful person:
He also seems to be proud of this lack of knowledge! Frankly, I might go so far as to say both nikk and c34 may both be incapable, if their previous posts and attitude are considered. Talk about evidence of an earlier species, less intellectually capable. Some have obviously inherited a less inquisitive mind while others have clearly advanced. Neanderthals were, after all, overtaken and out-thunk by later anthropomorphic "versions", for which we've found all sorts of undeniable fossil and archeological artifacts. nikk and c34, of course, deny all of them:
Anyone who can not readily review and consider new evidence, accompanied by an openness and willingness to accept it when appropriate, is not a scientist. This stubborn attitude is in fact highly typical of literalist Christians, who are functionally unable to consider any alternatives to their now ancient and easily discredited fables.
Fact is, the evidence for evolution is complete, undeniable, easily supported and, cumulatively, overwhelming.
Sorry, nikk and c34; you both bring nothing to this table.
Sorry, Shibumi you bring nothing to the table! Correcting spelling does not an arguement make. To missunderstand that when I was talking of Reason and a reasonable arguement, you thought I was saying I was ignorant of the subject, which I am not. I just do not believe your religion. The one that is so easily proven by you, yet is lacking on every account.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
