Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

Micawber said:
So true, faith is a lazy do-loop. Basically it's a coat check for your mind before entering the debate restaurant.
Sir, would you like to check your brain before sitting down for the meal? Why yes. Then just say I have faith in God, screw this evidence.
Click to expand...

There is evidence for the existence of God. There is also evidence there is no God. Meh.
 
Cypress said:
It is fine to ask skeptical and well-framed questions about human evolution.
Click to expand...
Yet you don't.
Cypress said:
A lot of things we thought we knew 50 years ago turned out to be wrong.
Click to expand...
Such as? What has this to do with anything being discussed here?
Cypress said:
But the basic overarching tenet that anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens evolved from archaic species of humans is beyond any reasonable scientific doubt.
Click to expand...
Science isn't a 'doubt'. The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science. Religion is not science.
Cypress said:
I am starting to think that to the extent Republican posters have any college background at all, it involves Liberty University.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant attempt at an insult.
Cypress said:
The remaing questions on hominid evolution involve mechanism, timing, divergence, and genetic relationships. We are dowm in the weeds at this point, but we will undoutedly discover many new things, and existing hypotheses will fall by the wayside.
Click to expand...
A hypothesis comes from a theory, not the other way around. The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.
 
Micawber said:
I disagree with statement 1. I think it is fine to ask questions like what meaningful evolutionary distinctions and similarities lie between dinosaurs and modern birds,
or how sure are we that an asteroid caused dino mass extinction and not lava. But questions about the validity of evolution itself has been long put to bed as a serious one amongst scientists.

Point blank, there is NO creditable alternative theory for the change of biological forms over time. Period, full stop.
It's not evolution or God, or evolution or devolution, its not evolution or dark matter from the edge of the universe is mutating dna.

Evolution by random genetic mutation and natural selection for traits that increase chance of survival is the only scientific explanation that works.
We can understand what the "random" is better. Learn about cancers, free radicals etc. but these religious mutants won't shed any light.
Click to expand...

Natural selection builds a paradox. You are being irrational.
The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science. Religion is not science.
 
Cypress said:
It is fine to ask skeptical and well-framed questions about human evolution.

A lot of things we thought we knew 50 years ago turned out to be wrong.

But the basic overarching tenet that anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens evolved from archaic species of humans is beyond any reasonable scientific doubt.

I am starting to think that to the extent Republican posters have any college background at all, it involves Liberty University.

The remaing questions on hominid evolution involve mechanism, timing, divergence, and genetic relationships. We are dowm in the weeds at this point, but we will undoutedly discover many new things, and existing hypotheses will fall by the wayside.
Click to expand...

I learnt evolution in college and learned to think critically of it afterwards. And no, not in Sunday school.

Critical thinking has fallen by the wayside and that became brutally apparent over the last year and a half.
 
BidenPresident said:
The appeal of falsificationism is obvious. It provides a bright line, and it rewards the boldness that we often like to see exemplified in science. How well does it work?

The short answer is: not very. Philosophers of science recognized this almost immediately, for two main reasons. First, it is difficult to determine whether you have actually falsified a theory. This is largely a restatement of one of Popper’s own objections to verificationism.

http://bostonreview.net/science-nat...ael-d-gordin-quest-tell-science-pseudoscience
Click to expand...

the rejection of the scientific method IS the origin of pseudoscience........
 
Into the Night said:
F=ma is not Newton's law of gravitation.
Click to expand...

So you should have just admitted you do not understand rudimentary algebra from the start instead of wasting my time.

There is no such thing as a '2nd law of mechanics'.
Click to expand...
"Newton’s three laws of physics are the basis for mechanics."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-physics/chapter/newtons-laws/

"Newton's laws of motion = three laws of mechanics describing the motion of a body"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/newton-s-laws-of-motion
 
Last edited:
Darth Omar said:
I learnt evolution in college and learned to think critically of it afterwards. And no, not in Sunday school.
Click to expand...
Right wing blogs do not count as scientific publications.

Clearly you were not reading Scientific American, Smithsonian, or National Geographic.

Critical thinking has fallen by the wayside and that became brutally apparent over the last year and a half.
Click to expand...
Obviously, and this is best exemplified by 70 million people voting for the worst president in U.S. history.
 
Cypress said:
Right wing blogs do not count as scientific publications.

Clearly you were not reading Scientific American, Smithsonian, or National Geographic.


Obviously, and this is best exemplified by 70 million people voting for the worst president in U.S. history.
Click to expand...

Not right wing blogs either. I have a small library of books that taught me to think critically about it. You should try it. It can be liberating.
 
Darth Omar said:
Not right wing blogs either. I have a small library of books that taught me to think critically about it. You should try it. It can be liberating.
Click to expand...

It does not sound like you were reading any reputable and legitimate scientific literature.

If you had been reading National Geographic, Scientific American, et al. you would not have made the statement that the evidence for evolution is so weak and tenuous it would likely not stand up even in a civil court of law.
 
Cypress said:
It does not sound like you were reading any reputable and legitimate scientific literature.

If you had been reading National Geographic, Scientific American, et al. you would not have made the statement that the evidence for evolution is so weak and tenuous it would likely not stand up even in a civil court of law.
Click to expand...

I think INT would call that the No True Scotsman Fallacy lol.

Scientific consensus is a two dollar term for herd mentality and group think. What was the consensus on the lab origin theory theory two months ago?
 
Darth Omar said:
I think INT would call that the No True Scotsman Fallacy lol.

Scientific consensus is a two dollar term for herd mentality and group think. What was the consensus on the lab origin theory theory two months ago?
Click to expand...
You rely on experts and consensus expert professional judgement in your life on a daily basis. From the medical doctor you see, to the civil engineer-designed roads you drive on.

Let me know when you feel comfortable driving on a bridge designed by nurses.

You implied that the theory of evolution was so weak it would not even stand up in civil court.

Can you name a handful of reputable research molecular biologists, geneticists, and paleontologists who think it is more than 50 percent likely that the basic outline of evolutionary theory is dead wrong?
 
Cypress said:
You rely on experts and consensus expert professional judgement in your life on a daily basis. From the medical doctor you see, to the civil engineer-designed roads you drive on.

Let me know when you feel comfortable driving on a bridge designed by nurses.

You implied that the theory of evolution was so weak it would not even stand up in civil court.

Can you name a handful of reputable research molecular biologists, geneticists, and paleontologists who think it is more than 50 percent likely that the basic outline of evolutionary theory is dead wrong?
Click to expand...

When I found one he wouldn’t be reputatable so lol.
 
BidenPresident said:
We know grass, people, and clouds exist. But why is the most powerful force in the universe--God--only an object of faith?!
Click to expand...

Defining it and evidence.

When you make up a concept from whole cloth, like God, you either make a specific claim or a general one about it's traits.
For religions which make clear decisive definitions of what their god is, there is either no evidence or it is an object that already exists in nature, or even all of it. If you define it as an amorphous gloss over all natural creation you are simply assuming its existence. In any case you can't get out of the blocks with a logical and rational argument with these suckers.

By example for each I could say my silkie breed of chicken I named "thing 1" is god and that it is controlling everything. That's a very specific claim that I can offer no evidence to support except by pointing to the damn bird. And yet you can't prove the negative. The consensus rightly would be that I am delusional just as I conclude all Christians are delusional. I could say everything I see in the world is so amazing and complicated it is all evidence of god. That definition is of course vague, overbroad and unproveable. And still the same evidentiary problem for adherents exists as the former claim, there is no proof.

Assumption of what one wishes to prove is not proof. All believers in a god must suppose its existence and can never prove it.

Evolution suffers from neither of these problems because it is a well defined mechanism and it was created from the evidence that defines the concept, evidence which exists. Same as I can assert and prove my chicken is a bird, and not god. Then finally there are the more clever annoying mystics who simply make their god coopt the next latest greatest scientific creation, wonder or discovery as the work of their particular fantasy creature. Meh, they are all idiots for similar reasons though.

Beyond all this nothing is left but a debate about the nature of knowing, or what knowledge of something is. That is beyond the scope, but I recognize the issue when some dunce averts to it in the context of the god debate.
 
Last edited:
Darth Omar said:
When I found one he wouldn’t be reputatable so lol.
Click to expand...

I accept your tacit confession that you cannot cite a list of reputable research biologists, or provide a body of peer reviewed research to support your claims that the basic outlines of evolutionary theory is dead wrong.
 
"When I found one he wouldn’t be reputatable so lol."

True statement. For the same reason you can't find a reputable plumber who doesn't believe in plumbing. You are a dumbshit.
You attack evolution not to be entertained but because you are an ignorant hick from West VA. And all you inbreds from your region do it
because of fear of death and need for a mgical savior to somehow save you from the reality you see in the hospital every day,
people dying and life ending. It's a fraud and scam and you are being played.
 
Cypress said:
You rely on experts and consensus expert professional judgement in your life on a daily basis. From the medical doctor you see, to the civil engineer-designed roads you drive on.

Let me know when you feel comfortable driving on a bridge designed by nurses.

You implied that the theory of evolution was so weak it would not even stand up in civil court.

Can you name a handful of reputable research molecular biologists, geneticists, and paleontologists who think it is more than 50 percent likely that the basic outline of evolutionary theory is dead wrong?
Click to expand...

would you want to drive on a road that wasn't intelligently designed?......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top