Anoushik Posted April 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 okkk!!! totally misread my post there! and i don't think you got the point at all; when did i mention 'punishment'? it's scary how instead of reading and analyzing objectively people spin tales in their heads!! <_< You wrote: "i can only imagine the guilt and the sorrow and the shame they will have to endure..." Again, why would I feel shame and guilt and sorrow? Yes, you didn't use the word "punishment" but if somehow I was made to feel guilty when my time came, then it would be similar to a punishment. analyzing objectively This is something that you don't do very well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 Strange that Domino says I copy and paste when all he does is copy and paste, be it his physics treatises on that multiple universe belief, or combatting dan regarding the Holocaust. As far as evolution, it "best explains" doesn't cut it. Science isn't about faith and belief, as scientists themselves like to tout. When atheists make fun of people for believing in God, it is precisely based on this idea of "you can't prove the existence of God", i.e. no evidence, no case. The same applies to evolution, yet why do atheists and evolutionists make exceptions to this one? It would seem that what might be called evolution is non-falsifiable. I remember Karl Popper saying that the fundamental attribute of scientific theories is that they are all falsifiable. Is the theory of evolution on a higher level of truth than science? Am I missing something here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 The difference is, evolution makes sense and God doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 As far as evolution, it "best explains" doesn't cut it. Science isn't about faith and belief, as scientists themselves like to tout. When atheists make fun of people for believing in God, it is precisely based on this idea of "you can't prove the existence of God", i.e. no evidence, no case. The same applies to evolution, yet why do atheists and evolutionists make exceptions to this one? It would seem that what might be called evolution is non-falsifiable. I remember Karl Popper saying that the fundamental attribute of scientific theories is that they are all falsifiable. Is the theory of evolution on a higher level of truth than science? Am I missing something here? There is something called the scientific method, which eventually leads to theory or law. Some basics: http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs.../AppendixE.html 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory. So, until it is actually disproven, the theory (not LAW) of evolution, which is a "best explains" as accommodated for by the lebensraum until disproval of theory, shall remain the vogue. Any objections? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 From your own ideological bias evolution makes sense. I could say the same about God making more sense. Does this prove or disprove anything? Does this show you that man will never know the answers of his origin and development? We can only theorize and believe, that is it. To suggest evolution is "fact" is going beyond Bible thumpers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 From your own ideological bias evolution makes sense... What you choose to call ideological bias, I call scientific method. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 By the way, I personally do not claim existence/non existence of God to be fact and the same with evolution. My signature always applies. However, as things are, I have no reason to believe in the God model and I have countless reasons to believe in evolution. The simplest example is watching my cat lick and groom itself and then see the exact same thing done by a lion thousands of miles away in the wilderness ... while those two have NEVER met. There has to be a link ... such a thing cannot be random. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 (edited) Strange that Domino says I copy and paste when all he does is copy and paste, be it his physics treatises on that multiple universe belief, or combatting dan regarding the Holocaust. As far as evolution, it "best explains" doesn't cut it. Science isn't about faith and belief, as scientists themselves like to tout. When atheists make fun of people for believing in God, it is precisely based on this idea of "you can't prove the existence of God", i.e. no evidence, no case. The same applies to evolution, yet why do atheists and evolutionists make exceptions to this one? It would seem that what might be called evolution is non-falsifiable. I remember Karl Popper saying that the fundamental attribute of scientific theories is that they are all falsifiable. Is the theory of evolution on a higher level of truth than science? Am I missing something here? The above LIAR!!! Has yet to support his claim. The above LIAR!!! claimed I copypasted every materials I presented, yet I dared him to run a search on google for my posted materials... but the above LIAR!!! was again short to support his farts. What can one expect when the above LIAR!!! take all his materials from the web, by doing such the above LIAR!!! thinks that others do like him... The last time this above LIAR!!! claimed that I copypasted my materials from the web, I dared him to find on the web what I presented, ... but again the above LIAR!!! was unable to do so. The above liar as well claim that my multiple universe materials come from the web... Let just present my last thread regarding multiple universe and see if in fact his fart is true. http://armenians.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=8843 Funny when I run a search on the first line of the quotes from the book, or any other lines the only result I get on google is the thread I have started... an example: http://www.google.ca/search?q=AL%27s+solut...le+Search&meta= The above liar accused me of copypasting materials again when he engaged a debate in his claim that blacks are inferiors(one of his theories among many that he does not have the guts to openly affirm, what a coward)... he did that when I have posted studies... yet over 90% of the studies I have posted none could have been found on the web... but still the above LIAR still claimed I copypast. The above has accused me of having copypasted one of my personal rsearch regarding an indivual, even if what I presented is nowhere to be found on the web. Maybe I am using some sort of google that others don,t use... I expect every kind of conspirations from this individual. People are free to go at the genocide section of this forum, I bring materials nowhere to be found on the web and for years... it is not because mr. anon, that likes so much lying about individuals because he feels so inferior that he must reduce them to the level he thinks he exist at, life revolve around google that others life revolve around it as well. Edited April 9, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 What you choose to call ideological bias, I call scientific method. TOUCH!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 (edited) What you choose to call ideological bias, I call scientific method. We've already been through this. Any scientific theory must be proven first possible, then probable, then certain. To be a possible theory, it must e reconcile with many facts, to be a probable, it must reconcile with many more, to be certain it must reconcile with all the facts. Whenever it is irreconcilable with any fact, it should be rejected, as it cant be true. Every true theory passes through the stages of possibility, probability, and certainty. A theory is not science until it is certainly true, and so becomes knowledge. Since evolution is not mathematically probable in the manners alleged, the buck stops there. Evolution is just a religion, an ideology, an outlook. That there are missing evidences, to the evolutionist this is simply acceptible and all is normal. So the lack of evidnece is simply used by the evolutionist to prove the evolution theory. In other words, the missing evidence, is somehow evidence itself. To believe in God is simply horrendous and childish and fundamentalist. Edited April 9, 2004 by Anonymouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 To suggest evolution is "fact" is going beyond Bible thumpers. It is observed, hence it is theory. Until it is proven (or theorised) that it is not evolution but something else that is being observed, it is commonly accepted. To say evolution is fact is different from saying evolution is LAW - now THAT, under the current circumstances, would be going beyond Bible thumpers. Get your logic straight and stop wasting our times - there is only so much obscenity to be tolerated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 It is observed, hence it is theory. Until it is proven (or theorised) that it is not evolution but something else that is being observed, it is commonly accepted. To say evolution is fact is different from saying evolution is LAW - now THAT, under the current circumstances, would be going beyond Bible thumpers. Get your logic straight and stop wasting our times - there is only so much obscenity to be tolerated. How is it observed? Within species variation is just adaptation. As far as logic, you should be the first to have a crash course in it, since the lack of evidence regarding evolution, is somehow evidence in itself, for you. The only person wasting their time is you, no one is forcing you to read it. If you can't stand dissenting views clobbering youre dearly held beliefs and cracking your matrix, don't click on the thread, got it Stormtrooper? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 It is observed, hence it is theory. Until it is proven (or theorised) that it is not evolution but something else that is being observed, it is commonly accepted. To say evolution is fact is different from saying evolution is LAW - now THAT, under the current circumstances, would be going beyond Bible thumpers. Get your logic straight and stop wasting our times - there is only so much obscenity to be tolerated. Yes! The is the hole point. In order to replace evolution one must find an alternative which will answer more questions and will explain the observations... there is no other valid alternatives. Of course there might be aliens or any other kind of stuff, but if we start bringing other such hypotheses we must change the fundations of science... we can not use scientific tools to support something that those tools are not build to support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 Every true theory passes through the stages of possibility, probability, and certainty. A theory is not science until it is certainly true, and so becomes knowledge. Never heard of these types of things. I've heard of possibility, probability, and certainty of resources in management and not in science or the scientific method, but the theory-science-knowledge eludes me. Are you making these out of your head? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 The above LIAR!!! Has yet to support his claim. You do realize my post was above your post, right? Come on Domino .. put em up put em up :box: Calm down!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 Never heard of these types of things. I've heard of possibility, probability, and certainty of resources in management and not in science or the scientific method, but the theory-science-knowledge eludes me. Are you making these out of your head? If you truly know the scientific method, then you would hav read Karl Popper, who stated all theories are falsifiable. What you and the brigade of evolutionists are suggesting is that evolution is somehow above science. Am I missing something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 How is it observed? Within species variation is just adaptation. As far as logic, you should be the first to have a crash course in it, since the lack of evidence regarding evolution, is somehow evidence in itself, for you. The only person wasting their time is you, no one is forcing you to read it. If you can't stand dissenting views clobbering youre dearly held beliefs and cracking your matrix, don't click on the thread, got it Stormtrooper? It is not dissenting views - I said obscenity. Since you're so keen on "dissenting" from the theory of evolution, why don't you also confront Einstein's theory of relativity? Is it just because there isn't a kookoo group called the "classical mechanicist scientists" that eat away at people's patience? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 If you truly know the scientific method, then you would hav read Karl Popper, who stated all theories are falsifiable. What you and the brigade of evolutionists are suggesting is that evolution is somehow above science. Am I missing something? Rat, ARE you actually in biology or some such related field and DO you hold some graduate degree to actually challenge the theory? You do realise, don't you, that I didn't say evolution is not falsifiable - I in fact kindly reminded you that IT IS NOT LAW, whereas for so many posts now you've been treating everyone as if they believe it is law. They do not. So what is your problem? Are you trying to say that evolution shouldn't be a theory? Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 Oh, BTW - about reading this guy or that - it so reminds me of some racist a-hole asking me if I had read Coone. Lost, lost... It's bizarre - you talking of probability - yet giving evolution 0% because of lack of evidence, this or that, whereas we give it more than that when not even thinking in those terms, except that we hold a threshold after which it is not hypothesis but actually theory - what a laugh, what a laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 ... the "classical mechanicist scientists" that eat away at people's patience? You want me to find them for you? I'm sure they are out there! Actually just today I found this site for Dan on another forum bringing forth evidence how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hoaxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 You want me to find them for you? I'm sure they are out there! Actually just today I found this site for Dan on another forum bringing forth evidence how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hoaxes. Goodness gracious me... I must be so ignorant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyebruin Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 You wrote: "i can only imagine the guilt and the sorrow and the shame they will have to endure..." Again, why would I feel shame and guilt and sorrow? Yes, you didn't use the word "punishment" but if somehow I was made to feel guilty when my time came, then it would be similar to a punishment. This is something that you don't do very well. wow! you still don't get it! instead of criticizing other people's objectivity look at your own! are you like 16?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 Rat, ARE you actually in biology or some such related field and DO you hold some graduate degree to actually challenge the theory? You do realise, don't you, that I didn't say evolution is not falsifiable - I in fact kindly reminded you that IT IS NOT LAW, whereas for so many posts now you've been treating everyone as if they believe it is law. They do not. So what is your problem? Are you trying to say that evolution shouldn't be a theory? Wow. You are confusing things here Stormtrooper. Since when did one need to have credentials to disagree with a theory? Since when was it not permissible to disagree with something by not being in biology? This is not a matter of credentials. You act like Domino, as if in order for something to be valid it must come out of the mouth of someone with "credentials". There is no prerequisite to using your mind and disagreeing. As for evolution, I never said it shouldn't be a theory, but I have been stating, much to the dismay of you and Domino and Co. that evolution is grounded in belief; a religion of its own class. Of course this doesn't sit well with the evolutionist group, even though the last refuge of evolutionists is "it's the best possible explanation out there", which is akin to belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 Since when did one need to have credentials to disagree with a theory? I can't believe you said that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 What's wrong with saying that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.