And how did you arrive at the conclusion that I know next to nothing of the natural sciences? Yours is the typical assumption of ignorance despite a complete lack of evidence to support your position.
And how did you arrive at the conclusion that I know next to nothing of the natural sciences? Yours is the typical assumption of ignorance despite a complete lack of evidence to support your position.Originally posted by: Iron Woode
you know next to nothing of the Natural Sciences, yet you continue to tell people who do know, that they are wrong.
Yours is the typical argument from ignorance.
that statement is all the proof anyone needs.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
And how did you arrive at the conclusion that I know next to nothing of the natural sciences? Yours is the typical assumption of ignorance despite a complete lack of evidence to support your position.Originally posted by: Iron Woode
you know next to nothing of the Natural Sciences, yet you continue to tell people who do know, that they are wrong.
Yours is the typical argument from ignorance.
Yes, of course it is. Or, you realize that you've backpedaled all the way to that hole I was digging and are now on the brink. But, since you won't go willingly...Originally posted by: Iron Woode
that statement is all the proof anyone needs.
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Mwilding
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: BW86
What makes more sense?
That we adapted to our environments over the span of millions of years or that some supernatural being created everything we see in 7 days....
:disgust:
Considering how many variables could be taken into consideration and how easily one or two things might have wiped out the entire species...
I don't believe in the 7 day theory, though I don't believe we did it all on our own either. No idea personally how it happened and I doubt anyone else can precisely say how we overcame certain barriers and reached certain milestones as a society to progress the way we did. Just a casual thought excersize reveals the enormous potential for extinction we as a species had over those millions of years.
There is a very important concept one has to understand to appreciate evolution. Looking backwards and trying to figure the odds is a fruitless exercise. In any sequence of highly improbable events there is an outcome and that outcome is one which (statistically) should not have happened. Looking at outcomes and saying the odds are so thin that it could not have happened without divine intervention is just putting faith into intuition over analysis.
I never stated diving intervention, I stated I did not know. Do you know precisely? You have just as much faith in a mathematical anomaly/improbability of occurring without intervention as people who believe in 7 days. Remember that.
It isn't faith, it's knowledege. If I shoot an arrow into the air, where it lands will be a statistical impossibility, but it has to land somewhere. That is a certainty. You're painting a target around the arrow and then telling me I must "have faith" that it hit the bullseye "by chance."
It may be a statistical impossibility that humans would eventually evolve, but SOMETHING was going to evolve no matter what.
Fuck I get sick of explaining this shit.
ha ha ha, whatever man.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Yes, of course it is. Or, you realize that you've backpedaled all the way to that hole I was digging and are now on the brink. But, since you won't go willingly...Originally posted by: Iron Woode
that statement is all the proof anyone needs.
I work at one of the top medical schools in the country, have published in both medical and biological journals, have taught biology courses, and have even written my own evolution simulators using genetic algorithms I wrote from scratch. Unfortunately, you simply assume that anyone who would pose a simple question must be a heretic!!!1!one!!! who must be incinerated in an online forum. As a result of that assumption, you never even considered the obvious truth of what I said and focused instead on demonizing me from the get-go. Maybe next time, you will consider the merits of what someone says rather than assuming that they are ignorant/unbelieving/whatever before you even know what it is that they believe on the subject matter being discussed. But probably not, which is why you're no better than those you would call "ignorant."
Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
These the same people that put a Democrat in the President's office?Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Recent poll finds only 14 percent of Americans believe in Darwinian evolution
Holy crap..
Not liking the view from the bottom of the hole, huh? for your hypocrisy.Originally posted by: Iron Woode
ha ha ha, whatever man.
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Originally posted by: nwfsnake
News flash: 50% of the population is below average!
Newsflash: you don't understand the word "average".
Originally posted by: BW86
What makes more sense?
That we adapted to our environments over the span of millions of years or that some supernatural being created everything we see in 6 days....
:disgust:
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Really, is it? Feel free to point out exactly what I said is either incorrect and/or demonstrative of "ignorance of the purpose of scientific investigation." Otherwise, I believe you need to STFU because I can actually demonstrate that I'm right, since it's actually a matter of math rather than science. Of course, if you had stayed in school as long as I did, you might already know this.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Complete and total bullshit, and demonstrates a woeful ignorance of the purpose and method of scientific investigation. Just STFU. S.T.F.U. :|
You already missed it, though it turned out to be little more than a limp-wristed attack by a couple of mouth-breathers.Originally posted by: shocksyde
I hope you're prepared for the apocolyptic hellstorm that's about to be served to you.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You already missed it, though it turned out to be little more than an annoying attack by a couple of mouth-breathers.Originally posted by: shocksyde
I hope you're prepared for the apocolyptic hellstorm that's about to be served to you.
Carbon dating is explained just like the rest of the model: the appropriate ratios of carbon isotopes would have occurred at given locations in either case that I presented.Originally posted by: shocksyde
I read through the thread after my comment, and I've got a question for you:
Where does carbon dating fit into your 10K model?
Originally posted by: Hacp
Evolutionary Biology is a soft science, just like economics. You can have models, but its going to be very difficult to actually test(scientific method) your theories.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
And how did you arrive at the conclusion that I know next to nothing of the natural sciences?Originally posted by: Iron Woode
you know next to nothing of the Natural Sciences, yet you continue to tell people who do know, that they are wrong.
Yours is the typical argument from ignorance.
"Interdisciplinary" research - it makes it easy to get funding as an engineer working in the medical field. "Interdisciplinary bionanotechnology" is a phrase which appears in at least every other paragraph of my proposals.Originally posted by: zinfamous
Easy.
We don't use math to the degree that you do.
Originally posted by: Iron Woode
The kind of idiot that doesn't know the difference between an hypothesis and a theory. The special kind of idiot we all smile at while ignoring your drivel. The kind of idiot with the letter "L" on his forehead. The kind of idiot.......Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Yes, I'm the special kind of idiot who can make arguments without resorting to third-grade tactics like name-calling. I'm the special kind of idiot with letters after his name and peer-reviewed publications on his CV. I'm the special kind of idiot who knows what he's talking about, demonstrates it, then gets laughed at by people walking around with bloody knuckles. Stay in school, kid.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Wow you are some special kind of idiot. I'll have to get back to this later when I have time to kill in the airplane terminal.
Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Recent poll finds only 14 percent of Americans believe in Darwinian evolution
Holy crap..
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Wait... he isn't a lifer...
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Yes, of course it is. Or, you realize that you've backpedaled all the way to that hole I was digging and are now on the brink. But, since you won't go willingly...Originally posted by: Iron Woode
that statement is all the proof anyone needs.
I work at one of the top medical schools in the country, have published in both medical and biological journals, have taught biology courses, and have even written my own evolution simulators using genetic algorithms I wrote from scratch. Unfortunately, you simply assume that anyone who would pose a simple question must be a heretic!!!1!one!!! who must be incinerated in an online forum. As a result of that assumption, you never even considered the obvious truth of what I said and focused instead on demonizing me from the get-go. Maybe next time, you will consider the merits of what someone says rather than assuming that they are ignorant/unbelieving/whatever before you even know what it is that they believe on the subject matter being discussed. But probably not, which is why you're no better than those you would call "ignorant."
And you are still as wrong as the first time you said it. The idea that the universe is older than 10,000 years has been scientifically tested, and scientifically validated, repeatedly.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I never said that they were invalidated by my statements - I said that they never were valid scientific hypotheses because they cannot be tested.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
You said, "Thus, neither is a valid scientific hypothesis as neither can be tested to the exclusion of the other." This is simply false for reasons I've already explained. Hypotheses are not invalidated because magic is still real in your world.
You seem to think, erroneously, that hypotheses are theories which have received some kind of promotion. Newsflash, Poindexter: theories encompass hypotheses in science.They are theories, which are different from hypotheses.
Yes, and that is exactly why YOUR proposal is not a hypothesis. The naturalistic hypothesis, however, is testable, and has been tested, and has been validated.This is the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument: by saying that the FSM causes each individual observation to occur as observed, it explains every data point ever recorded perfectly. Thus, it is a theory that explains the data very well. However, it is not a hypothesis because we cannot test whether the FSM exists.
Because it is the naturalistic one, dumbfuck.Why?But only one would be a scientifically valid description.
No, in scientific language it is neither.It's a theory, not a hypothesis.No, it isn't "scientifically identical" because it proposes that things popped into existence by magic 10,000 years ago with an unexlainable appearance of age. It is a useless hypothesis, utterly solipsistic and devoid of value.
No, we do not consider your unfalisifiable hypothesis and instead acknowledge the naturalistic, falsifiable, validated hypothesis that the universe is older than 10,000 years. If we used your criteria, there would be no scientific theories at all, since none of them could be differentiated from solipsism or omphalism.And it is scientifically identical, since it cannot be differentiated from the big bang theory using any known test, since they are mathematically equivalent over the field covered by the 10k theory (i.e. they make identical predictions for all observations in the last 10k years).
We don't need to, because there aren't two scientific theories. There is but one, and then there is your pathetic myth.Thus, the only way to distinguish between them scientifically requires technology that does not currently exist - a time machine to take us back before the 10k theory predicts the beginning. Thus, since both explains all available data equally well, they are scientifically identical. If you claim otherwise, please tell us: how can we experimentally distinguish between the two theories?
But now you are moving the goalposts. However life began -- if it began at all -- it doesn't invalidate our knowledge about how it has evolved on earth.Originally posted by: RichardE
It's a certainty we are here yes, a better analogie is we can see where the arrow landed, we can assume from its landing point, angle, depth the trajectory and likely speed. To most people this would make the most sense of an explanation, but we cannot tell for sure whether someone shot it, threw it, dropped it, or built it right there, nor can we tell how it was created either.
We don't need to.Your problem is you look at the argument from a logical point that we know the starting point. We don't.
I've never proposed that the theory of evolution answers any question of beginnings, so you basically don't know what the fuck you're talking about.As I said, no one truly knows and your faith in this theory and your defense of your faith in this theory puts you in the same boat as Christians, Muslims, Jewish Hindu and even aboriginals who all have creation beliefs.
We don't know everything, but we know enough to know that life evolves through common anscestry, and descent with modification under selection pressures.What we do know, if we have been around a few million years in one form or another, we don't know what happened during those 4 million years except that we survived and that we are here now. What you, or I or even a noble prize winner says occured during those few million years outside of "we moved here" started using X tool in this 300 000 year span ect ect ect" is pure speculation.