44% of people are idiots.

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

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.

I never said that they were invalidated by my statements - I said that they never were valid scientific hypotheses because they cannot be tested.

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.

They are theories, which are different from hypotheses.

You seem to think, erroneously, that hypotheses are theories which have received some kind of promotion. Newsflash, Poindexter: theories encompass hypotheses in science.

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.

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.

But only one would be a scientifically valid description.

Why?

Because it is the naturalistic one, dumbfuck.
I can't believe you felt the need to comment on ALL of that stuff.

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.

It's a theory, not a hypothesis.

No, in scientific language it is neither.

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).

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.

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?

We don't need to, because there aren't two scientific theories. There is but one, and then there is your pathetic myth.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
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.

This simply demonstrates your complete ignorance of what science is and what math tells us about science. The two theories are mathematically indistinguishable. Since you can't grasp this simple concept, there's little point in addressing the rest of your tripe, ignorant crap. You cannot demonstrate how such a hypothesis could be "validated," because a hypothesis cannot be validated, only invalidated. However, I would like you to supply a link to one peer-reviewed study supplying empirical evidence which contradicts the 10k theory that I put forth.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
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.

This simply demonstrates your complete ignorance of what science is and what math tells us about science.

Math doesn't tell us anything about science. Math is not evidence. Observations are evidence. Math is simply a language.

The two theories are mathematically indistinguishable.

Mathematics are not observations, dumbass. Holy shit you're stupid.

Since you can't grasp this simple concept, there's little point in addressing the rest of your tripe, ignorant crap.

Which is creationist code for: I can't argue against the evidence.

You cannot demonstrate how such a hypothesis could be "validated," because a hypothesis cannot be validated, only invalidated.

Nonsense. A testable hypothesis will have specific predictions, and when you find those predictions to be true the hypothesis is validated.

However, I would like you to supply a link to one peer-reviewed study supplying empirical evidence which contradicts the 10k theory that I put forth.

You didn't put forth a theory. Regardless, some googling on parallax should supply those readers-along with precisely the evidence you will doubtlessly continue to pretend doesn't exist.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
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.

This simply demonstrates your complete ignorance of what science is and what math tells us about science. The two theories are mathematically indistinguishable. Since you can't grasp this simple concept, there's little point in addressing the rest of your tripe, ignorant crap. You cannot demonstrate how such a hypothesis could be "validated," because a hypothesis cannot be validated, only invalidated. However, I would like you to supply a link to one peer-reviewed study supplying empirical evidence which contradicts the 10k theory that I put forth.

Are you smoking crack?

 

[geno]

Let me say this much. We, as a society, are continually unlocking the secrets of our existence and our surroundings. We're constantly discovering more about everything, all the time. There is also a steady decline in followers of organized religion. We're getting smarter, we're becoming more aware and less dependent on having to explain things with faith. Thousands of years ago, our ancestors thought gods raised the sun and the moon in the sky, and believed that they were all powerful for doing so. We now know this is not the case, and don't need religion to explain it away. Now, the time has come to finally admit we're creatures of science and products of evolution. It's our turn to start doing away with this line of thinking. The earth is not flat, the sun does not rotate around us, dinosaurs existed, evolution is real. No more need to explain it away with religion. This is the natural progression of becoming ever more aware of how we came to be. Of course, there are always some stragglers who don't buy it. They're refute all of the evidence science may uncover, meanwhile they turn their head and say, "It's not real, it's not real, we were put here randomly by a deity for reasons I cannot even begin to explain."

Step ahead and advance. Enough of the old-world theories which are constantly being disproved with evidence. Bring evidence to the table, and we'll have an apples-to-apples comparison. Until then, none of it makes sense.

Of course, it goes without saying that this is my opinion. Everyone has a right to their beliefs and convictions. Don't take any of this thread personally

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

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?

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.

In what way is this "explained" by your so-called "model"? Why should we expect that the ratios be created in such proportions? How is that a prediction of your proposal?

And I would appreciate it if you would at least recognize that I have never stated "my model" anywhere in this thread. I have simply pointed out two possible theories that explain all known data equally well.

It should be obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than his shoe size that your so-called "thoery" doesn't actually explain anything. It arbitrarily declares that things must be such-and-such, because it must in order to shoehorn the observations into it. That's the antithesis of science, your moronic dickforlips.

There are infinitely many such theories, of course, so I just arbitrarily picked two (one that is commonly accepted, the other that was relevant to this thread).

In Cylcowizard's world, there is no science, because the idea that all of your perceptions are synthetically induced in your brain as it sits in a vat in the laboratory of an Evil Genius "explains" all of that data, and cannot be falsified.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

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.

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.

Your problem is you look at the argument from a logical point that we know the starting point. We don't.

We don't need to.

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.

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.

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.

We don't know everything, but we know enough to know that life evolves through common anscestry, and descent with modification under selection pressures.

:laugh:

You get more defensive over your beliefs than most religious people, its interesting you defend something so sincerely that you even admit does not answer the questions that I originally proposed it didn't answer. Namely what happened during those few million years that made sure we did not become extinct. I never disagreed with you the evolution of a common ancestry over a few million years as we adapted to our environments. I said that we don't know what happened during those 4 million years and whether we had help in some form or another, or whether we somehow overcame every obstacle every thrown at us on our own.

So I'm not really sure what you are getting so defensive about besides someone challenging your belief that humans can overcome everything that is ever thrown at them. I know it might be unsettling to think that we might not be able to overcome everything without help, but is is a possibility...something you obviously believe in.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: geno
Let me say this much. We, as a society, are continually unlocking the secrets of our existence and our surroundings. We're constantly discovering more about everything, all the time. There is also a steady decline in followers of organized religion. We're getting smarter, we're becoming more aware and less dependent on having to explain things with faith. Thousands of years ago, our ancestors thought gods raised the sun and the moon in the sky, and believed that they were all powerful for doing so. We now know this is not the case, and don't need religion to explain it away. Now, the time has come to finally admit we're creatures of science and products of evolution. It's our turn to start doing away with this line of thinking. The earth is not flat, the sun does not rotate around us, dinosaurs existed, evolution is real. No more need to explain it away with religion. This is the natural progression of becoming ever more aware of how we came to be. Of course, there are always some stragglers who don't buy it. They're refute all of the evidence science may uncover, meanwhile they turn their head and say, "It's not real, it's not real, we were put here randomly by a deity for reasons I cannot even begin to explain."

Step ahead and advance. Enough of the old-world theories which are constantly being disproved with evidence. Bring evidence to the table, and we'll have an apples-to-apples comparison. Until then, none of it makes sense.

Of course, it goes without saying that this is my opinion. Everyone has a right to their beliefs and convictions. Don't take any of this thread personally

There in an increase in the number of people who consider themselves deists or spiritualists. It seems people are rejection organized religion in mass numbers but turning to more of a self religion.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Math doesn't tell us anything about science. Math is not evidence. Observations are evidence. Math is simply a language.

Any scientific theory worth a damn is used to generate mathematical models to quantify things. Math allows us to quantitatively test whether observations agree with theory.

Mathematics are not observations, dumbass. Holy shit you're stupid.

What exactly is your background? You drag your knuckles on the ground, bleed a little bit, and think that qualifies you to lecture me on what science is? How do you think observations are tested against a theory if not by using mathematical models? Oh, that's right - you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, let alone a theory from a hypothesis.

Which is creationist code for: I can't argue against the evidence.

Please point out where I said anything in support of creationism or any other theory. You can't, because it hasn't happened. You have no clue what I think, what I think of the "evidence," or anything else because it has never been said. You think that because I can consider both possibilities, I'm some ignorant hillbilly who has no clue about anything. In reality, you're simply demonstrating that you're a lot closer to that extreme than I am by ignoring everything I've said.

Nonsense. A testable hypothesis will have specific predictions, and when you find those predictions to be true the hypothesis is validated.

Wrong. As Einstein himself said, a million observations cannot prove me right, but one observation can prove me wrong (paraphrased). Mathematical concepts can be proved, but scientific theories can never be because there exist infinitely many explanations for any observation. Since you don't understand the link between the math and the science, this obviously escapes you.

You didn't put forth a theory. Regardless, some googling on parallax should supply those readers-along with precisely the evidence you will doubtlessly continue to pretend doesn't exist.

In other words, you can't do it. Since I work in ophthalmology, I have a pretty good idea of what parallax is. Nothing I know about or am finding on Google that could possibly address the question at hand. That's because both theories would give the same result in any parallax-based analysis. If there is such evidence, you should be able to find it and supply it. And please don't call me a dumbass in the future. Swearing is the last recourse of the ignorant, and you are obviously far from ignorant.

 

[Scarpozzi]

None of this explains why people insist on building in New Orleans when it's BELOW SEA LEVEL!!!

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: RichardE
You get more defensive over your beliefs than most religious people, its interesting you defend something so sincerely that you even admit does not answer the questions that I originally proposed it didn't answer. Namely what happened during those few million years that made sure we did not become extinct. I never disagreed with you the evolution of a common ancestry over a few million years as we adapted to our environments. I said that we don't know what happened during those 4 million years and whether we had help in some form or another, or whether we somehow overcame every obstacle every thrown at us on our own.

So I'm not really sure what you are getting so defensive about besides someone challenging your belief that humans can overcome everything that is ever thrown at them. I know it might be unsettling to think that we might not be able to overcome everything without help, but is is a possibility...something you obviously believe in.

We were lucky. Every species that is alive did so by being lucky. You are lucky (or unlucky as the case may be) to have arrived with the specific combination of genes that make you the person you are instead of the umpty-trillion other places they could have gone over the eons. Nevertheless, you can't help being a winner. Your genes are the ones that made it. They are the current champions of the gene world, having survived while countless others died out.

The anthropic principle is what you two are arguing about here, but no one's come out and said it. What help did the untold numbers of other species who DID die out in those four million years have? Presumably none, because they didn't make it. Yet, others did make it. Nothing happened that was bad enough to kill everything on the earth, so it was virtually guaranteed that eventually there would be someone around to say "gee, aren't we special". We're not special. We're lucky, because you're right about all the things that might have happened. In hindsight, they obviously couldn't have happened, and the fact that it is possible to explain why they didn't happen proves that. The conditions in the universe were such that the species extermination event has thus-far been impossible. That's all you can say about things. No intelligent force needed to cause this for it to be so. The last asteroid that missed colliding with the earth did so because of the various things it flew past and bounced off of during the course of its life; not because the hand of god pushed it out of the way.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Cyclowizard needs to go back to Philosophy of Science 101 and stop getting wasted before every class. The most widely accepted philosophies of science would rule out your 10,000-year "hypothesis" because it adds no new predictions and explains no other phenomena than what is explained by the naturalistic hypothesis. New scientific theories are not worth the paper they are written on if they don't make unique predictions AND explain more phenomena than the old theory.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: RichardE
You get more defensive over your beliefs than most religious people, its interesting you defend something so sincerely that you even admit does not answer the questions that I originally proposed it didn't answer. Namely what happened during those few million years that made sure we did not become extinct. I never disagreed with you the evolution of a common ancestry over a few million years as we adapted to our environments. I said that we don't know what happened during those 4 million years and whether we had help in some form or another, or whether we somehow overcame every obstacle every thrown at us on our own.

So I'm not really sure what you are getting so defensive about besides someone challenging your belief that humans can overcome everything that is ever thrown at them. I know it might be unsettling to think that we might not be able to overcome everything without help, but is is a possibility...something you obviously believe in.

We were lucky. Every species that is alive did so by being lucky. You are lucky (or unlucky as the case may be) to have arrived with the specific combination of genes that make you the person you are instead of the umpty-trillion other places they could have gone over the eons. Nevertheless, you can't help being a winner. Your genes are the ones that made it. They are the current champions of the gene world, having survived while countless others died out.

The anthropic principle is what you two are arguing about here, but no one's come out and said it. What help did the untold numbers of other species who DID die out in those four million years have? Presumably none, because they didn't make it. Yet, others did make it. Nothing happened that was bad enough to kill everything on the earth, so it was virtually guaranteed that eventually there would be someone around to say "gee, aren't we special". We're not special. We're lucky, because you're right about all the things that might have happened. In hindsight, they obviously couldn't have happened, and the fact that it is possible to explain why they didn't happen proves that. The conditions in the universe were such that the species extermination event has thus-far been impossible. That's all you can say about things. No intelligent force needed to cause this for it to be so. The last asteroid that missed colliding with the earth did so because of the various things it flew past and bounced off of during the course of its life; not because the hand of god pushed it out of the way.

Perhaps, but species ending events have occurred which means your entire reasoning has fault. Luck is the same as faith. A belief in something that is not explained. Faith does not need to be religious, it can be faith in a theory, faith in divine intervention, faith in a superior race aiding us, faith in the ingenuity of man to overcome anything. At some point, it all comes back to faith, which is what my entire point of this is. Until we *know* for certain, it is faith is a belief that explains our past to us.

 

[StinkyPinky]

High time the world of science grew some balls and called it The Fact of Evolution. They only call it a theory to appease brainless morons.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
High time the world of science grew some balls and called it The Fact of Evolution. They only call it a theory to appease brainless morons.

I take it you are getting close to submitting a paper that will establish scientifically all the unanswered questions around the theory? If so I look forward to reading it, it will prove interesting and we can finally move on to more pressing thought exercises.

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
High time the world of science grew some balls and called it The Fact of Evolution. They only call it a theory to appease brainless morons.

I take it you are getting close to submitting a paper that will establish scientifically all the unanswered questions around the theory? If so I look forward to reading it, it will prove interesting and we can finally move on to more pressing thought exercises.

"The Fact of Evolution - Author: StinkyPinky" I dunno man, it just doesn't sound right

But who knows, maybe he does in fact have all the answers. I mean he is an ATOTer, and some of the most brilliant minds ever post on here.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
High time the world of science grew some balls and called it The Fact of Evolution. They only call it a theory to appease brainless morons.

I take it you are getting close to submitting a paper that will establish scientifically all the unanswered questions around the theory? If so I look forward to reading it, it will prove interesting and we can finally move on to more pressing thought exercises.

Evolution is everywhere - there's no doubt that it exists. Just because we don't understand every single bit of it doesn't mean it's not there.

A sky wizard that created the entire universe in a week....where's the proof?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
High time the world of science grew some balls and called it The Fact of Evolution. They only call it a theory to appease brainless morons.

I take it you are getting close to submitting a paper that will establish scientifically all the unanswered questions around the theory? If so I look forward to reading it, it will prove interesting and we can finally move on to more pressing thought exercises.

Evolution is everywhere - there's no doubt that it exists. Just because we don't understand every single bit of it doesn't mean it's not there.

A sky wizard that created the entire universe in a week....where's the proof?

You are stating a theory. If you wish to create a fact you will need to answer the unanswered questions.

Can you explain the theory of evolution in your own words (so not copy/pasta)?

Do you even know the unanswered questions around the theory?

Do you absorb your beliefs by what is fed to you? Or do you think for yourself?

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: RichardE
You get more defensive over your beliefs than most religious people, its interesting you defend something so sincerely that you even admit does not answer the questions that I originally proposed it didn't answer. Namely what happened during those few million years that made sure we did not become extinct. I never disagreed with you the evolution of a common ancestry over a few million years as we adapted to our environments. I said that we don't know what happened during those 4 million years and whether we had help in some form or another, or whether we somehow overcame every obstacle every thrown at us on our own.

So I'm not really sure what you are getting so defensive about besides someone challenging your belief that humans can overcome everything that is ever thrown at them. I know it might be unsettling to think that we might not be able to overcome everything without help, but is is a possibility...something you obviously believe in.

We were lucky. Every species that is alive did so by being lucky. You are lucky (or unlucky as the case may be) to have arrived with the specific combination of genes that make you the person you are instead of the umpty-trillion other places they could have gone over the eons. Nevertheless, you can't help being a winner. Your genes are the ones that made it. They are the current champions of the gene world, having survived while countless others died out.

The anthropic principle is what you two are arguing about here, but no one's come out and said it. What help did the untold numbers of other species who DID die out in those four million years have? Presumably none, because they didn't make it. Yet, others did make it. Nothing happened that was bad enough to kill everything on the earth, so it was virtually guaranteed that eventually there would be someone around to say "gee, aren't we special". We're not special. We're lucky, because you're right about all the things that might have happened. In hindsight, they obviously couldn't have happened, and the fact that it is possible to explain why they didn't happen proves that. The conditions in the universe were such that the species extermination event has thus-far been impossible. That's all you can say about things. No intelligent force needed to cause this for it to be so. The last asteroid that missed colliding with the earth did so because of the various things it flew past and bounced off of during the course of its life; not because the hand of god pushed it out of the way.

Perhaps, but species ending events have occurred which means your entire reasoning has fault. Luck is the same as faith. A belief in something that is not explained. Faith does not need to be religious, it can be faith in a theory, faith in divine intervention, faith in a superior race aiding us, faith in the ingenuity of man to overcome anything. At some point, it all comes back to faith, which is what my entire point of this is. Until we *know* for certain, it is faith is a belief that explains our past to us.

That is false. Everyone knows the fae control luck based on good deeds.

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
High time the world of science grew some balls and called it The Fact of Evolution. They only call it a theory to appease brainless morons.

I take it you are getting close to submitting a paper that will establish scientifically all the unanswered questions around the theory? If so I look forward to reading it, it will prove interesting and we can finally move on to more pressing thought exercises.

Evolution is everywhere - there's no doubt that it exists. Just because we don't understand every single bit of it doesn't mean it's not there.

A sky wizard that created the entire universe in a week....where's the proof?

there's as much proof for the sky wizard as evolution, I mean yes humans evolved from cells, but WHERE did the cells come from? No scientist or religious nutt can explain that to me. So in fact it's a theory as to how it started either way you look at it. And neither make sense to me. Since nobody will ever be able to explain how and why the first cell existed and where it came from nobody is right here.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Oceandevi

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: RichardE
You get more defensive over your beliefs than most religious people, its interesting you defend something so sincerely that you even admit does not answer the questions that I originally proposed it didn't answer. Namely what happened during those few million years that made sure we did not become extinct. I never disagreed with you the evolution of a common ancestry over a few million years as we adapted to our environments. I said that we don't know what happened during those 4 million years and whether we had help in some form or another, or whether we somehow overcame every obstacle every thrown at us on our own.

So I'm not really sure what you are getting so defensive about besides someone challenging your belief that humans can overcome everything that is ever thrown at them. I know it might be unsettling to think that we might not be able to overcome everything without help, but is is a possibility...something you obviously believe in.

We were lucky. Every species that is alive did so by being lucky. You are lucky (or unlucky as the case may be) to have arrived with the specific combination of genes that make you the person you are instead of the umpty-trillion other places they could have gone over the eons. Nevertheless, you can't help being a winner. Your genes are the ones that made it. They are the current champions of the gene world, having survived while countless others died out.

The anthropic principle is what you two are arguing about here, but no one's come out and said it. What help did the untold numbers of other species who DID die out in those four million years have? Presumably none, because they didn't make it. Yet, others did make it. Nothing happened that was bad enough to kill everything on the earth, so it was virtually guaranteed that eventually there would be someone around to say "gee, aren't we special". We're not special. We're lucky, because you're right about all the things that might have happened. In hindsight, they obviously couldn't have happened, and the fact that it is possible to explain why they didn't happen proves that. The conditions in the universe were such that the species extermination event has thus-far been impossible. That's all you can say about things. No intelligent force needed to cause this for it to be so. The last asteroid that missed colliding with the earth did so because of the various things it flew past and bounced off of during the course of its life; not because the hand of god pushed it out of the way.

Perhaps, but species ending events have occurred which means your entire reasoning has fault. Luck is the same as faith. A belief in something that is not explained. Faith does not need to be religious, it can be faith in a theory, faith in divine intervention, faith in a superior race aiding us, faith in the ingenuity of man to overcome anything. At some point, it all comes back to faith, which is what my entire point of this is. Until we *know* for certain, it is faith is a belief that explains our past to us.

That is false. Everyone knows the fae control luck based on good deeds.

Why have I not won the lottery yet than?

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
High time the world of science grew some balls and called it The Fact of Evolution. They only call it a theory to appease brainless morons.

I take it you are getting close to submitting a paper that will establish scientifically all the unanswered questions around the theory? If so I look forward to reading it, it will prove interesting and we can finally move on to more pressing thought exercises.

Evolution is everywhere - there's no doubt that it exists. Just because we don't understand every single bit of it doesn't mean it's not there.

A sky wizard that created the entire universe in a week....where's the proof?

there's as much proof for the sky wizard as evolution, I mean yes humans evolved from cells, but WHERE did the cells come from? No scientist or religious nutt can explain that to me. So in fact it's a theory as to how it started either way you look at it. And neither make sense to me. Since nobody will ever be able to explain how and why the first cell existed and where it came from nobody is right here.

Hey, I had nowhere else to put it.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Oceandevi

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: RichardE
You get more defensive over your beliefs than most religious people, its interesting you defend something so sincerely that you even admit does not answer the questions that I originally proposed it didn't answer. Namely what happened during those few million years that made sure we did not become extinct. I never disagreed with you the evolution of a common ancestry over a few million years as we adapted to our environments. I said that we don't know what happened during those 4 million years and whether we had help in some form or another, or whether we somehow overcame every obstacle every thrown at us on our own.

So I'm not really sure what you are getting so defensive about besides someone challenging your belief that humans can overcome everything that is ever thrown at them. I know it might be unsettling to think that we might not be able to overcome everything without help, but is is a possibility...something you obviously believe in.

We were lucky. Every species that is alive did so by being lucky. You are lucky (or unlucky as the case may be) to have arrived with the specific combination of genes that make you the person you are instead of the umpty-trillion other places they could have gone over the eons. Nevertheless, you can't help being a winner. Your genes are the ones that made it. They are the current champions of the gene world, having survived while countless others died out.

The anthropic principle is what you two are arguing about here, but no one's come out and said it. What help did the untold numbers of other species who DID die out in those four million years have? Presumably none, because they didn't make it. Yet, others did make it. Nothing happened that was bad enough to kill everything on the earth, so it was virtually guaranteed that eventually there would be someone around to say "gee, aren't we special". We're not special. We're lucky, because you're right about all the things that might have happened. In hindsight, they obviously couldn't have happened, and the fact that it is possible to explain why they didn't happen proves that. The conditions in the universe were such that the species extermination event has thus-far been impossible. That's all you can say about things. No intelligent force needed to cause this for it to be so. The last asteroid that missed colliding with the earth did so because of the various things it flew past and bounced off of during the course of its life; not because the hand of god pushed it out of the way.

Perhaps, but species ending events have occurred which means your entire reasoning has fault. Luck is the same as faith. A belief in something that is not explained. Faith does not need to be religious, it can be faith in a theory, faith in divine intervention, faith in a superior race aiding us, faith in the ingenuity of man to overcome anything. At some point, it all comes back to faith, which is what my entire point of this is. Until we *know* for certain, it is faith is a belief that explains our past to us.

That is false. Everyone knows the fae control luck based on good deeds.

Why have I not won the lottery yet than?

You would have to ask the seelie court.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
High time the world of science grew some balls and called it The Fact of Evolution. They only call it a theory to appease brainless morons.

I take it you are getting close to submitting a paper that will establish scientifically all the unanswered questions around the theory? If so I look forward to reading it, it will prove interesting and we can finally move on to more pressing thought exercises.

Evolution is everywhere - there's no doubt that it exists. Just because we don't understand every single bit of it doesn't mean it's not there.

A sky wizard that created the entire universe in a week....where's the proof?

there's as much proof for the sky wizard as evolution, I mean yes humans evolved from cells, but WHERE did the cells come from? No scientist or religious nutt can explain that to me. So in fact it's a theory as to how it started either way you look at it. And neither make sense to me. Since nobody will ever be able to explain how and why the first cell existed and where it came from nobody is right here.

Actually, the first cells aren't incredibly difficult to explain.

The cell walls form very easily in fact. I forgot the specifics of it. But scientists found out that cell wall structures formed in large quantities in a solution that mimicked early oceans.

So we now have the cell wall, now what goes into it?

We already know that a simple mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water creates many amino acids that life uses. These amino acids are just in a huge primordial soup. being jostled around and colliding with each other for years. They start combining.. and combining as they collide and form bigger and bigger chains, and then? You get the first strand of RNA. This RNA enters the cell membrane created. We Now have the first primitive cell.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Perhaps, but species ending events have occurred which means your entire reasoning has fault. Luck is the same as faith. A belief in something that is not explained. Faith does not need to be religious, it can be faith in a theory, faith in divine intervention, faith in a superior race aiding us, faith in the ingenuity of man to overcome anything. At some point, it all comes back to faith, which is what my entire point of this is. Until we *know* for certain, it is faith is a belief that explains our past to us.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. I was talking about an event which would exterminate the all species, which has demonstrably not occurred. What I was saying was that the only thing that could have prevented "something" from eventually being around to wonder whether or not it had a place in the universe was the end of all life on earth. Whatever that end result was, it would be connected to every species that came before it by a long and bendy genetic trail that would lead all the way back to the first life on earth. Sitting here, looking at that long line that stretches out behind us to the single-celled creatures in our past, it's hard not to be dumbfounded by how unlikely it is that it wasn't broken somewhere along. What you're forgetting is that the line is but a single branch among millions or more. This multitude of life is what makes our own unlikely situation easier to swallow without resorting to divine intervention as a solution. Each species is just as unlikely as the next, yet it's just as unlikely for ALL of them to be killed a once, which is what it would take to end the whole thing. You would expect quite a few species extinctions to occur in the course of things, but you wouldn't expect them all to go out just because it's hard to believe something should keep going for that long. What of the ones who make it then? Individually it's hard to believe that this or that specific species should be around, but life in some form was probably going to make it, so why not us?

You misunderstand what I mean by luck. I don't think of luck as a sort of mystic force that actively protects one from misfortune. Luck is something that can only be recognized in hindsight, and is simply the occurrence of advantageous events or the lack of particularly disadvantageous events over a period of time. Right now humanity is lucky because it is part of a minority made up of species that haven't died out yet. If we are to guess that there have been a trillion species alive on this planet, then being among the 1.5 million that are on the planet now makes us part of a statistical minority, and thus, lucky. We may not be so lucky tomorrow, but chances are there will at least be some other form of life to be lucky in our stead. That life won't be "chosen" any more than we are, however lucky it is and it's state of being lucky "right now" doesn't mean that it can't blink out an instant in the future.