billcoe Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I disagree and believe that anyone who believes that they "know" beyond a shadow of a doubt that they know exactly what happened and how is: 1) A narcissistic fool Sh*t, I was thinking exactly this when I started reading your post. None of us - as in all of us, really know but a drop in the bucket about the universe: certainly not the how's, when's, what's or the why's if any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Theories stand until they fail repeatable testing. That's what 'knowing' something means in science. I didn't think I'd have to define this for anyone here. I assumed it was common, gradeschool type stuff, but I guess I was wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 for me, i just like the internet because it connects us all and allows us to share ideas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Theories stand until they fail repeatable testing. That's what 'knowing' something means in science. I didn't think I'd have to define this for anyone here. I assumed it was common, gradeschool type stuff, but I guess I was wrong. Well, when we make that first cell and let it evolve into a human a few dozen times, I will concede the point to you then. See you in 2,398,897 bish! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 None of us - as in all of us, really know but a drop in the bucket about the universe: certainly not the how's, when's, what's or the why's if any. Apparently you haven't seen this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 There are things which science cannot explain. like where the fuck do half of the socks i put in the drier dissappear to! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradleym Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I disagree and believe that anyone who believes that they "know" beyond a shadow of a doubt that they know exactly what happened and how is: 1) A narcissistic fool 2) Is afraid that their delicate views of the way things are would be shattered if they were to think for themselves and use all information available to formulate their idea of what life is, what the meaning of it is and why we are here. This goes both ways. There are religious maniacs on both sides of the spectrum. Some religious maniacs choose God and some choose Darwin. you are setting up a false opposition here. no one in the scientific community slavishly or maniacally 'follows' Darwin. What they do find is that his theories contain a great deal of explanatory and predictive power, and they have in the main been validated by 150 years of continuous research and observation. Have they 'proven' everything, and do they have a complete story from beginning to end? No, of course not, that isn't the point. does everyone in the scientific community agree on all points concerning Darwin's theories (or any other scientific theory, for that matter)? No, of course not, and that means the scientific method is working. Being sceptical and finding some place to peck away at and improve or replace a theory or sub-theory is the way to make your science career. what such people might get 'maniacal' about from time to time is the sheer idiocy of those who don't understand what science is, asking for something that science cannot provide (and frankly doesn't care to). your argument is a cheap attempt to claim equal standing for creationists v. scientists by pointing to shadowy, unsubstantiated 'maniacs' out there in science land. it evidently works for those who are bound and determined to be creationists, but it is pathetic anywhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradleym Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 During the ID trial in PA, the ID folks' strongest scientific witness presented a molecular diagram of a flagellum, which rotates like a propeller to propel the organism. Truly a remarkable structure; basically a tiny electric motor. His argument was that if any part was missing, the thing wouldn't work; how could it have evolved? Why would nature come up with a simpler version (missing parts) that didn't do anything? Which sounded great, until the evolutionists presented a molecular diagram of the exact same structure, missing one key component so that the whip no longer rotated. It didn't have to; it was an injector for the organism that causes malaria. No rotation required. Apparently, the ID scientist was unaware of it. Oops. That peer review will get you every time. And that's the difference between myths like ID, which are not tested and peer reviewed, and therefore are simply a matter of personal faith, and science. Scientific theories must withstand testing or they do not survive. Myths, protected from scutiny as they are by their adoring followership who, after all, have not interest in counterargument, can go on forever. ever read 'Darwins Black Box'? same sort of drivel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradleym Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 There is much that surpasses the knowledge of science. There are things which science cannot explain. Maybe when the Particle Accelerator reaches full speed in a few months we'll know more. I just think you are assuming a lot when you place all your stock in one idea; particularly when that idea is not complete. Furthermore, denigrating others for their beliefs is not conducive to teaching them why they are wrong. I have worked with people with extremely different beliefs than I and have witnessed others using your tactics to try and secure victory. You may be right but you will convince no-one. You wonder why people don't adhere to your theory? Probably because pompous people like you are so condescending and rude. Furthermore, countering one piece of evidence of a theory doesn't necessarily negate the validity of the theory. Nor does chit-chat about bananas. please define this 'knowledge of science' thing. most scientists i've hung around with claimed not to 'know' very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Theories stand until they fail repeatable testing. That's what 'knowing' something means in science. I didn't think I'd have to define this for anyone here. I assumed it was common, gradeschool type stuff, but I guess I was wrong. Honestly, do we really need to "know" anything when all we are are agglomerations of lifestyle product preferences and temporary receptacles for corporate products? And if this is true, wouldn't it be really nice to have an afterlife to look forward to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted September 10, 2008 Author Share Posted September 10, 2008 You guys seems to be confusing the main Judeo-Christian creation texts with a narrow definition of creationism. But anyhow...... Like moths to a flame...... South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.” link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 (edited) There is much that surpasses the knowledge of science. There are things which science cannot explain. Maybe when the Particle Accelerator reaches full speed in a few months we'll know more. I just think you are assuming a lot when you place all your stock in one idea; particularly when that idea is not complete. Furthermore, denigrating others for their beliefs is not conducive to teaching them why they are wrong. I have worked with people with extremely different beliefs than I and have witnessed others using your tactics to try and secure victory. You may be right but you will convince no-one. You wonder why people don't adhere to your theory? Probably because pompous people like you are so condescending and rude. Furthermore, countering one piece of evidence of a theory doesn't necessarily negate the validity of the theory. Nor does chit-chat about bananas. please define this 'knowledge of science' thing. most scientists i've hung around with claimed not to 'know' very much. AKA's a guy with a big mouth but no experience with the professional practice of science, so don't expect much of an coherent answer. He doesn't actually understand the theory of evolution, biology, or any other aspect of the discussion that might make his participation even halfway interesting or relevant. When you get tired of his ID Playbook generalities and cliches and actually call him out on his lack of knowledge, the little pussy predictably starts whining about being persecuted by the pompous and rude elitists who JUST WON'T DEIGN TO SPEAK TO HIM AT HIS LEVEL; the required response for one who just can't stay in the kitchen during an actual debate of any real substance. This is the standard floor show for ID types, kind of like seeing the Spokane High School's production of "Cats" for the 1000th time, most of whom just don't have the background to absorb even the plainest explanation of what evolution, or science for that matter, really is. Boring, and pointless. Edited September 10, 2008 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hafilax Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Science is boring and pointless. At least when the experiment you've been working on for the last 8 years still isn't working but that may just be me. Maybe something will blow up in the lab today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Now THAT sounds more like the scientists I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 (edited) Oh, hey, AKA. How many scientists have you worked with or know personally? And please give us a bibliography of peer reviewed books or periodicals you've read by practicing scientists? As a POST GRAD, it's gotta be a huge list. You seem to know so much about scientists, cuz, you know, they're all pretty much the same, I just thought I'd ask. Edited September 10, 2008 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 So does an ass candle work like those ear candles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 AKA's a guy with a big mouth but no experience with the professional practice of science, so don't expect much of an coherent answer. He doesn't actually understand the theory of evolution, biology, or any other aspect of the discussion Has biology been recently downgraded? TTK +/- meds = moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted September 10, 2008 Author Share Posted September 10, 2008 Just ordered..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Only 48? Hell, Howard Zinn can top that in three or four sentences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 just like dmuja in the healthcare - current thread? You sure know how to tell a lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 'Moron' is my word, FW. Get your own. Dumbass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 Tvash, your ad hominem arguments are pretty weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 just like dmuja in the healthcare - current thread? You sure know how to tell a lie. Can you recommend any good books you haven't read lately? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 Yes: "How to follow the discussion" by Ucan Doit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 'Moron' is my word... and the word was made flesh. 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.