Freethought & Rationalism Archive

skepticalbip · 06-23-2008, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no1nose

Quote:

Other than a demonstration of your lack of understanding of GR, QM, and ToE, I don't understand the purpose of the post. Do you understand that what science is all about is making observations and then modeling a theory that can explain those observations - Then testing and improving that model, rejecting it if it doesn't work and making a new one... etc. etc.?

Please support this assertion otherwise its just an personal attack.

The fact that you don't understand science and the scientific method is obvious from your post. Sorry but a chat room does not lend itself to teaching science... that will require effort and the desire to learn on your part.

Quote:

What theory do you have that better models the observed genetic drift, imperfect replication, speciation, etc. than the ToE.

If you are positing ID then I have to ask exactly what kind of sadistic bastard of a god you are inventing that would "create" many, many times the number of species now extant only to watch them go extinct over the last few billion years? Or is this god just incompetent so can't seem to get it right?

This is completely off topic - please address the issues.

If you understood how science works then you would realize that it is exactly on topic. To question a theory, especially an established theory, a better theory must be presented. What is your better theory? Can you defend it?

ETA:
Posting brain farts and demanding that others "prove them wrong" is not science... it approaches trolling.

no1nose · 06-23-2008, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J842P

Quote:

Originally Posted by fromdownunder

Or Alfred Russel Wallace who, independant of Darwin came up with the same solution as Darwin did before Origin was even published, and before he was even aware that Darwin was going to publish?

Lamarch, Darwin, Wallace and other lesser knowns were all trying to explain observed events. That's it.

Norm

I heard Wallace got his idea while suffering from high fever in some tropical place he was studying.

Evolution seems more of worldview reflection of Darwin and others environment

4321lynx · 06-23-2008, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

:

If you are positing ID then I have to ask exactly what kind of sadistic bastard of a god you are inventing that would "create" many, many times the number of species now extant only to watch them go extinct over the last few billion years? Or is this god just incompetent so can't seem to get it right?

Wasn't there a suggestion somewhere sometime that YHWH was only a demi-god, a sort of head porter in Hotel Heaven, not its manager? Maybe that's why he screwed up? Bit off more than he could chew?

no1nose · 06-23-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

Quote:

Originally Posted by no1nose

Please support this assertion otherwise its just an personal attack.

The fact that you don't understand science and the scientific method is obvious from your post. Sorry but a chat room does not lend itself to teaching science... that will require effort and the desire to learn on your part.

Quote:

This is completely off topic - please address the issues.

If you understood how science works then you would realize that it is exactly on topic. To question a theory, especially an established theory, a better theory must be presented. What is your better theory? Can you defend it?

You are simply creating rules and making your own personal judgements and not responding to the points in the thread.

AdamWho · 06-23-2008, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no1nose

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWho

These theories are based on observation not on math. Math is a useful tool but you get nowhere unless you start with meaningful data and observations. This is also true with evolution.

The rest of the OP is an incomprehensible mess.

This seems pedantic and you fail to acknowledge Evolution's lack of math foundation which is the point after all. The post has the tail wagging the dog

You fail to understand that ALL science is based on observation (not math), in this, evolution is no different from physics, chemistry, engineering, ...

Additionally math is used in genetics and chemistry which are at the root of evolution.

skepticalbip · 06-23-2008, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no1nose

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

The fact that you don't understand science and the scientific method is obvious from your post. Sorry but a chat room does not lend itself to teaching science... that will require effort and the desire to learn on your part.

If you understood how science works then you would realize that it is exactly on topic. To question a theory, especially an established theory, a better theory must be presented. What is your better theory? Can you defend it?

You are simply creating rules and making your own personal judgements and not responding to the points in the thread.

I saw no point in the OP other than that you didn't understand so didn't like the theory of evolution, apparently assuming that if you didn't understand it couldn't be right - 'cause if it was correct a genius like you would understand it.

I'm still waiting for you to present, and defend, your "better theory".

no1nose · 06-23-2008, 02:07 PM

Quote:

I saw no point in the OP other than that you didn't understand so didn't like the theory of evolution, apparently assuming that if you didn't understand it couldn't be right - 'cause if it was correct a genius like you would understand it.

I'm still waiting for you to present, and defend, your "better theory".

I have asked you twice to respond to the points in the thread. If you not wish to do this then don't expect me to respond to you.

skepticalbip · 06-23-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no1nose

Quote:

I saw no point in the OP other than that you didn't understand so didn't like the theory of evolution, apparently assuming that if you didn't understand it couldn't be right - 'cause if it was correct a genius like you would understand it.

I'm still waiting for you to present, and defend, your "better theory".

I have asked you twice to respond to the points in the thread. If you not wish to do this then don't expect me to respond to you.

And I have said several different ways in various posts that the only point in the OP was that you didn't believe in evolution (and obviously don't want to understand it). So the question is, What the hell do you believe accounts for the diversity of species? Explain it and defend it.

Malintent · 06-23-2008, 02:16 PM

It seems the entirety of the OP is based on pure incredulity:

Quote:

As I try to picture the cup within my mind I notice that I can only hold the image of the cup for a short time and that the image that I imagine is different than what I see when I look at the cup.

Your failure to accurately represent the image of the cup is your own failing.

Quote:

I now take a pen and paper and attempt to describe the cup.

However your failure to accurately describe the cup is your own failing in communication.

AdamWho · 06-23-2008, 02:17 PM

no1nose

Being new here, we welcome you.

There is something you need to know:
We get LOTS of drive-by postings similar to yours. This is normal, people have ideas and want to share them. But if you want to be taken seriously, you need to engage in a CONVERSATION, provide proof or examples for your opinion, be flexible and lastly polite.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-23-2008, 02:17 PM	#40
AdamWho Contributor Join Date: May 2001 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 13,389	no1nose Being new here, we welcome you. There is something you need to know: We get LOTS of drive-by postings similar to yours. This is normal, people have ideas and want to share them. But if you want to be taken seriously, you need to engage in a CONVERSATION, provide proof or examples for your opinion, be flexible and lastly polite.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.