"It's just a theory"
42 Comments - 7567 Views
Submitted By doctorofscience on 09/03/08
FreeHovind, doctorofscience, General
I recently found my old copy of A Brief History of Time (Stephen Hawking's book on cosmology & physics, aimed at the layman) and decided to give it a re-read. Early on, there is some interesting discussion of scientific theories.
His points are relevant to the whole creationism debate, since the one of the most frequent arguments made by creationists is that "evolution is just a theory" (with the implication being that a theory is no more than a guess). A scientific theory is quite a bit different from a guess - in fact, many consider theory to the highest product of the practice of science:
"A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.
...
As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survies, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory."
...
As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survies, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory."
That, in a nutshell, describes why the theory of evolution is still accepted by the majority of the scientific community: because it has met the standards of a good, robust theory. Not because of any tinfoil hat, black helicopter-esque conspiracies amongst scientists.
» Reply to CommentRe:
thebiblewascompiledin325AD
5 days - 8,032v
Posted 2009/03/09 - 9:40 GMT
and you are right, however most creationists don't even understand how the scientific method works and so they won't come to that conclusion. or they'll just flat out deny the experiments that conform with the theory.
Have you guys not been around very long or what? Science has been very tardy in dismissing disproven articles. It usually takes years and some have not been dismissed as yet. Some of their unproven steps are focal points to the theory. Where is the simple cell that started everything? With our knowledge of cells today this is rediculous.
An acceptance of evolution is not an acceptance of natural selection so be carefull how you quote stats. How are we using the discoveries made every day? Not wisely thats for sure. I am an evolutionist but come on, lets get serious. Where will evolution be in a couple more years with this self defeating attitude? I dont understand the need to stand around patting each other on the back. If it was a rock solid theory this would not be necessary. Its not, lets get on with improving it instead of pretending it is better then it is and ridiculing people who find fault with it for very obvious reasons. When we get more accuracy perhaps everyone will see that.
An acceptance of evolution is not an acceptance of natural selection so be carefull how you quote stats. How are we using the discoveries made every day? Not wisely thats for sure. I am an evolutionist but come on, lets get serious. Where will evolution be in a couple more years with this self defeating attitude? I dont understand the need to stand around patting each other on the back. If it was a rock solid theory this would not be necessary. Its not, lets get on with improving it instead of pretending it is better then it is and ridiculing people who find fault with it for very obvious reasons. When we get more accuracy perhaps everyone will see that.
Science has been very tardy in dismissing disproven articles. It
usually takes years
"Articles"? I can't find any definition of that word which would make sense in the context that you used it.
If you're talking about theories, then how is there any relevance to number of years taken to discard incorrect theories?
and some have not been dismissed as yet.
I'm sure you'll get around to providing some examples... any day now.
An acceptance of evolution is not an acceptance of natural selection.
If not natural selection, then what mechanism do you think was responsible for evolution?
If you can provide an explanation that better fits the observable evidence, then why are you posting here instead of preparing your Nobel Prize acceptance speech?
lol what? did Kent just accuse us of quotemining?
Kent, you do understand that we are not here to defend evolution do you?? since the theory is so solid it wouldn't require our paltry defense. What most"ëvolutionists" are here for is to finally get i through the creationists skulls that their position is SO SCIENTIFICALLY FUNDEMENTALLY FLAWED, that they have NO RIGHT to place their imaginative fantasy as an alternative to a theory that has accurately described, predicted so much and has withstood the pummeling of peer review for over a 100 years.whereas most scientists won't even debate creationists because they find is ridiculus that creationism would even be called "science" . creationist arguemtns are either unscientific, misinteprative, horribly ungrounded, made up and they reek of a religious agenda.
so i think that this theory will stay with us for the rest of our existence, abeit it WILL be altered LIKE IT SHOULD AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY!!!
PS we are not afraid of creationists being right, we are afraid of people thinking they are right.
Kent, you do understand that we are not here to defend evolution do you?? since the theory is so solid it wouldn't require our paltry defense. What most"ëvolutionists" are here for is to finally get i through the creationists skulls that their position is SO SCIENTIFICALLY FUNDEMENTALLY FLAWED, that they have NO RIGHT to place their imaginative fantasy as an alternative to a theory that has accurately described, predicted so much and has withstood the pummeling of peer review for over a 100 years.whereas most scientists won't even debate creationists because they find is ridiculus that creationism would even be called "science" . creationist arguemtns are either unscientific, misinteprative, horribly ungrounded, made up and they reek of a religious agenda.
so i think that this theory will stay with us for the rest of our existence, abeit it WILL be altered LIKE IT SHOULD AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY!!!
PS we are not afraid of creationists being right, we are afraid of people thinking they are right.
I see you've added more to your post...
I dont understand the need to stand around patting each other on the
back.
That's rather odd non-sequitur.
If it was a rock solid theory this would not be necessary.
Wait... are you talking about evolution, or creationism?
Its
not, lets get on with improving it instead of pretending it is better
then it is and ridiculing people who find fault with it for very obvious reasons
Same question as above.
An article is presented before it gets accepted as a theory. The evolution theory proves nothing. If you want the quote from Charles Darwin I will look it up the next time I get home. If you think the theory is flawless you havent read it. Keep your head buried in the sand, you look good from that angle.
An article is presented before it gets accepted as a theory.
I think you mean "hypothesis."
The evolution theory proves nothing.
And...? Neither does any other theory in any other scientific field, with the sole exception of
mathematics - and even then, there are important differences between a
mathematical theorem and a theory in other scientific fields.
If you think the theory is flawless you havent read it.
Believing that that the goal of the science is to produce proof (or theories that are flawless, or "absolute truth," etc) demonstrates a profound ignorance of the purpose and practice of science.
Keep your head buried in the sand,
Pot. Kettle. Black.
you look good from that angle.
Uh, thanks - but I'm afraid you're not really my type.
KENT WHY WON'T YOU GET IT!!!?
we aren't saying it's flawless!!! that would be very dishonest to the scientific method. we are constantly refining science, like it SHOULD BE.
likewise science will never say it has "Truth" like the bible would because the only "Truth" lies in mathematics and Logic, science can only give evidence to support a hypothesi and ultimatley "proove" a theory. when some clear evidence comes along that there is something wrong in with the result predicted by a hypothesis, we alter the hypothesis. when something comes along that is unexplained by a theory we need to alter the theory, when the theory fails to explain more things , will probalby dismis it. that is the scientific method. (any scientist please correct me if i misreprisented this...SEE THAT'S A SCIENTIFIC MINDSET!!)
oh, and btw we really don't like qouting, as that reminds us of all the qoutemining creationists do.
If you would read an article once in a while Sci you would know what one was. Thanx for all the info 325. Clear evidence, math, logic and proof are not used to establish theory or truth. Got it! where would I be without you guys? Do you have any more gems of wisdom? Please dont hold back.
NOOO YOU DONT KENT! , don't wriggle out of this with a strawman or a misrepresentation!
i said that the onyl ABSOLUTE truth can be found in mathematics and logic.
EVIDENCE, in the form of facts which are explained, time and time again i might add, bu hypothisi, are what form a theory.
thus we might say, evolution a fact , we can observe it. the THEORY OF EVOLUTION "TRIES"( remember science won't say we got the absolute truth as that would cause us to stop discovering) TO EXPLAIN, HOW aprocess works.
so to sum up;
absolute Truth: mathematics and logic, due to absolutes (logic and mathematical absolutes, like 1+1=2)
theory: science, created by facts that are explained time and time again by hypothisi (evidence), these hypothisi are then merged into a theory ( a general explination of how a phenomina occurs) like the atomic theory, gravity and electromagnatism. they are all "theories" , would you dismiss them in the same way you dismiss evolution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
PS: (this is somehting i wrote of the top of my head, so any1 with a better understanding of this please correct me if i made a mistake. I did not read the wiki article..cause im lazy)
If you would read an article once in a while Sci you would know what one was.
Perhaps you should take your own advice, since you appear to believe that a theory is the grownup version of a journal article. Journal articles are a format for publishing the theory - the article is an expression of the theory, it's not the theory itself.
Clear evidence, math, logic and proof are not used to establish theory or truth.
- scientific theories are not considered to be absolute proof of anything, nor can a theory be proven in an absolute sense (outside of the science of mathematics, at least)
- science does not provide (and does not claim to provide) absolute truth
Do you have any more gems of wisdom? Please dont hold back.
Oh don't worry, I certainly don't question your ability to be intellectually-dishonest or create ridiculous strawman arguments.
Just wanted to make a point that when theory fails we argue small words like little children. Im happy.
what kent? what exactly do you mean with theory fails?
if you mean when a scientific theory fails, you are wrong. we don't argue like little children, we replace it with one that does work, like grown ups. and ID isn't a scientific theory, let alone that creationism is one.
Just wanted to make a point that when theory fails we argue small words like little children.
Eh? Looking back at your... oh, let's call them "contributions" to this thread, I can only assume that you mean "we" in the sense of the "royal we."
Dont you guys have a home? Isnt there a location somewhere where your "expertise" is appreciated? You always show up on sites where you are totally unnapreciated and regarded as inept. Where does this intence need originate? I have never seen such insecurity in any other field of study. I think I know a few Psyche majors that would like to take a shot at analyzing such behaviour. Any takers? Royal we?
I think the most of us know that incorrect assumptions should be ditched in favour of accurate ones. Why do you find it necessary to repeat this? The point I made and continue to make is this is being done years too late if at all. Anyone who has taken an honest look at theory knows this. You continue to accuse creationists of being dishonest and perhaps they are, perhaps they just make mistakes like we all do. The point is honesty would require an admission on your part that this has happened and continues to happen but I wont expect to hear that from you will I? The theory never seems to get a thorough cleaning. Some where in the middle common sence meets. May you find it. Please do not delude yourself into thinking that all evolutionists buy in to this propaganda. (Another word for many of our theories) I hope IM not getting ahead of you here? Its kind of hard to break it down into single syllable words.
I think the most of us know that incorrect assumptions should be ditched in favour of accurate ones. Why do you find it necessary to repeat this? The point I made and continue to make is this is being done years too late if at all. Anyone who has taken an honest look at theory knows this. You continue to accuse creationists of being dishonest and perhaps they are, perhaps they just make mistakes like we all do. The point is honesty would require an admission on your part that this has happened and continues to happen but I wont expect to hear that from you will I? The theory never seems to get a thorough cleaning. Some where in the middle common sence meets. May you find it. Please do not delude yourself into thinking that all evolutionists buy in to this propaganda. (Another word for many of our theories) I hope IM not getting ahead of you here? Its kind of hard to break it down into single syllable words.
OOOH Kent throws in the moral highground agrument.
send your psyche friends to analyse me i don't care, in fact i'd love it.
but i will tell you on thing offhand. no i'm not insecure. I am passionate about exposing what i see as wrong.
I want t live in a world where every1 can get along and is constatly working to better themselves, science and the human race. so the more paranoid, fact deniying, dishonest, intellectually dishonest, strawmanning, fundementalist fearmongers i can expose for others to see, the better
oh, and another thing. sinc ei must outline it to you again. A theory is onyl used as long as it works. not science has rigerously tested the theory of evolution, not just by moderate scientist, we had some creationist here too in the past, (you know.. when the theory was new and all -_-) and so far is has stood firm in the face of these tests. and when you say:
"The theory never seems to get a thorough cleaning. Some where in the middle common sence meets. May you find it. Please do not delude yourself into thinking that all evolutionists buy in to this propaganda."
that might apply to your misconcieved idea of what the theory actually is, which you have displayed numerous times on this forum, but not to the ACTUAL theory, which is WHAT is tested by scientist. and so far has held out, or do you fail to realize that if it didn't IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REPLACED ALREADY!!
and then you go on and place an ad hominem attack to discredit us.
"Another word for many of our theories) I hope IM not getting ahead of you here? Its kind of hard to break it down into single syllable words. "
now that is just rediculus. we have exposed your strawman and corrected your misunderstandings numerous times and STILL you call us dim, only able to understand in single syllable words...
you sir are a disgrace for christianity.
and i quote:
"Thou shalt not bear false withness."
and the commen:
"treat thy neighbour as thyself"
(k that last 1 wasn't actually a quote, but i'm to busy to go and goolge search that quote now)
"I think the most of us know that incorrect assumptions should be ditched in favour of accurate ones"
this "us" you are referrign too are the resident creationit so DUH, of course you keep your current beliefs! and i wouldn't care less, as i explained im not writing these posts with the intention of trying to convince you (i learned that was impossible after reading just 2 topics here -_-) I write here because I want to expose your flawed arguements to people who are new to this site and are still able to critically analyze what exactly thy havce to believe. people like VFX (and you) (look venomfangX on youtube) would not fit this catogaory, as explained by the myriad of people who corrected and exposed him....while he still denies they ever did such a thing and that his arguments have not been refuted with sufficent scientific or logical evidence.
(see tooltime9901, theamazingatheist, thunderf00t, potholer54, extantdode, AronRa coughland666, Drjones and MANY more)
and let me use him as a further example, VFX actively censors comments. like they way you would or are trying to "censor" us by these ad hominem attacks to discredit us. (luckely the admin here is A LOT more of and honest person to actually REALLY cencor us :D) and I for one, will expose you when you do that, i don't care if YOU don't stop, as long as others will realize what and how you are doing it.
and before you bounce the ball back, with "well your beign just as bad with your ad hominem!"
I ADMIT TO DOING IT, unlike you all most of the time when you say "ad hominem? I didn't make and ad hominenem you dishonest, biased, evolutionist sinner!"... not only that, I actually SUPPORT my claims with evidence, which you will usually ignore. same as i do with most of my agruments, where apon you flat out deny them, because of your bible glasses. (garanteed to block out 90% non biblical truth!!! :P)Now not only is that being intellectually dishonest, it's also makes you look bad, since it makes it appear that you really don't have a counter case other than blind faith, strawman (distortians) and the some of the most biased sources on the internet, WHICH IS NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE FOR ANY1 but yourself!!
and that should be all for this rant-response-rebuttal.
yours truly, the 17 year old dutch kid who you want try to discreidt with being epicjoelol's schitzofrenic creation.
PS: for some reason the eidt on this forum is REALLY crappy, hence the wierd layout.Dont you guys have a home?... [some semi-literate bombast]
Ah yes, the tactic known as: "When you can't impress with intelligence, then baffle them with bullshit."
I think I know a few Psyche majors that would like to take a shot at analyzing such behaviour. Any takers? Royal we?
A creationist referencing the field of psychology - quite possibly the only popular discipline that's as unscientific as creationism. How fitting.
Why do you find it necessary to repeat this?
Maybe because you, and other creationists, apparently find it "necessary" to consistently ignore that principle - except when it's convenient, of course.
...[some more barely-coherent rambling]...
I hope IM not getting ahead of you here? Its kind of hard to break it down into single syllable words.
I hope IM not getting ahead of you here? Its kind of hard to break it down into single syllable words.
The ironing == delicious.
That's a rather amusing posture for you to adopt, considering that you evidently can't even spell "intense," "sense," or "I'm" properly.
Thank you both for proving my analogy. Hope I spelt that right.
..exactly what analogy? and you didn't even give the slightest defense to your sides own immoral dishonesty when it comes to constantly ignoring the correct defenitions of things?
Thank you both for proving my analogy.
My pleasure. And, by the same token, thank you for proving that you have no real argument and, therefore, you need to resort to bog-standard trolling tactics.
Hope I spelt that right.
Awww, looks like I hurt his widdle feelings.
Because I'm such a nice guy, I'll refrain from harping on the fact that "spelt" is technically a type of wheat.
Will you get real. Go back over those many accusations you just made about me and then document them from what I have said on this sight on my web or anywhere else. Then tell me whos being dishonest. Im sure some of the other readers have and realize just how morally corrupt you are. I was willing to let your lies slide, arent you glad you brought it up? In case you have forgotten I believe in evolution, my case is in its accuracy and relevancy. If everyone who believed life evolved agreed on every point it wouldnt be much of a science would it? It would soon stagnate to the point of uselessness. Its just a theory.
for the last time..ITS SITE!! that is the only REAL spelling mistake that bothers me on this site.
k now to your point.
1)WHAT analogy did you make?
i find it hard to distill it from your comment. woul you please state it in an as simple temr as possible.
2) i WASN't just referring to you kent, i was also referring to bigdog and 9 tails, and frankly any other person who argues something when their lack of knowledge on the subject they are trying to refute doesn't clearly doesn't even allow them to refute it. thus the common example, creationist resorting to petty strawmen, as if that where the actual theory.
3)"Then tell me whos being dishonest. Im sure some of the other readers have and realize just how morally corrupt you are. I was willing to let your lies slide, arent you glad you brought it up?"
WHAT you actually DIDN't expose my lies!?? why on earht wouldn't you do that!? i mean how am a suppose to be corrected if someone doesn't show me the flaws in my logic, I APPLAUD PEOPLE WHO SHOW ME WHEN IM LYING(uncocieusly or conciously). so PLEASE! do expose my lies.
4)
"If everyone who believed life evolved agreed on every point it wouldnt be much of a science would it? It would soon stagnate to the point of uselessness. Its just a theory."
and reading this a can hardly believe you stated this in the same post:
"In case you have forgotten I believe in evolution, my case is in its accuracy and relevancy"
not only that it also shows your horrible misconception of what a scientific theory or the scientific method is.
we don't go with the majority opinion, (ironically majority is an argument creationist love to use.."55% of the american pleople belive in creationism."...-_-)
the fact that a majority of the SCIENTIFIC COMMINITY accepts evolution only implies that the theory has really basis, in the form of good evidence.
And THAT they ACCEPT it doesn't mean they accept the strawmen version or even the general version of the theory. since there are still unknowns about the process of evolution, there are still things to be discovered. and debated.
now if you where to say..lets say:
"i believe in evolution but i think god created life" that wouldn't make a difference as it does not hinder any acceptence of the theory of evolution. like i outlined in my 4 general events arguement.
however if you said:
"i accept evolution but an intelligence must have designed humans because we have intelligence."
that's when you start to drift away from acceptance of the theory of evolution and... science in general.
as the test should then be: how do you test for that intelligence?
and ultimately you start to come to a "god dunnit" argument.
now keep in mind kent, this isn't directed solely to you, but to others as well.
k now to your point.
1)WHAT analogy did you make?
i find it hard to distill it from your comment. woul you please state it in an as simple temr as possible.
2) i WASN't just referring to you kent, i was also referring to bigdog and 9 tails, and frankly any other person who argues something when their lack of knowledge on the subject they are trying to refute doesn't clearly doesn't even allow them to refute it. thus the common example, creationist resorting to petty strawmen, as if that where the actual theory.
3)"Then tell me whos being dishonest. Im sure some of the other readers have and realize just how morally corrupt you are. I was willing to let your lies slide, arent you glad you brought it up?"
WHAT you actually DIDN't expose my lies!?? why on earht wouldn't you do that!? i mean how am a suppose to be corrected if someone doesn't show me the flaws in my logic, I APPLAUD PEOPLE WHO SHOW ME WHEN IM LYING(uncocieusly or conciously). so PLEASE! do expose my lies.
4)
"If everyone who believed life evolved agreed on every point it wouldnt be much of a science would it? It would soon stagnate to the point of uselessness. Its just a theory."
and reading this a can hardly believe you stated this in the same post:
"In case you have forgotten I believe in evolution, my case is in its accuracy and relevancy"
not only that it also shows your horrible misconception of what a scientific theory or the scientific method is.
we don't go with the majority opinion, (ironically majority is an argument creationist love to use.."55% of the american pleople belive in creationism."...-_-)
the fact that a majority of the SCIENTIFIC COMMINITY accepts evolution only implies that the theory has really basis, in the form of good evidence.
And THAT they ACCEPT it doesn't mean they accept the strawmen version or even the general version of the theory. since there are still unknowns about the process of evolution, there are still things to be discovered. and debated.
now if you where to say..lets say:
"i believe in evolution but i think god created life" that wouldn't make a difference as it does not hinder any acceptence of the theory of evolution. like i outlined in my 4 general events arguement.
however if you said:
"i accept evolution but an intelligence must have designed humans because we have intelligence."
that's when you start to drift away from acceptance of the theory of evolution and... science in general.
as the test should then be: how do you test for that intelligence?
and ultimately you start to come to a "god dunnit" argument.
now keep in mind kent, this isn't directed solely to you, but to others as well.
Thank you for clarifying that for the readers and thank you for telling me how to word my thoughts. I promise to never have an original one again. Now can I join your club and go around telling everyone who believs in dirt how intelligent they are and be accepted by enemic minded individuals capable of nothing further then text book logic? I dont think Charlie would join that club and I wont either. I betcha a nickle no one on this site(Excuse me Sight) has even read all his books. I havent but the ones I have read display a spirit I do not find here. After all he was one of the first to say it is just a theory. I cant understand your obsession with my spelling, you can read it. Much of what you write is not responded to because I cant decipher what you are trying to say. Please proof read and make corrections. The analogy is clearly stated in previous messages, there should be no missunderstandings. Your accusations were directed to me, not the entire community and I made it clear they were what I was answering to and they were false. Thank you for backing up my statement as to what the Scientific community at large may or may not accept. Common ground is important.
"Now can I join your club and go around telling everyone who believs in
dirt how intelligent they are and be accepted by enemic minded
individuals capable of nothing further then text book logic?"
ad hominem and a hovindistic strawman (believe in dirt)
"I dont think Charlie would join that club and I wont either. I betcha a
nickle no one on this site(Excuse me Sight) has even read all his
books. I havent but the ones I have read display a spirit I do not find
here. After all he was one of the first to say it is just a theory."
charles darwin coined the theory of evolution, not to mention you are usign the theory in the colloqual sense and not in the scientific sense. Darwin use it in the scientific sense. so that's another fallacy exposed.
"I cant understand your obsession with my spelling, you can read it.
Much of what you write is not responded to because I cant decipher what
you are trying to say."
1) you can perfectly understand what i'm writing, and if you did that would ahve more to do with my grammer (lots of komma's) then with sloppy spelling.
2) im lazy so i wont proofread all my posts.
"Your accusations were directed to me, not the entire community and I
made it clear they were what I was answering to and they were false."
1)
"What most"ëvolutionists" are here for is to finally get i through the
creationists skulls that their position is SO SCIENTIFICALLY
FUNDEMENTALLY FLAWED, that they have NO RIGHT to place their
imaginative fantasy as an alternative to a theory"
"and you didn't even give the slightest defense to your sides own
immoral dishonesty when it comes to constantly ignoring the correct
defenitions of things?"
well doesn't that put you in a bad light. seems that i do aim my comments to ALL creationists and ID people. not just you.
btw where have you proved them "false"?
"Thank you for backing up my statement as to what the Scientific
community at large may or may not accept. Common ground is important."
w8..i never said what, i said HOW. and this doesn't prove your point that there is a "evolution (in your case natural selection) bias" at all....which what you are inclining. not onyl that, commen ground in science now sais ID and creationism aren't science and not supported by science.
"The point I made and continue to make is this is being done years too
late if at all. Anyone who has taken an honest look at theory knows
this. You continue to accuse creationists of being dishonest and
perhaps they are, perhaps they just make mistakes like we all do. The
point is honesty would require an admission on your part that this has
happened and continues to happen but I wont expect to hear that from
you will I?"
w8...migth THAT be your analogy?
if it where...well that's not an analogy, that's just saying you do change your views when your have been proven wrong. which is a lie. well..at least your friends don't.
not only that. i find this hypocritical. you ahve yet to expose my "lies" and prove me wrong. but you suggest that i will not admit my wrong.
HOW CAN I WHEN YOU HAVEN'T PROVEN ME WRONG?!
"The analogy is clearly stated in previous messages"
i could not find it. will you please state it again?
I have no idea what message you are trying to convey. What grade are you in?
"I have no idea what message you are trying to convey."
maby if you'd read the entire post you'd understand that you STILL have not given us the analogy in plain and simple terms. seeign as we were somehow 'unable" to "figure it out for ourselves".
"What grade are you in?"
that would be last year of (highest form in my country) highschool with apackage that has a heavy emphasis on biology, chemestry and physics and history and I'm going to (an accredited) university next year.
And you?
KENT CLARK You are the only one who makes any sense at all
''''''''''the reason i post on this forum, is to make it clar not for you (no amount of glaring logic an dfact would convince you) but to the people who look at thi site, and see that apperantly their belief in creaionism has some flaws in it, and then they might even read..and understand how it's NOT SCIENCE''''''''''
Take it from me it is NOT working
Take it from me it is NOT working
"Take it from me it is NOT working"
ofc it's not.
not on you it isn't. i know perfectly well that there are soem out there who "(no amount of glaring logic an dfact would convince"
did you ever bother took look OUTSIDE your proponent arguements ?
i did.
i watched all of hovind's seminars. and i must tell you i wasn't impressed.
i watched laod of creationists debate... and again. seeing as how most of there arguemtns are rife with fallacies, quotemining and misrepresentations. i am not impressed.
ofc course when they are the ONLY thing you watch, and you have no idea wtf the principals and theories they are bashign are and have little understanding of basic science it sound a lot more convincing.
and YES i left the typo in the on purpose.
Ok allow me to make that analogy clear once more. Your attempt to simulate scientists by quoting out of context and arguing that a special self defeating language is your god is an insult to rational existence and I thank you for pointing that out so graphically. The people on these pages come from many different fields and to think anyone would be slightly impressed with your behavior is likely dillusional. Now get your crayons and figure it out.
If your just an uneducated kid quit trying to missrepresent yourself. If english is not your native tongue as it now seems (Im reading between the lines here)I apologize. Please keep trying and I will keep trying to decipher what you are trying to say. Thats very trying.
I have over 5 years of university with 3 majors.
If your just an uneducated kid quit trying to missrepresent yourself. If english is not your native tongue as it now seems (Im reading between the lines here)I apologize. Please keep trying and I will keep trying to decipher what you are trying to say. Thats very trying.
I have over 5 years of university with 3 majors.
"I have over 5 years of university with 3 majors."
interesting. which subjects?
Your attempt to simulate scientists by quoting out of context and arguing that a special self defeating language is your god"
WOW who were the people quote mining here again?
i recall it being your camp that is regularly quotign things out of context. or must i once again wach kent seminars.
self defeating language is my god ey?
so what you are saying is
quotemining is to honesty what selfdefeating langue is to credebility?
well i'd agree on that, but lets remeber that the creationist have a major head start in quotemining not to forget a lack of credibility (ICE METEOR COOLS THE EARTH.//LAWL)
"is an insult to rational existence"
Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum
now who here has insta truth about god?
"If your just an uneducated kid quit trying to missrepresent yourself."
IF i were uneducated. problem is, i'm not.
at least, my marks and grade of education imply so.
"If english is not your native tongue as it now seems (Im reading between the lines here)I apologize."
which i;ve told you....now how many week was it ago? you know when i told you i wasn't joe but some 17 year old dutch kid who knows "basic" science and logic history.
"Please keep trying and I will keep trying to decipher what you are trying to say. Thats very trying."
perhapd you should take a few latin classes and learn how to read without many punctuation marks? it really makes many things easier to read. I suggest Julius Caesar. He's notorious for long detailed explinations, or was it Seneca.. sry i forgot. but read seneca anyway. nice "Ratio" there (the logic kind).
I have over 5 years of university with 3 majors.
Hmm, that reminds me a quote:
"At its best, college will train you to think creatively, and prepare you for the reality that education never ends.
At its worst, college will reinforce an inbred intellectual smugness,
dress it in facts, and provide you with a document asserting your
immunity to all future intellectual experience."
Thats a good quote Sci I like that. 325 my majors are Anthropology, psychology and sociology. why all the interest? I note that you just used up half a page of a pretty good dictionary again. Who are you trying to impress? You quite obviously dont understand what you are writing.
"At its best, college will train you to think creatively, and prepare you for the reality that education never ends. At its worst, college will reinforce an inbred intellectual smugness, dress it in facts, and provide you with a document asserting your immunity to all future intellectual experience."
That is an excellent quote, who said the SCi would love to know, as it is true. You and 325 could really learn from that.
That is an excellent quote, who said the SCi would love to know, as it is true. You and 325 could really learn from that.
ah. ofc
pot.kettle.black.
but srly.
only a 3rd party can convince either of us who is the pot and who is the kettle. at least. when you are intelectually honest.
and i suggest it should be a theistic professor of philosophy and science.
That is an excellent quote, who said the SCi would love to know, as it is true.
Someone named Paul Lutus:
You and 325 could really learn from that.
And you're going to how did you come by the assumption that I haven't...? (waiting)
mm interestign article sci.
but WHAT would that make that this guy?
this guy spews the most insane amount of misinformation there is on the environment, but he claims to be
"bringing the nes the experts don't tell you"
what is your opinion on this guy?
PS: he's an "evolutionists".
Well with a major in biology and chemistry and not a native english speaker, i can tell you guys 325 is spot on everytime.
"i can tell you guys 325 is spot on everytime."
and when i'm not on issues of science. feel free to link the peer reviewed article and correct me.
i so like to eb corrected on science and learn new things.
None of this site's content is copyrighted, unless it specifically says otherwise.
