Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

justone said:

The degree of accuracy often depends on the task at hand. The task was not to quote Einstein for the simple reason that evolutionists do not understand simple sentences. The task was to try to explain simple sentences in the words that possibly could be accessible to evolutionists.

Would an evolutionist understand what does mean "Quantitatively... made little modification in Newton's theory, but qualitatively a deep-seated one."? No way.

If you wish to compete in accuracy, let me know…




More accurately,it made it quote more accurate and liable to exceptions end of quote.




Next time do not include in the quote things which are not well said when you say ‘’well said’’ under the quote.




You have not noticed how I characterized the rest of the post, have you? Why? Or may be you have ignored an indivisible part of my proof?


You also put your signature under the statement ‘’Scientific theories are not verifiable; they are only falsifiable. Newton's iron laws, for example, were "verified" for hundreds of years’’
You see I have told you that this is what they teach you everywhere. This is the danger, the damage evolutionists inflict on young brains. You see, Commi is a good man and he has a good personality and good brains. Evolutionists did not damage his brains but turned it completely up side down. Commi and you just agreed on some positions of scientific method I was lucky never been forced upon in my young years.

Atheists have invented and called it scientific method to brainwash you and inflict a permanent damage on your brain . They start feeding it to you in schools, then in colleges, then… step by step.. How do you, guys swallow this delirium? What is verification, what is falsification? I could never understand…

Appendices: III The Experimental Confirmation of the General Theory of Relativity. Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. TRANSLATED BY ROBERT W. LAWSON NEW YORK: HENRY HOLT, 1920

Experimental Confirmation is the verification. TOR was verified at the moment it was published. If you wish accuracy :
‘’up to the present we have been able to find only a few deductions from the general theory of relativity which are capable of investigation, and to which the physics of pre-relativity days does not also lead’’.
Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. TRANSLATED BY ROBERT W. LAWSON NEW YORK: HENRY HOLT, 1920

(Where did you get your quotes?)

As well all Newton’s theories were verifiable upon publication of Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica. What I am telling you is not opposite to the absurd atheists tell you, their absurd has no relevancy because ‘’atheistic idea is such an absurd that I cannot express it in words’’ as Kelvin used to say. Moreover, a theory- if it is scientific -gets put in immediate use, such as – if in classical mechanics- in calculations of positions of celestial bodies in space and time as we observe them staring at them through telescopes. Look at these theories as we use them everyday: Amazon.com: Theory of Machines and Mechanisms: John J. Uicker, Gordon R. Pennock, the late Joseph E. Shigley: Books


Amazon.com: Theory of Wing Sections: Including a Summary of Airfoil Data (Dover Books on Physics): Ira H. Abbott, A. E. von Doenhoff: Books

Amazon.com: Theoretical Hydrodynamics: L. M. Milne-Thomson: Books

and try to ‘’falsify ’’ them, or to ‘’falsify ’’ Newton’s Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica aka Newton’s laws of motion or Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. TRANSLATED BY ROBERT W. LAWSON NEW YORK: HENRY HOLT, 1920
Give it a shot. You see? You are a smart man you don’t have to play a poo all the time. You have to accept that atheism can happen only in a few types of brains – either in undeveloped ones or in damaged ones, or in ones which are turned upside down.



First you want to be MORE accurate, then you say accuracy was irrelevant … God is in details. Accuracy of following rules of science has 2 qualities – either you follow or you don’t. And that is very relevant if you ever discuss anything from POV of science.



I cannot recognize a thought here. I hope you don’t take drugs as many atheists do. What are you talking about? It is an indivisible property of humans – not to have a complete knowledge. Humans as species are characterized as ones not having a complete knowledge. This truth comes from all experiments and experience of humanity, not even mentioning that these experiments and experience of humanity just confirm the truth of the Bible. Science itself exists only due to the incompleteness of knowledge and Science itself maintains incompleteness of knowledge.

Science does not seek ‘’truth’. It is you who does. It is you who finds.





I am sorry, but I have difficulties to believe you. Poincare, for instance, was telling you that even a hypotheses (not even speaking about a theory) ‘’should be verified at the first opportunity and it should be verified as often as ever possible’’ (he had a specific meaning and service for a hypotheses). As well in my view there are other huge differences between his views and yours as I can see them, he would agree with me that science does not seek the truth, but you do. Still, I am glad to see you in the club. I have some disagreements with him, too.


BTW Atheists often say also that Euclid’s geometry was wrong or had mistakes or was not advanced enough, - Poincare says that it is the same absurd as all other atheistic ideas, - let me translate it by memory, - ‘’one geometry cannot be more true than another one, - yes it may be more convenient [for a specific task] – but not more true’’. I am not even sure that this text is available in English. In the same way Relativity cannot be more true than Newton’s Principia.



It may be so, but, - like everything else, - he is not known to evolutionists who live by fantasies.



Well said Tucker!




It is a declaration, a blind belief of yours, it is an assumption of yours - because you are ignorant of or you are ignoring the tools which allow to avoid such an assumption.

There are tools, sure ways, litmus tests which would indicate exactly if it is a fantasy or a scientific theory. I have been using one of them – the easiest one and the first one required. A theory either follows rules of science or it does not. The rules are very simple and they all including. That’s all. Evolution does not pass the test. That’s all. From POV of science evolution is a fantasy. And as I have demonstrated each evolutionist has his own personal fantasy. However attractive and logical it looks to you meeting your personal taste and your personal logical abilities, from POV of science it is a ‘’written-in-stone "fantasy".”

Click to expand...

Verbosity is no substitute for coherency. Please, try again. And do try to minimize your ignorant ad-homs please.

Tucker Case said:

Verbosity is no substitute for coherency. Please, try again. And do try to minimize your ignorant ad-homs please.

Click to expand...

Submitting the ad hom ‘’your ignorant” as the only point of your reply proves your coherency to ad homs as to the only ability you can demonstrate in your posts.


An ad hom: Your post is not a substitute for logic. Your words are not a substitute for logic. Your words are stupid. You are stupid.

Thank you for another demonstration that atheists are not capable of anything but personal attacks. And I must say - the most primitive personal attacks. It seems like I have irritated an ape and got chunks of dirt thrown at me. I cannot believe the undeniable evidence that atheists are really apes as they claim. May be they are right… they are... they keep on insisting... they submit undeniable proofs post after post.

Duke said:

Evolution is a complex process that never exactly stops. A species may not appear to be evolving at one point; in fact, the genetic makeup of some species has not changed significantly for many thousands of years. Very simplistic organisms have lived in the same ecosystems, the same way, using the same resources and being preyed upon similarly for long periods of time also. If this situation is stable, and certain genetic makeups are not being favored by natural selection in this species, evolution will not take place.

Click to expand...

This is a good observation. There's a common notion that evolution naturally leads to 'higher forms of life,' usually accompanied by our anthropocentric idea that man is the 'highest' evolved form, and often ending with the idea that the life we see today represents the logical end result of that process. But what's the measure of 'higher life form?' The ability to use language and reason and form complex belief systems? Is that the definition of 'higher life form?' How do we arrive at that definition?

If we were to compare a gazelle to a dolphin, which would we consider to be the higher life form? What if we compare the gazelle to a cheetah, is the predator a higher form of life than than the prey? Is a gorilla a higher form of life than a gibbon or a macaque? By what measure?

..

Grateful Heart said:

This is a good observation. There's a common notion that evolution naturally leads to 'higher forms of life,' usually accompanied by our anthropocentric idea that man is the 'highest' evolved form, and often ending with the idea that the life we see today represents the logical end result of that process. But what's the measure of 'higher life form?' The ability to use language and reason and form complex belief systems? Is that the definition of 'higher life form?' How do we arrive at that definition?

If we were to compare a gazelle to a dolphin, which would we consider to be the higher life form? What if we compare the gazelle to a cheetah, is the predator a higher form of life than than the prey? Is a gorilla a higher form of life than a gibbon or a macaque? By what measure?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Any standards that we create in regards to "higher life" will be purely self-referential. I have thought, "what defines a well-evolved species? Are WE a well-evolved species?" It's a silly question, perhaps. But what I like is a species that fits its ecological niche exactly, living and reproducing as an important part of the world around it (in Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium, maybe). It's just a thought.


Duke

Duke said:

I have thought, "what defines a well-evolved species? Are WE a well-evolved species?"

Click to expand...

I think the best answer to that is that a well-evolved species is the one that is thriving in the environment in which it finds itself at the moment.

If you suddenly found yourself treading water in the middle of the Pacific without a life jacket you'd soon come to the conclusion that the fish swimming around you were much better evolved than you... and you'd probably bargain away your advanced intellect for gills and fins as your horrific fate became evident.

Somewhat the opposite of that age-old adage... like a fish out of water!

kaya'08 said:

Ahmed, i thought you was muslim and was expecting you to turn to creationism? Do you believe the process of evolution is currently happening all the time and has happened to us in the past?

Click to expand...

Easy kaya, I always like debate other theories wether I believe in them or no

Ahmed Shaheen said:

Easy kaya, I always like debate other theories wether I believe in them or no

Click to expand...

Lol sorry i didnt mean to be spiteful if thats how you took it i just didnt write it very well. And thanks for that its good to see someone weigh out all the possibilities and take into account other peoples opinions without letting your own beliefs get in the way.

Korimyr the Rat said:

I'm Germanic Pagan.

I believe in the theory of evolution, though not necessarily abiogenesis. I do not believe that the gods created humanity; I believe that creation myths are symbolic representations of the gods' role in shaping our ancestors' development from our humanoid forebears into the precursors of the tribes that crafted our mythology.

Click to expand...

It's kind of striking that I thought about this recently and now I see someone stating a coherent ideology based on it. I was thinking about the vast majority of religions seem to talk about ancient humans cohabitating with "god" and then he/she/it forced them out. I recently visited a hilltribe in China, home to the Naxi, and they believe that humans once lived with the gods but were made to leave and exist on their own.

There definitely seems to be a theme among all these beliefs, even though they have been disconnected from contacting each other until recently.

justone said:

Submitting the ad hom ‘’your ignorant” as the only point of your reply proves your coherency to ad homs as to the only ability you can demonstrate in your posts.


An ad hom: Your post is not a substitute for logic. Your words are not a substitute for logic. Your words are stupid. You are stupid.

Thank you for another demonstration that atheists are not capable of anything but personal attacks. And I must say - the most primitive personal attacks. It seems like I have irritated an ape and got chunks of dirt thrown at me. I cannot believe the undeniable evidence that atheists are really apes as they claim. May be they are right… they are... they keep on insisting... they submit undeniable proofs post after post.

Click to expand...

Ignorant means a lack of knowledge or understanding.

Your repeated attacks regarding my own personal atheism are the embodiment of ignorance because, in order to have made them, you MUST have been devoid of the knowledge that, throughout this thread, I have repeatedly defended intelligent design, creationism, and even the existence of God on a philosophical level.

So, instead of viewing my post as an ad hom -which it isn't- view it as constructive criticism. Your lack of understanding repeatedly leads you down a path time where you post incoherent, rambling, and downright nonsensical posts that illustrate repeatedly that you have failed to grasp the point of the posts to which you respond.

This is because you allow your own personal biases to lead you down the path of ignorance where you totally ignore any and all disconfirming evidence that does not fit with your preconceived notions.

Your posts indicate that you are more interested in tearing down atheism and atheists than you are in increasing your understanding of both yourself and others around you. My atheism is, and has ALWAYS been, irrelevant to the conversation at hand, but you felt the need to repeatedly bring it up and bash it because of one thing, justone thing.

And that is your unparalleled ability to not only embrace your ignorance, but to wallow in it like a pig in a sty.

You so consistently wallow in this sty of ignorance, that you repeatedly elicit responses from people which are then not ignored by you, but instead used as further evidence to reinforce the preconceived notions that are the roots of your own personal tree of ignorance.

This then causes your posts to become a confused mess. They do not address the points being made. They instead focus primarily upon eliciting the responses you need to further fill your sty.

I'm not posting this as an ad hom, but as a constructive criticism. Nobody responds to your "points" -and I use the term lightly here- because your posts uniformly fail to respond to their points.

If you work on removing your biases and dispelling your ignorance, you may actually begin to comprehend the other poster's points in such a way that from there on out, you actually may be able to engage in legitimate discussions instead of berating others with ad homs.

Unfortunately, I am not very optimistic that you will take my advice. It is my belief that you are far too enamored with your sty to relinquish it's soothing embrace.

Instead, I fully expect you to respond to this with another incoherent diatribe regarding my atheism and how we always resort to attacks and some other such nonsense that "confirms" your already firmly entrenched, and totally inaccurate biases.

Maybe all the cliches are true. Maybe what people generally believe to be true about life is true. Maybe there is a god in heaven who created us. Just like they say.

sazerac said:

Maybe all the cliches are true. Maybe what people generally believe to be true about life is true. Maybe there is a god in heaven who created us. Just like they say.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, maybe not.

Maybe my computer is made of chocolate...dammit, I chipped my tooth.


Duke

sazerac said:

Maybe all the cliches are true. Maybe what people generally believe to be true about life is true. Maybe there is a god in heaven who created us. Just like they say.

Click to expand...

I would say this is entirely possible. My personal beliefs regarding God's existence may well be totally and completely wrong. To be honest, I would prefer to be wrong about God not existing.


If I'm wrong, and God does exist, then it is clear that he uses mechanisms to create his creations. Stars, planets, etc all have mechanisms involved in their deelopment. They simply do not suddenly appear created out of whole cloth. God employs methods for these creations that we can discover. They are not unknowable. I find it difficult to believe that, if he exists as a creator, that he does not do the same for all of his creations, including life.

Science would be interested in trying to figure those mechanisms out. Like I said before, science and religion are far from being in opposition to each other. If anything, they can be viewed as complimentary to each other. Trying to discover the ways that God performed his amazing acts of creation does not do anything to lessen the acts themselves. If anything, one could believe that the sheer magnitude of the mechanisms is a testament to his power and glory.

I don't actually need to believe in God myself to realize that, should God exist, the mechanisms of his creations would be a testament to his power.

Tucker Case said:

Your lack of understanding repeatedly leads you down a path time where you post incoherent, rambling, and downright nonsensical posts that illustrate repeatedly that you have failed to grasp the point of the posts to which you respond.

Click to expand...

Felicity said:

Non-native English. C'mon, Tucker. That stuff was cogent, albeit a tad poetic in delivery.

Click to expand...

Tucker Case said:

Your repeated attacks are the embodiment of ignorance

This is because you allow your own personal biases to lead you down the path of ignorance

And that is your unparalleled ability to not only embrace your ignorance, but to wallow in it like a pig in a sty.

You so consistently wallow in this sty of ignorance, that you repeatedly elicit responses from people which are then not ignored by you, but instead used as further evidence to reinforce the preconceived notions that are the roots of your own personal tree of ignorance.

This then causes your posts to become a confused mess.

your posts uniformly fail

you are far too enamored with your sty to relinquish it's soothing embrace.

Instead, I fully expect you to resort to nonsense that "confirms" your already firmly entrenched, and totally inaccurate biases.

Click to expand...

Felicity said:

Wow--Tucker, I don't think I've ever seen you shooting spittle through the monitor. Good work!

Click to expand...

If I said anything wrong about atheism all you have to do is to point, quote and say why it is wrong in your view.

This is a routine of an intelligent conversation.


This is how it works. You make a statement, like this: [ QUOTE= Originally Posted by Tucker Case ]
but he deserves far more recognition than he gets in general discussion when discussing the most brilliant minds of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially when discussing relativity. [/QUOTE]

I quote it and submit my comment, agreement or disagreement, my arguments and facts.Like this:

Originally Posted by justone said:

Well said Tucker!

Click to expand...

If you find it ignorant or wrong you say it is ignorant or wrong “because the following objection can be submitted”. Then you submit an objection to this particular statement of mine.



Or for instance if I state:

Originally Posted by justone said:

1. try to ‘’falsify ’’ Newton’s Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica aka Newton’s laws of motion or Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. TRANSLATED BY ROBERT W. LAWSON NEW YORK: HENRY HOLT, 1920
Give it a shot. You see? You are a smart man you don’t have to play a poo all the time.

2.You have to accept that atheism can happen only in a few types of brains – either in undeveloped ones or in damaged ones, or in ones which are turned upside down.

Click to expand...

You either agree that you cannot falsify or disagree, - because if you disagree and can prove, it would automatically dismiss the premises 1. as false and thus would make the conclusion 2. based on these premises 1. to be false as well. Everyone would see that I was wrong. Instead you are attacking the conclusion leaving the premises intact. Either we have a logical conversation on the subject or we are swinging to a mere discussion of my personality, to calling me and my posts in general all different names without addressing any particular point of any particular post.

Stop spitting saliva through the monitor, take it as a constructive criticism

Originally Posted by Felicity said:

That stuff was cogent, albeit a tad poetic in delivery.

Click to expand...

justone said:

You forget ½ ounce of satires and ¾ ounce of humor to make it spicy… and I am not going to tell you all the recipe…

It is exactly what makes atheists to break into fumes.

Cogent stuff does not give them any chance to get around it by reasoning, so they have to demonstrate their complete abandonment of reasoning and to desert to primitive ad homs and often to derail a tread to a mere discussion of my personality.



Poetry which in essence has mirror reflections of mathematics in its constructions make their mind blow and they have to desert only to primary instincts of fear and aggression against something their mind cannot grasp.

Click to expand...

I would like to apologize for tearing atheism apart, but I can’t. It is a side product, - if one stays cogent and factual in his thought atheism happens to be an innocent victim of cogency and factuality, because it is built on absence of cogency and factuality. I am sorry that you take it personally like you are an author or a co-author of atheism. I’ve never meant to say that you are, neither have I addressed your PERSONAL atheism. You and atheism are two different phenomena not necessarily indivisible. I used to be an atheist almost a half of my adult life. I used to believe in evolution a half of my adult life. I was not a bad person because of that, it did not make me steal silver spoons, it does not have to make you.

Tucker Case said:

I have repeatedly defended intelligent design, creationism, and even the existence of God on a philosophical level.

Click to expand...

Then can you explain to me in order to enlighten my ignorance - what is wrong with attacking intelligent design, creationism, and even the existence of God on a philosophical level? And what does make atheism immune from being defended or attacked? Please enlighten me.

For instance I keep on maintaining that intelligent design does not belong to science. Can you defend it without derailing a tread to a mere discussion of my personality? I doubt that.

justone said:

If I said anything wrong about atheism all you have to do is to point, quote and say why it is wrong in your view.

This is a routine of an intelligent conversation.


This is how it works. You make a statement, like this: [ QUOTE= Originally Posted by Tucker Case ]
but he deserves far more recognition than he gets in general discussion when discussing the most brilliant minds of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially when discussing relativity.

I quote it and submit my comment, agreement or disagreement, my arguments and facts.Like this:



If you find it ignorant or wrong you say it is ignorant or wrong “because the following objection can be submitted”. Then you submit an objection to this particular statement of mine.



Or for instance if I state:



You either agree that you cannot falsify or disagree, - because if you disagree and can prove, it would automatically dismiss the premises 1. as false and thus would make the conclusion 2. based on these premises 1. to be false as well. Everyone would see that I was wrong. Instead you are attacking the conclusion leaving the premises intact. Either we have a logical conversation on the subject or we are swinging to a mere discussion of my personality, to calling me and my posts in general all different names without addressing any particular point of any particular post.

Stop spitting saliva through the monitor, take it as a constructive criticism




I would like to apologize for tearing atheism apart, but I can’t. It is a side product, - if one stays cogent and factual in his thought atheism happens to be an innocent victim of cogency and factuality, because it is built on absence of cogency and factuality. I am sorry that you take it personally like you are an author or a co-author of atheism. I’ve never meant to say that you are, neither have I addressed your PERSONAL atheism. You and atheism are two different phenomena not necessarily indivisible. I used to be an atheist almost a half of my adult life. I used to believe in evolution a half of my adult life. I was not a bad person because of that, it did not make me steal silver spoons, it does not have to make you.



Then can you explain to me in order to enlighten my ignorance - what is wrong with attacking intelligent design, creationism, and even the existence of God on a philosophical level? And what does make atheism immune from being defended or attacked? Please enlighten me.

For instance I keep on maintaining that intelligent design does not belong to science. Can you defend it without derailing a tread to a mere discussion of my personality? I doubt that.

Click to expand...

I'd just like to point out a quote from you which I have used as the foundation for my previous two posts in order to set a trap for you:

"...because you are ignorant of or you are ignoring the tools which allow to avoid such an assumption."

I set this trap to illustrate your own reliance on ad homs. If you look at that quote, you directly claim that I am either ignorant or self-delusional. If you look at my previous two posts, you will see this theme -ignorance and self-delusion- as the main point I am making.

I knew that you would not sniff out the trap, but instead I knew that would fail to see your own words and views being thrust back upon you.

For it was you who first bandied about the term "Ignorant".

I worded that first post carefully to lay such a trap. I wanted only to call your attacks ignorant, not you yourself ignorant, because this would further illustrate your hypocrisy. Once you came out with "Your words are stupid, you are stupid" I knew that the trap was sprung and I then added the second level to the trap.

I then applied the same two concepts -ignorance and ignoring the facts/tools- to you directly, much as you applied them to me directly in the quote "...because you are ignorant of or you are ignoring the tools which allow to avoid such an assumption."

I did nothing more than return your own words upon you and you have done nothing less than prove that you yourself were guilty of what you have accused me of, by taking offense to the very same thing that you initiated.

You say that I rely on ad homs for doing exactly the same as you have done to me. The trap was laid specifically to elicit the reaction I have gotten from you. You think I am frothing at the mouth when in fact everything I have written in the previous two posts was calculated in order to lay the above trap.

In actuality, I rarely use ad homs. I may occasionally use them in a retaliatory sense, typically to prove a point in said retaliations, but I make it a personal rule to never be the initiator of such attacks on the person. In this case, I was using it to lay the trap in order to illustrate a point: You often initiate said attacks and then act flabbergasted when they are returned to you in exactly the same way that you dealt them out in the first place.

If you want me to respond intelligently to your points, you must first remove the negative language that is irrelevant to the discussion. Atheism is not being discussed. It is only present in your responses to me because of your awareness of my own atheism. If I were not an atheist making the same arguments, they would not be present. And my arguments are very much one's that could be made by someone of faith. Atheism is truly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

If you want me to respond intelligently to your posts, simply respond to my points, not ones that you have invented and attributed to me. For example, I have said that all science should be viewed as potentially falsifiable. It does not mean that I can actually falsify any scientific theories nor does it mean that any theories are actually falsifiable. It only means that we need to view it as a potentiality in order to not get into a rut of incorrect thinking, just in case it is actually falsifiable. My argument was that it may indeed be true, but it must be challenged constantly by new thought.

Advancement often comes at the expense of other previously believed theories. Just because it is currently unfalsifiable does not mean at some later date, with some greater technology that the theory may not fall. We've got to assume that the potential is there until all attempts to falsify the theory are exhausted. If you think about it, I'm doing much the same as you are. I'm not taking evolution as fact. Personally, I think the theories that exist today are massively flawed.

You might be surprised to discover that my belief that the current descriptions of evolution are flawed is actually what I feel is the strongest evidence of a potential Creator.

You might also be surprised to discover that my views are such that I actually agree with you that evolution is incorrectly taught in today's society, although I believe we differ on the reasoning. I believe that it should not be taught as though it is fact (as it often is), whereas I think you would prefer to see it taught as though it is unequivocally false. While we are not in agreement on how it should be taught, we are both in agreement on the basic principle that it is taught incorrectly. Which means I'm, at the very least, closer to being an ally than an opponent to your views.

Furthermore, I too agree that intelligent design should not be taught as science, and have said as much often. I can defend it as a philosophy, but not as a science. While I think that evolution deserves to be constantly challenged through scientific processes, I do not feel the same about ID. Or creationism for that matter.

Finally, I would like to formally apologize for the ad homs I have made towards you in this thread. While they were put there to illustrate a point, they are indeed vulgar.

Tucker Case said:

I'd just like to point out a quote from you which I have used as the foundation for my previous two posts in order to set a trap for you:

"...because you are ignorant of or you are ignoring the tools which allow to avoid such an assumption."

I set this trap to illustrate your own reliance on ad homs. If you look at that quote, you directly claim that I am either ignorant or self-delusional. If you look at my previous two posts, you will see this theme -ignorance and self-delusion- as the main point I am making.

I knew that you would not sniff out the trap, but instead I knew that would fail to see your own words and views being thrust back upon you.

For it was you who first bandied about the term "Ignorant".

I worded that first post carefully to lay such a trap. I wanted only to call your attacks ignorant, not you yourself ignorant, because this would further illustrate your hypocrisy. Once you came out with "Your words are stupid, you are stupid" I knew that the trap was sprung and I then added the second level to the trap.

I then applied the same two concepts -ignorance and ignoring the facts/tools- to you directly, much as you applied them to me directly in the quote "...because you are ignorant of or you are ignoring the tools which allow to avoid such an assumption."

I did nothing more than return your own words upon you and you have done nothing less than prove that you yourself were guilty of what you have accused me of, by taking offense to the very same thing that you initiated.

You say that I rely on ad homs for doing exactly the same as you have done to me. The trap was laid specifically to elicit the reaction I have gotten from you. You think I am frothing at the mouth when in fact everything I have written in the previous two posts was calculated in order to lay the above trap.

In actuality, I rarely use ad homs. I may occasionally use them in a retaliatory sense, typically to prove a point in said retaliations, but I make it a personal rule to never be the initiator of such attacks on the person. In this case, I was using it to lay the trap in order to illustrate a point: You often initiate said attacks and then act flabbergasted when they are returned to you in exactly the same way that you dealt them out in the first place.

Click to expand...

You are not the first one who says ‘’I set the trap and you got in it’’. I did not see the trap then, I don’t see it now, all my members are free and relaxed.

What you do, - instead of posting pages you just quote:
"Originally posted by justone - ...because you are ignorant of or you are ignoring the tools which allow to avoid such an assumption."

And you say: ‘this is an ad hom’.
And everyone sees that it is, if it is.
And I would apologize, if it is.

Instead you went ballistic creating rows of your own ad homs. An ad hom is an ad hom. If you think that I made an ad hom and you are replying with an ad hom, I may guilty of 1 logical fallacy, you are doing 2 – an ad hom and 2 wrongs. If you write pages of justifications for your ad homs you are making a triple fallacy, at least. You are getting into mass production of fallacies. Neither I nor anybody else interested in the subject would give them a reading or a cent.

I was meaning that if you don’t have knowledge of some tools it does not make you a fool or a stupid or anything that can personally insult you, especially when I am always ready to inform you, if for some reason you have missed the information I posted so many times. I did not mean it as an ad hom. I myself do not have knowledge of all tools. Neither I can have such. I regret misunderstanding and if you find my explanations unsatisfactory, I will withdraw this line or will try to put it in other words.

to be continued as the quote of your fallacies has such a long word count

continued

Tucker Case said:

If you want me to respond intelligently to your points, you must first remove the negative language that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t know if you are responding intelligently and what should I say at this moment.

Tucker Case said:

Atheism is not being discussed. It is only present in your responses to me because of your awareness of my own atheism. If I were not an atheist making the same arguments, they would not be present. And my arguments are very much one's that could be made by someone of faith. Atheism is truly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Click to expand...

I am convinced that the scientific method was invented by atheists. And I mentioned that when I was discussing the scientific method. That’s all. It is not reasonable for you to expect me to discuss the subject but be silent on certain parts of it, isn’t it? That’s all.

Still, if you misunderstood you could quote and lay down your grievances about this particular moment of my post.

Tucker Case said:

If you want me to respond intelligently to your posts, simply respond to my points, not ones that you have invented and attributed to me. For example, I have said that all science should be viewed as potentially falsifiable. It does not mean that I can actually falsify any scientific theories nor does it mean that any theories are actually falsifiable..

Click to expand...

LOOK:

Originally Posted by Tucker Case said:

The presumption should be that the theory is falsifiable. ..

Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/46932-evolution-did-we-really-evolve-apes-18.html#post1057998997

Khayembii Communique said:

Scientific theories are not verifiable; they are only falsifiable.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Tucker Case said:

Well said.

Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/46932-evolution-did-we-really-evolve-apes-12.html#post1057996705
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...we-really-evolve-apes-17.html#post1057998603I


I guess you are not responding intelligently, yet, you still are mad at me with no reason.


I never meant to ask you to go into a process of falsification, but show how would you do falsification. I clearly meant that falsification was a vague and empty and unnecessary invention; that sooner or later it will get anyone who wants to follow the scientific method taught in schools and universities into a total mess of falsifications. Like you are in a total mess already making up some vague and meaningless statements like ‘’all science should be viewed as potentially falsifiable’’ and contradicting your yesterdays posts.

Tucker Case said:

It only means that we need to view it as a potentiality in order to not get into a rut of incorrect thinking, just in case it is actually falsifiable. My argument was that it may indeed be true, but it must be challenged constantly by new thought

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t know, I wouldn’t guess what you are saying.

I am afraid any time when you feel that somebody makes a hint that you don’t know something you go ballistic and get yourself into a mess. I don’t understand the reason behind that. 10 years ago I knew very little and I did not go ballistic. Since that time I have learned something and have forgotten everything I knew 10 years ago. Yet I don’t see a reason to get myself into a mess.

You make up your own variant of the scientific method. And, of course, it partially misses, partially goes against the rules of science and - in the biggest part - I don’t understand a thing. Am I saying that you are less intelligent than me when it is me who does not understand? May be you are more intelligent, because they teach you the scientific method in schools and universities and you have not been introduced to anything better. It is impossible to make sense out of it and even less to apply it, but you are still trying ( to make sense but not to apply). I don’t have enough intelligence even to read to the end.

I gave you a bunch of theories and I asked to apply the scientific method and tell how they measure up as scientific or not scientific. Take TOR and Evolution and tell how they measure up as scientific or not scientific. That’s all. It is so simple. And you are demonstrating to me the immediate fall, total absurd of the scientific method.


Listen. Try this. A theory either follows the rules of science or it does not. That’s all. It is so simple. A theory either follows the rules of science or it does not, try it. If you missed me posting the rules, tell me.

Tucker Case said:

Advancement often comes at the expense of other previously believed theories.

Click to expand...

… not even a thing…

Tucker Case said:

Just because it is currently unfalsifiable does not mean at some later date, with some greater technology that the theory may not fall.

Click to expand...

…you get me totally lost. First you agree that Newton’s mechanics was not abolished, then you imagine some falling theories. Why then the rules of science were written? They were written for the only purpose that theories would never fall. Theories that follow rules of science never fall or get dismissed, or found flawed, never.

Explain the reason behind your disagreement with Poincare I quoted for you: ‘’one geometry cannot be more true than another one, - yes it may be more convenient [for a specific task] – but not more true’’…. you get me totally lost. I thought you said you were a huge fan of him…

Tucker Case said:

We've got to assume that the potential is there until all attempts to falsify the theory are exhausted.

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t understand even a thing. You just said

Tucker Case said:

nor does it mean that any theories are actually falsifiable..

Click to expand...

why would you attempt to falsify what is not falsifiable? I wouldn’t understand… why would you make yourself exhausted? I wouldn’t understand a thing.

All I need is you to take a few theories, let's say TOR and Evolution and show if they are scientific or not applying the same uniform method, which cannot be misinterpreted or argued, or believed/disbelieved. It is like taking a ruler and sorting boards which are more 8’ long and which are less than 8’ long, - so that everyone can take the same tape measure and see that you are correct. How much more simple can it be? I am lost in your scientific method, take it and show to me why ID is not scientific or it is scientific. That’s all. How much more simple can it be?

Tucker Case said:

If you think about it, I'm doing much the same as you are. I'm not taking evolution as fact.

Click to expand...

I don’t see that we are on the same page and singing the same note. On other hand I understand that it is difficult to listen to evolutionists, to observe their behavior and take evolution as a fact if you are just a decent and fair person, no need to know rules of science or anything at all, all you have to do is to take a look from a position of a decent man to come to the same results as I looking from POV of science

Tucker Case said:

Personally, I think the theories that exist today are massively flawed.

Click to expand...

So they are not following rules of science and shouldn’t belong in the science class. Big bang, dark energy, black holes, M, string theories, - they should belong to a math class at the best. Evolution should belong to a religion and philosophy class.

Tucker Case said:

You might be surprised to discover that my belief that the current descriptions of evolution are flawed is actually what I feel is the strongest evidence of a potential Creator.
You might also be surprised to discover that my views are such that I actually agree with you that evolution is incorrectly taught in today's society, although I believe we differ on the reasoning. I believe that it should not be taught as though it is fact (as it often is), whereas I think you would prefer to see it taught as though it is unequivocally false. While we are not in agreement on how it should be taught, we are both in agreement on the basic principle that it is taught incorrectly. Which means I'm, at the very least, closer to being an ally than an opponent to your views.

Furthermore, I too agree that intelligent design should not be taught as science, and have said as much often. I can defend it as a philosophy, but not as a science.

Click to expand...

Frankly I am not surprised. You made friendly relations with Felicity, she vouches for you, and you know only the last losers would ignore that, not me. I am rather surprised by you going ballistic and flying in all these circles under the ceiling. You are not tired, yet? Or you have to do your falsification things until you fall unconscious?

Tucker Case said:

While I think that evolution deserves to be constantly challenged through scientific processes, I do not feel the same about ID. Or creationism for that matter.

Click to expand...

You are following your feelings on this matter, which is not a bad thing as long as you are a good man not having a habit to steal silver spoons when you are invited as a guest to somebody’s house.

I am following the rules of science, math and philosophy. Creationism and ID are maters of logic, which actually belongs to philosophy. Evolution is a matter of logic only, too. It is not a matter of science because it follows neither rules of science nor purposes of science. You can prove logically that ID is true or evolution is true, you can make many people agree with your proof, yet it does not make any bearing on science because science is not in the business of seeking the truth, you are, or at least, should be.

Tucker Case said:

Finally, I would like to formally apologize for the ad homs I have made towards you in this thread. While they were put there to illustrate a point, they are indeed vulgar.

Click to expand...

You did not inflict any harm on me. I should rather express my regret that I’ve missed all the illustrations. And, of course, I cordially accept your formal apologies.

justone said:

I am convinced that the scientific method was invented by atheists. And I mentioned that when I was discussing the scientific method. That’s all. It is not reasonable for you to expect me to discuss the subject but be silent on certain parts of it, isn’t it? That’s all.

Click to expand...

If this is the case, it can be done without the extraneous negative language that you include denouncing the brain function of those who adhere to such methods.

You can disagree without the unnecessary inclusion of such derisive language. By constantly attacking evolutionists and atheists in this personal manner, instead of attacking their ideas, you are in fact creating a hostile environment for your readers.

You can easily disagree with their thoughts without attacking them personally, even if veiled in general attacks, the effect will still be personal since you are attacking the people, and not their thoughts or ideas themselves.

It detracts from the valid points you present. Even if you may not mean it in a personal sense towards your reader, and instead in a general sense, it is still an ad hominem argument because you are attempting to create the argument that their is a flaw in the adherents to a belief instead of attacking the beliefs that they hold.

LOOK:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/46932-evolution-did-we-really-evolve-apes-18.html#post1057998997


http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/46932-evolution-did-we-really-evolve-apes-12.html#post1057996705
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...we-really-evolve-apes-17.html#post1057998603I


I guess you are not responding intelligently, yet, you still are mad at me with no reason.

Click to expand...

Those were not the responses to which I was referring when I said "If you would like me to respond intelligently". I meant that my responses to you that included ad homs were not intelligent responses.

I never meant to ask you to go into a process of falsification, but show how would you do falsification. I clearly meant that falsification was a vague and empty and unnecessary invention; that sooner or later it will get anyone who wants to follow the scientific method taught in schools and universities into a total mess of falsifications. Like you are in a total mess already making up some vague and meaningless statements like ‘’all science should be viewed as potentially falsifiable’’ and contradicting your yesterdays posts.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how to word my concepts better. To me they seem clear and concise, but perhaps my wording is failing me. I've been trying to say that the presumption of "truth" should never really be made in science.

In fact, I actually like your wording better: "science is not in the business of seeking the truth". I think this is actually what I am trying to get at with regards to the "presumption of falsifiability" line. I believe I may have approached it from the wrong direction though.

Science is looking for the best available "explanations" of how observable phenomena occur. It uses the data available to create the explanations. Later you ask me about Euclidean geometry's "truth" and I agree with Poincare that there is no such thing as "more true". But there is such a thing as a "better explanation".

More on Geometry and my agreement's and disagreements with Poincare later.

I wouldn’t know, I wouldn’t guess what you are saying.

Click to expand...

Perhaps my explanation above regarding "best available explanations" will explain my thinking better.

I am afraid any time when you feel that somebody makes a hint that you don’t know something you go ballistic and get yourself into a mess. I don’t understand the reason behind that. 10 years ago I knew very little and I did not go ballistic. Since that time I have learned something and have forgotten everything I knew 10 years ago. Yet I don’t see a reason to get myself into a mess.

Click to expand...

But the thing is, I honestly don't do this. If someone points out how I am wrong in a civil manner, I will typically admit my errors. This has happened on this website often enough. But if the attempts to point out the flaws in my thinking are done in what I perceive to be an uncivil manner, I may return that incivility back to the person.

And when I return the incivility, it is done in a calculated manner designed for a purpose. I don't "go into a mess". A perusal of my posts will show that

1. Incivility is a rarity in my posts
2. I do not presume that my thoughts are infallible. If someone presents an argument that legitimately addresses and refutes my points, I will concede.

Sometimes, there is a disconnect between what I am trying to say and how it is understood by the person with whom I am discussing something. I understand that often times, this is a failing in how I present my ideas. I think in our case, we are not entirely discussing the same principles, and this is most likely due to this failing of mine regarding the clarity of my point.

what I mean and how it is being interpreted to mean are not entirely on the same page. Like I said, this is a failing on my part to accurately describe my views.

You make up your own variant of the scientific method. And, of course, it partially misses, partially goes against the rules of science and - in the biggest part - I don’t understand a thing. Am I saying that you are less intelligent than me when it is me who does not understand? May be you are more intelligent, because they teach you the scientific method in schools and universities and you have not been introduced to anything better. It is impossible to make sense out of it and even less to apply it, but you are still trying ( to make sense but not to apply). I don’t have enough intelligence even to read to the end.

I gave you a bunch of theories and I asked to apply the scientific method and tell how they measure up as scientific or not scientific. Take TOR and Evolution and tell how they measure up as scientific or not scientific. That’s all. It is so simple. And you are demonstrating to me the immediate fall, total absurd of the scientific method.

Click to expand...

I think the entirety of the above is due to my failing to portray my views on this correctly. I am unable to accurately describe the points I am trying to make in clear and concise language.

…you get me totally lost. First you agree that Newton’s mechanics was not abolished, then you imagine some falling theories. Why then the rules of science were written? They were written for the only purpose that theories would never fall. Theories that follow rules of science never fall or get dismissed, or found flawed, never.

Click to expand...

The rules of science are limited by the evidence that is available. If new evidence becomes available, the theory may fall.

And it won't necessarily "smash" the existing theory. The new evidence may simply create the grounds for a "better explanation" of the observable phenomena than the current explanation.

Explain the reason behind your disagreement with Poincare I quoted for you: ‘’one geometry cannot be more true than another one, - yes it may be more convenient [for a specific task] – but not more true’’…. you get me totally lost. I thought you said you were a huge fan of him…

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that statement. I totally agree with it. One geometry cannot be "more true" than another. In fact, I believe that my re-explanation of what I actually mean by "presumed falsifiability" is better represented with what I have said above regarding "better explanations". I think that what I'm saying and what Poincare said are actually quite similar. I simply failed to phrase my concept as well as he did.

I wouldn’t understand even a thing. You just said why would you attempt to falsify what is not falsifiable? I wouldn’t understand… why would you make yourself exhausted? I wouldn’t understand a thing.

Click to expand...

The thing is, I am actually starting to believe that what we are saying is almost identical, but viewed form different angles.

Obviously, the "truth", or what is perceived to be "truth", would be a thing that cannot be falsified.

The reason I say that all science should be presumed "falsifiable" is that if we presume it cannot be falsified, we are in fact presuming it to be truth. that would not be science, as science does not seek the "truth" only the best explanations. .

All I need is you to take a few theories, let's say TOR and Evolution and show if they are scientific or not applying the same uniform method, which cannot be misinterpreted or argued, or believed/disbelieved. It is like taking a ruler and sorting boards which are more 8’ long and which are less than 8’ long, - so that everyone can take the same tape measure and see that you are correct. How much more simple can it be? I am lost in your scientific method, take it and show to me why ID is not scientific or it is scientific. That’s all. How much more simple can it be?

Click to expand...

I think that ID is not science because it is not seeking the best explanation to a phenomenon. It is seeking to place a pre-existing explanation into the phenomenon. It works backwards. It doesn't use the evidence to create teh theory, it uses the theory to explain the evidence.

It must be presumed to be "true" in order to have merit.

So they are not following rules of science and shouldn’t belong in the science class. Big bang, dark energy, black holes, M, string theories, - they should belong to a math class at the best. Evolution should belong to a religion and philosophy class.

Click to expand...

We are actually thinking along the same lines here. I think theoretical physics is in many ways, a mathematical philosophy. They are part philosophy part mathematics. I wouldn't be averse to these being considered applied mathematics more than science.

And I think you make a very valid point regarding evolution. I'll adress that shortly.

You are following your feelings on this matter, which is not a bad thing as long as you are a good man not having a habit to steal silver spoons when you are invited as a guest to somebody’s house.

Click to expand...

I only steal wooden spoons. I'm a humble man. :2razz:

I am following the rules of science, math and philosophy. Creationism and ID are mater of logic, which actually belongs to philosophy. Evolution is exactly a matter of logic, too. It is not a matter of science because it follows neither rules of science nor purposes of science. You can prove logically that ID is true or evolution is true, you can make many people agree with your proof, yet it does not make any bearing on science because science is not in the business of seeking the truth, you are or, at least, should be.

Click to expand...

I would be in favor of bringing back the old concept of "Natural Philosophy". I think that ID, evolution, etc, are better served under this old heading. It is a more accurate description of them.

I think that the line between philosophy and science has been blurred over the last 200 years, and that has been a detriment to both science and philosophy. while they are often complimentary schools of thought, they are not one in the same.

You did not inflict any harm on me. I should rather express my regret that I’ve missed all the illustrations. And, of course, I cordially accept your formal apologies.

Click to expand...

Thank you for accepting the apology.

If this is the case, it can be done without the extraneous negative language that you include denouncing the brain function of those who adhere to such methods.

You can disagree without the unnecessary inclusion of such derisive language. By constantly attacking evolutionists and atheists in this personal manner, instead of attacking their ideas, you are in fact creating a hostile environment for your readers.

You can easily disagree with their thoughts without attacking them personally, even if veiled in general attacks, the effect will still be personal since you are attacking the people, and not their thoughts or ideas themselves.

Tucker Case said:

It detracts from the valid points you present. Even if you may not mean it in a personal sense towards your reader, and instead in a general sense, it is still an ad hominem argument because you are attempting to create the argument that their is a flaw in the adherents to a belief instead of attacking the beliefs that they hold.

Click to expand...

Felicity said:

Please, Tucker--that is NOTHING like Slippery Dope's Slope's or Syphilis' Cephus' constant barrage of anti "xtian" spew. I know you're a more enlightened atheist type, but comparatively, really....that's minor.

Click to expand...

Look through the tread from the beginning and you will who started the barrage: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/46932-evolution-did-we-really-evolve-apes.html#post1057995780
The Following User Says Thank You to Grateful Heart For This Useful Post:
Ethereal


http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/46932-evolution-did-we-really-evolve-apes.html#post1057995800

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/46932-evolution-did-we-really-evolve-apes-2.html#post1057995811

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/46932-evolution-did-we-really-evolve-apes-2.html#post1057995837

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/46932-evolution-did-we-really-evolve-apes-9.html#post1057996329


Please, Tucker, almost each and every tread on R&P is devoted to indecent, dishonest and perverted mocking of my belief. They gather and groups and attack any reason and decency, they are cocky of their ignorance, look at this tread – and you are trying to follow step of Captain Courtesy who sees hyper partisanship of conservatives in any statement that disagrees with his not realizing that it only demonstrates his extreme bigotry is no more than a primitive ad hom?

Please, Tucker, that is NOTHING like making strawmen, twisting and spinning, - it all is coming from reasoning and facts. I do not go without making valid points. I do answer with attention to reasonable argumenets.

It is not my fault that you are in the wrong club. Well, show me that you are ashamed of their tactics before you lament about my style. Show reason and attention to the points made. I will single you out in your club, you will have no problem.

Would you be able not to derail to mere disscusion of my personality? I hope you would, it does not have to be personal.

to be contunied by disscusion of the subject

1.

Tucker Case said:

I'm not sure how to word my concepts better. To me they seem clear and concise, but perhaps my wording is failing me. I've been trying to say that the presumption of "truth" should never really be made in science.

In fact, I actually like your wording better: "science is not in the business of seeking the truth". I think this is actually what I am trying to get at with regards to the "presumption of falsifiability" line. I believe I may have approached it from the wrong direction though.

Science is looking for the best available "explanations" of how observable phenomena occur. It uses the data available to create the explanations. Later you ask me about Euclidean geometry's "truth" and I agree with Poincare that there is no such thing as "more true". But there is such a thing as a "better explanation".

More on Geometry and my agreement's and disagreements with Poincare later.

Click to expand...

You see you are a very intelligent man. You are doing thinking and trying to find the better expression of your thinking. You are trying to make sense out of the nonsense you have been taught from everywhere.

You see you put explanation and truth in apprentices. You are giving them some contingencies because you are not certain if are using them correctly and what would be the meaning to put in them.

I on other side am not doing any thinking. I am using the ruler and measuring the length of your boards automatically. Let’s look at the part 2.:

2.

Tucker Case said:

The rules of science are limited by the evidence that is available. If new evidence becomes available, the theory may fall.

And it won't necessarily "smash" the existing theory. The new evidence may simply create the grounds for a "better explanation" of the observable phenomena than the current explanation.

I don't disagree with that statement. I totally agree with it. One geometry cannot be "more true" than another. In fact, I believe that my re-explanation of what I actually mean by "presumed falsifiability" is better represented with what I have said above regarding "better explanations". I think that what I'm saying and what Poincare said are actually quite similar. I simply failed to phrase my concept as well as he did.

Click to expand...

You see in part 1. you did not use the word evidence referring to science. But in part 2. it becomes the central word.

Science is not in business of explanation of evidence. Logic is. Evolution is. Creationism is. Evidence has no bearing on science.

In part 1 you said: Science is looking for the best available "explanations" of how observable phenomena occur.

Let me repeat In part 1 you said: Science is looking for the best available "explanations" of how observable phenomena occur.


Let me repeat the 3rd time. In part 1 you said ‘’observable phenomena occur’’. This is the only point of science. Not evidence. Take a knife and curve it on your desk: Evidence has no bearing on science, but ’’observable phenomena occurrence’’ only has bearing on science.

Rise your hand and take an oath: any time when I Tucker am deducting explanations of empirical evidence I am doing logic. Any time when I Tucker am making propositions inducted by ’’ occurrences of observable phenomena’’ I am doing science.

Evidence - logic. Occurrences – science.

No occurrences - no science. That’s all. Can it be more simple? Can it be more sufficient? Do you need any thinking? No. Do you need the scientific method with all meaningless falsifications, - no. Do you need any special education? No. All you need is to follow rule IV.

Rule IV

In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

This rule we must follow, that the arguments of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

Tucker Case said:

We are actually thinking along the same lines here. I think theoretical physics is in many ways, a mathematical philosophy. They are part philosophy part mathematics. I wouldn't be averse to these being considered applied mathematics more than science.

Click to expand...

We are.

Tucker Case said:

And I think you make a very valid point regarding evolution. I'll adress that shortly. I think that ID is not science because it is not seeking the best explanation to a phenomenon. It is seeking to place a pre-existing explanation into the phenomenon. It works backwards. It doesn't use the evidence to create teh theory, it uses the theory to explain the evidence.

It must be presumed to be "true" in order to have merit.

Click to expand...

• ID as the matter of the fact is hundreds years old extremely well put together and polished over centuries by best logicians theory deducted from empirical evidence, but NOT inducted by Occurrences of any phenomenon. Not too many people are aware of that as there are not too many people who are aware of the rules of science.

• Each advancement of science has been bringing new evidence to it. Let’s say a scientist works on theory of information (computers etc). Let’s say he also thinks about other things. At a certain point the genius thinks ‘these things logically can only be explained by existence of ID and never by evolution’. And he starts inventing some weird concepts of ID, - because he is not aware that he is re-inventing a bicycle. Like this guy [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Heitler]Walter Heitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] for instance, who said: ‘’A contradiction (between science and religion) is out of the question. What follows from science are, again and again, clear indications of God's activity which can be so strongly perceived that Kepler dared to say (for us it seems daring, not for him) that he could "almost touch God with his hand in the Universe". (please note it follows from science, but not within science, it is a logical conclusion). We, Christians look at him as at a very naïve child… we know it is a part of our belief, our theology, polished by the best minds of human civilization, - Aquinas, Newton, Leibniz, Pascal, you name it – are among them.

Not to compare with a child but with the genius you are in the process of inventing a bicycle. This is the result of ruthless methods and united efforts of at.....ts to erase memory of society and implant all kind of their fantasies instead.
I went through the same process, until I realized that I was no genius and all those things were hundreds of years old.

Tucker Case said:

I think that the line between philosophy and science has been blurred over the last 200 years, and that has been a detriment to both science and philosophy. while they are often complimentary schools of thought, they are not one in the same.

Click to expand...

Well said Tucker! If I had time I would expand more on that.

Tucker Case said:

I would be in favor of bringing back the old concept of "Natural Philosophy". I think that ID, evolution, etc, are better served under this old heading. It is a more accurate description of them.

Click to expand...

Natural Philosophy or Experimental Philosophy is the old name science. I would be in favor of Experimental Philosophy instead of science. The key word of science is experiment. Science is defined as an empirical experimental activity. About any theory you make Experimental Philosophy asks the question #1 – can we do an experiment to see if it approximately occurs as you say it occurs? It does not take any excuse, - but Yes or No. If it No, science is not interested. This is your litmus test. Take a TOR and Evolution and tell me which is science and which is not.

Let me repeat your home made, very awkward but in essence genius statement:

Tucker Case said:

Science is looking for the best available "explanations" of how observable phenomena occur.

Click to expand...

Why do you think evolutionists lie that that they have observed the phenomena of speciation. Why do you think I ask the only one question: “link me to one justone observation of speciation in a peer reviewed publication”? Why do you think they never ever have produced one, justone link? Scientists do not know that. If they want to get familiar with evolution they of course at the first place look if evolutionists have occurrences. All evolutionist literature states that they do. So scientists believe evolution is science. I did believe, too. It is impossible for a real scientist to imagine that your fellow scientist would lie so blatantly. Only when I started talking to evolutionists on DP I recorded their indecent and repulsive behavior OCCURING with persistence and I said to myself ‘ I better check out this evolution for myself’. It failed as miserably as I couldn’t even pre-suppose. All tests, no exclusion.

justone said:

‘’up to the present we have been able to find only a few deductions from the general theory of relativity which are capable of investigation, and to which the physics of pre-relativity days does not also lead’’.
Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. TRANSLATED BY ROBERT W. LAWSON NEW YORK: HENRY HOLT, 1920

Click to expand...

Didn't notice this one before.

AFTER 1920, Edwin Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe. Thus was birthed the science of cosmology. Before that time, most everyone, including Albert, thought the universe was static. Einstein's Relativity played a major role in understanding cosmology, something physicists simply would not have been able to do without it.

AFTER 1920, Relativity was explored and the theoretical existence of black holes were discovered therein. Again, classical physics presumed light was not affected by gravity, and could not predict a black hole.

That's two items that were dependent upon relativity for explanation. There's more.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Didn't notice this one before.

AFTER 1920, Edwin Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe. Thus was birthed the science of cosmology. Before that time, most everyone, including Albert, thought the universe was static. Einstein's Relativity played a major role in understanding cosmology, something physicists simply would not have been able to do without it.

AFTER 1920, Relativity was explored and the theoretical existence of black holes were discovered therein. Again, classical physics presumed light was not affected by gravity, and could not predict a black hole.

That's two items that were dependent upon relativity for explanation. There's more.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the information. Whether it is true or not - you are informing us with the purpose.............................? To show that you are informed? Or there is any other purpose?

justone said:

Thank you for the information. Whether it is true or not - you are informing us with the purpose.............................? To show that you are informed? Or there is any other purpose?

Click to expand...

To demonstrate that your use of outdated quotes intended to disqualify the theory of evolution by natural selection merely demonstrates your own deep ignorance of the history of science and thus disqualifies your own adamant position against the theory.

I'm neutral. But I do have a biased towards evolution, as it does provide more evidence for it's points of arguments.

Christianity has existed for about 2000 years, Judaism (biblical) for 3,300 years, organised Chinese civilisation for 4,000 years, and Egypt for 5,000 years. Descriptive written records weren't developed, as I'd like to think until only 5,000 years, around about the same time Ancient Egypt had emerged.

5,000 years is still far too short to witness evolution, maybe in the future, us homo sapiens will evolve into something else. But then again, God could've also created us.

George VI said:

time Ancient Egypt had emerged.

5,000 years is still far too short to witness evolution, maybe in the future, us homo sapiens will evolve into something else.

Click to expand...

But see, that's why God gave us the fossil record, so we could look back through time and take a gander at the laws of His great universe!:2razz:


Duke

George VI said:

I'm neutral. But I do have a biased towards evolution, as it does provide more evidence for it's points of arguments.

Christianity has existed for about 2000 years, Judaism (biblical) for 3,300 years, organised Chinese civilisation for 4,000 years, and Egypt for 5,000 years. Descriptive written records weren't developed, as I'd like to think until only 5,000 years, around about the same time Ancient Egypt had emerged.

5,000 years is still far too short to witness evolution, maybe in the future, us homo sapiens will evolve into something else. But then again, God could've also created us.

Click to expand...

Well according to scientists we have reached a turning point in our biological chemsitry in terms of evolution and that our bodies will be unrecognizable in 2,000 years time as a result of such evolution.