Al Gore will be excited!!!

Pages

422 posts / 0 new
Last post
guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

HAHAHA!
funny! (and one more than wags, I win)

 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

Plainsman Said:

BringingTheRain Said:

Plainsman Said:

 It isn't even debated anymore since it is observable and testable.

Then why do they still call it theory?  It's not a very good scientist that says something can be proven, but it's still theory.

We've gone over this a few times now.  There is nothing above scientific theory. Scientific theory is the highest form of scientific achievement. And you're right, it isn't a very good scientist to say something can absolutely be proven in science. Just like any good scientist understands that a theory never becomes a law. People need to understand that something isn't, "only a theory". I shouldn't have to explain this stuff to you.

Oh, you mean like the theory of gravity?

Here is my problem, and even from a scientific standpoint.  If you loose your car keys and after searching for five minutes you find them do you keep searching?  Of course not that would be silly.  Science is supposed to search for the truth.  As long as something is theory we should keep searching for answers.  Some scientists do, some don't.  The reason some don't is because they are sure they know.  Those scientists should have taken up another occupation.  Often we find new things even after we think we know.  If not we would all be crowded in Europe not sailing our ships much beyond the sight of shore because we would be afraid of falling of the edge of the flat earth. 

You still don't understand what a scientific theory is.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

eyexer Said:

BringingTheRain Said:

Plainsman Said:

 It isn't even debated anymore since it is observable and testable.

Then why do they still call it theory?  It's not a very good scientist that says something can be proven, but it's still theory.

We've gone over this a few times now.  There is nothing above scientific theory. Scientific theory is the highest form of scientific achievement. And you're right, it isn't a very good scientist to say something can absolutely be proven in science. Just like any good scientist understands that a theory never becomes a law. People need to understand that something isn't, "only a theory". I shouldn't have to explain this stuff to you.

seems you just said a law is a higher form than a theory. 

No. I did not. 

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

You still don't understand what a scientific theory is.

I have understood theory since 1964, and treat it as it was meant to be.  Today to often it is abused by the liberals along party lines.  They forsake science for their agenda.  If you want an example of arrogance it would be someone with less professional experience explaining something to someone with four times the experience. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

Plainsman Said:

You still don't understand what a scientific theory is.

I have understood theory since 1964, and treat it as it was meant to be.  Today to often it is abused by the liberals along party lines.  They forsake science for their agenda.  If you want an example of arrogance it would be someone with less professional experience explaining something to someone with four times the experience. 

You've clearly shown again and again on threads like this that you don't understand scientific theory and law.

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

bobkat Said:
 Eyexer. The ww2 aircraft, b-17's and Lightnings, landed on a glacier.  Theyweren't "covered" with snow and ice, but rather sunk in the icecap till they hit the underlying rock!  Have you ever left an ice spud laying on the ice overnight?  Same thing but add 60 years and you get the idea! 
The recovery and rebuilding these planes is a fascinating story and fills several lectures by the guys who did it, but they do make it clear that the plans sank, NOT got covered, so it is a poor argument against global warming.  Thinking about it, the warmer the average temps, the faster they might sink, but that,s probably as hollow an argument than the ice thicknng and covering them up theory.  
BTW, I have no opinion about the global warming theory, but just thought I'd straighten out this meaningless argument as I've seen it on every GW discussion pretty well on every website!  Couldn't help but straighten it out.  No disrespect intended.
I appologise to Plainsman and made my comment partly in jest to pull his chain after some of the earlier anti Muslim stuff he was proselytizing  on a different thread.  The "Bible is always right because God wrote it and can't be wrong and every other religion is nasty and wring" attitude that is so prevelant.  Sorry For the attitude of my post, though MANY, MANY self described Christians firmly still believe the earth is about 5000 years old, as PROVEN inGenesis! 

sorry, but that just pegged my howdanggoofyisthatstatement meter

 

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Not everything is liberal v conservative. I am sure there are plenty of conservatives on this site who don't share your view on the theory of evolution... But, then they must not be conservative?

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

You've clearly shown again and again on threads like this that you don't understand scientific theory and law.

Your making me think your not science educated even though you speak as if you are.  It is law of gravity, and theory of evolution.  You stated theory was as sure as science could be.  That is not correct.  So you need to brush up on science.  It's little wonder that true scientists are being questioned because of the integrity of scientists with an agenda.  An agenda other than the truth. 

 the theory of evolution

Thanks espringer.  Does this  mean you have theory in the proper perspective? 

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

algore had a theory that he invented the internet,

however the law of common sense says otherwise.

Neat

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

 There is nothing above scientific theory.

I was in a discussion today where a friend had just read about a man who tested our education system this way:  He took an eighth grade graduation test and had four year college grads take the test.  Most failed.  We have been dumbing down our society in the name of fairness for some time now.  The above statement should have been taken to task by a third grade teacher. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

Plainsman Said:

You've clearly shown again and again on threads like this that you don't understand scientific theory and law.

Your making me think your not science educated even though you speak as if you are.  It is law of gravity, and theory of evolution.  You stated theory was as sure as science could be.  That is not correct.  So you need to brush up on science.  It's little wonder that true scientists are being questioned because of the integrity of scientists with an agenda.  An agenda other than the truth. 

 the theory of evolution

Thanks espringer.  Does this  mean you have theory in the proper perspective? 

You still don't get it.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

 There is nothing above scientific theory.

I was in a discussion today and a friend had just read about a man who tested our education system in this way:  He took an eighth grade graduation test from the early 1900's and give it to four year college grads to take.  Most failed.  We have been dumbing down our society in the name of fairness and progress for some time now.  The above statement should have been taken to task by a third grade teacher. 

Good post johnr.  Egores theory had some major holes that even progressives recognized. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

Plainsman Said:

 There is nothing above scientific theory.

I was in a discussion today where a friend had just read about a man who tested our education system this way:  He took an eighth grade graduation test and had four year college grads take the test.  Most failed.  We have been dumbing down our society in the name of fairness for some time now.  The above statement should have been taken to task by a third grade teacher. 

That's funny you bring this up since I one time tried to use a youtube video of a teacher explaining theory to his 8th grade class to help you understand theory and law.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

johnr Said:
algore had a theory that he invented the internet,

however the law of common sense says otherwise.

the everyday use of 'theory' and the scientific meaning of 'theory' are two different things.

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

BringingTheRain Said:

johnr Said:
algore had a theory that he invented the internet,

however the law of common sense says otherwise.

the everyday use of 'theory' and the scientific meaning of 'theory' two different things.

how right you are, I am however making fun of a pompous douche bag as best as my nonscientific mind can.

Neat

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Yes... Theory of evolution. Have I or anyone else ever tried to argue otherwise? By its very nature, it will always be a theory. It can never be a law because of how evolution works. It is not predictable. It is explainable.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

I miss Michael.

Photo: "Beat It"<br />
[1st Verse] They Told Him Don't You Ever Come Around Here Don't Wanna See Your Face, You Better Disappear The Fire's In Their Eyes And Their Words Are Really Clear So Beat It, Just Beat It<br />
[2nd Verse] You Better Run, You Better Do What You Can Don't Wanna See No Blood, Don't Be A Macho Man You Wanna Be Tough, Better Do What You Can So Beat It, But You Wanna Be Bad<br />
[Chorus] Just Beat It, Beat It, Beat It, Beat It No One Wants To Be Defeated Showin' How Funky Strong Is Your Fight It Doesn't Matter Who's Wrong Or Right Just Beat It, Beat It Just Beat It, Beat It Just Beat It, Beat It Just Beat It, Beat It<br />
[3rd Verse] They're Out To Get You, Better Leave While You Can Don't Wanna Be A Boy, You Wanna Be A Man You Wanna Stay Alive, Better Do What You Can So Beat It, Just Beat It<br />
[4th Verse] You Have To Show Them That You're Really Not Scared You're Playin' With Your Life, This Ain't No Truth Or Dare They'll Kick You, Then They Beat You, Then They'll Tell You It's Fair So Beat It, But You Wanna Be Bad<br />
[Chorus] Just Beat It, Beat It, Beat It, Beat It No One Wants To Be Defeated Showin' How Funky Strong Is Your Fight It Doesn't Matter Who's Wrong Or Right<br />
[Chorus] Just Beat It, Beat It, Beat It, Beat It No One Wants To Be Defeated Showin' How Funky Strong Is Your Fight It Doesn't Matter Who's Wrong Or Right Just Beat It, Beat It, Beat It, Beat It, Beat It<br />
[Chorus] Beat It, Beat It, Beat It, Beat It No One Wants To Be Defeated Showin' How Funky Strong Is Your Fight It Doesn't Matter Who's Wrong Or Right<br />
[Chorus] Just Beat It, Beat It, Beat It, Beat It No One Wants To Be Defeated Showin' How Funky Strong Is Your Fight It Doesn't Matter Who's Wrong Or Who's Right<br />
[Chorus] Just Beat It, Beat It, Beat It, Beat It No One Wants To Be Defeated Showin' How Funky Strong Is Your Fight It Doesn't Matter Who's Wrong Or Right<br />
[Chorus] Just Beat It, Beat It, Beat It, Beat It No One Wants To Be Defeated Showin' How Funky Strong Is Your Fight It Doesn't Matter Who's Wrong Or Right Just Beat It, Beat It Beat It, Beat It, Beat It

 

Wags86's picture
Wags86
Offline
Joined: 12/14/10

 what a creepy picture of a creepy manchildthing

 

 "I get what you're saying:  Like a sausage replica featuring a Polander holding a sacred illumination device." 

 

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

I LOVE YOU SO MUCH MICHAEL JACKSON

 

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Wags86 Said:
 what a creepy picture of a creepy manchildthing

Exactly what were his intentions with that llama?

Neat

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

espringers Said:
Yes... Theory of evolution. Have I or anyone else ever tried to argue otherwise? By its very nature, it will always be a theory. It can never be a law because of how evolution works. It is not predictable. It is explainable.

I think we agree then espringer, at least on theory.   Maybe you can explain that to your liberal friend Bringingtherain. 
I hope I have not offended you BTR, that's not my intention. 

Geneticists are giving some more thought to mutations.  That is how evolution is supposed to work.  This is only theory right now, but some think that when we see a mutation that the genetic code was already in that species DNA, but was recessive and not seen until a specific combination occurred with the genetic contribution of the other donor. 

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

But, that doesn't mean theory is less than law or vica versa. Although, in many instances I would hold theory to be above law because they explain why... Not just describe the nature of. Think theory of relativity that seeks to explain many different laws. Coming up w the laws was the easy part explaining them is much more difficult. Also, just because something is "just a theory" does not mean it hasn't been observed, tested and accepted. Sometimes, theory is the end game... Like w evolution. To date there is no other theory that is accepted that explains the change we see in nature that has occurred over the course of earths history.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

espringers Said:
But, that doesn't mean theory is less than law or vica versa. Although, in many instances I would hold theory to be above law because they explain why... Not just describe the nature of. Think theory of relativity that seeks to explain many different laws. Coming up w the laws was the easy part explaining them is much more difficult. Also, just because something is "just a theory" does not mean it hasn't been observed, tested and accepted. Sometimes, theory is the end game... Like w evolution. To date there is no other theory that is accepted that explains the change we see in nature that has occurred over the course of earths history.

Theory is less than law.  What do you guys do for a living?  It certainly can't be science.  Theory means you can not prove it.  You are right that sometimes we don't understand law.  Experiments even find some of our medicines.  When you ask someone how some medicines work they will say "I don't know it just does". 

Also, just because something is "just a theory" does not mean it hasn't been observed, tested and accepted.

Your simply back peddling since I agreed with you on theory.   As far as human evolution it's impossible to go back and observe it.  No one has invented a time machine yet.  Also, since you can't go back you would have to watch humans over the next million years to observe or test human evolution.  So without observing or testing some people accept it.   I think it takes a very poor scientist to look at theory as fact.   It violates the scientific process. 

Did you even read what I mentioned about a new way of looking at mutations.  If they find that indeed the genetic codes are already contained within the DNA then this is a prime example of things we think we know turning out wrong. 

Do you believe George Washington was our first president?

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

It is not less than law. I know this to be a fact. In undergrad, I wrote a paper on this exact subject. The teacher was so impressed w it, he helped me tweek it and got it published. He said it was the best explanation of the subject he had ever seen in his 10 years of having his classes do papers on law v theory.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

You had an incompetent teacher if he agreed with what you say now.   Can you PM me a copy.  

 First you said:

Yes... Theory of evolution. Have I or anyone else ever tried to argue otherwise? By its very nature, it will always be a theory. It can never be a law because of how evolution works. It is not predictable. It is explainable.

By it's very nature, it will always be a theory.  It can never be a law ----so what are you saying?   Your saying that it will always be theory because it can not be proven?  Laws can be proven even though sometimes they can not be explained.  So which has more credibility a law or a theory.  Since laws can be proven and theory can not be proven how can anyone say theory is greater?

It can never be a law:  Why is that?

You didn't answer my question if you believed George Washington was our first president.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

They are two separate things w two different purposes in the scientific community. U are acting like a theory is a stepping stone to a law. That isn't the case. Laws are developed thru observations. Theories explain those explanations. The two things exist side by side in the scientific community. The reason I say theory is more important is because its easy to observe something over time and develop a statement that describes thoe predictability of the observations. It is much more difficult to develop a satisfactory theory or explanation of why those observations are occurring and then have it tested over decades and never have it proven false. Regarding my teacher... Based on your scientific take on some of the most widely accepted things in science like evolution, the age of the earth and universe, etc... I will take that as a compliment. And yes... George was the first pews. Wtf is your point?

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Regarding ur thing on mutations... I have no doubt some mutations occur that way. What is the point? Change in DNA is change regardless of whether it is a random mutation or recessive trait that had been present manifests itself in another way. Evolution explains why those changes are sometimes proliferated in life and why they sometimes go by the way side.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

espringers Said:
Regarding ur thing on mutations... I have no doubt some mutations occur that way. What is the point? Change in DNA is change regardless of whether it is a random mutation or recessive trait that had been present manifests itself in another way. Evolution explains why those changes are sometimes proliferated in life and why they sometimes go by the way side.

Oh, my goodness.  Change in DNA is change regardless.  You don't get the point.  If it is already in the DNA code there isi no change.  It's there but simply repressed because it is not dominant under current conditions.  No change. 

 And yes... George was the first pews. Wtf is your point?

How do you know?

Laws are developed thru observations.
 

What?  Your saying it's not a law if you can't observe it?  Many laws existed before science became science.    Gravity didn't exist until Newton observed and described it???  

You guys are throwing a liberal slant of some sort on theory.  Theory can not be proven.  Scientific law can be proven.  Simple as that.   I do give law more credibility.  

For those who say an every day theory is different than scientific theory I would say I don't agree.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

I think many people believe something so much that they want to give it more credit.  That's why they give scientific theory more credit than a general hypothesis.  Notice that many definitions will say a theory is an accepted hypothesis.  Around and around we go and if we are truthful with ourselves a theory that can't be proven is no better than any other theory.  They are a lot like opinions and Aholes, everyone has one.  Liberal ones are no better than conservative ones, only bigger.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
. That isn't the case. Laws are developed thru observations. Theories explain those explanations.

"explain those explanations"????

Starting to sound abit like Bill Clinton there.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

gst Said:

espringers Said:
. That isn't the case. Laws are developed thru observations. Theories explain those explanations.

"explain those explanations"????

Starting to sound abit like Bill Clinton there.

I was kind of wondering if there was an explanation for the explanation that explained the explanation. 

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

This isn't a damn liberal v conservative thing. U guys amaze me how everything can be reduced to that. Wtf? And gst u know darn well what I meant. That's the result of trying to argue from a stupid phone. Plainsman, u really should write a book or give lectures on your take on this stuff. See where it gets u... Or would that be the result of some liberal conspiracy that has infiltrated the entire scientific community?

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Regarding recessive traits... The DNA had to have changed at some point. That change was a mutation. The fact that it existed or exists until paired w the right recessive trait from from another individual is moot.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

espringers Said:
Regarding recessive traits... The DNA had to have changed at some point. That change was a mutation. The fact that it existed or exists until paired w the right recessive trait from from another individual is moot.

By definition (see below) a mutation is not the same as code already within DNA. 

A Mutation occurs when a DNA gene is damaged or changed in such a way as to alter the genetic message carried by that gene.
 
This isn't a damn liberal v conservative thing. U guys amaze me how everything can be reduced to that.

Often it is reduced to that.  During the first Obama run for office this fellow on nodak called me and told me he was an intellectual, a genius, and I should listen to him.  Lucky he told me or I would never have guessed.  Guess which party he affiliated himself with?Liberal means to me no boundaries.  Anyting goes.  No God, no morals, no anything.  They often have the need to feel sophisticated hence usually go with evolution.   Liberals call themselves progressive, but I think they should look at what direction they are progressing in.  Down the ladder isn't good.

So espringer how is it your sure George Washington was our first president?  Say while your at it have you ever been to Australia?

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

How did the sequence get there in the first place? A mutation. Evolutions acceptance is not just a liberal thing. It's accepted by practically everyone in the scientific community. Especially by biologists. U are the first one I have ever heard of that disputes it.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
How did the sequence get there in the first place? A mutation.

That's not how the scientists looking at it think.

Since your dead set on this and wrote about theory and law as an undergraduate I am curious what your graduate work was in.  Would you mind sharing that.  Just a major would be fine unless you want to tell me what your thesis was. 

 Evolutions acceptance is not just a liberal thing. It's accepted by practically everyone in the scientific community. Especially by biologists. U are the first one I have ever heard of that disputes it.

That's because most work for a state government, federal government, state University etc.  They vote their wallet.  Like I said put the words "global warming" in your proposal and abracadabra your funded.  Likewise most being liberal will go along with evolution.  The few conservatives I met across the United States that were biologists would go 50/50 if you talked to them alone.  I'm guessing if they were retired like me more would laugh at some of these things.

You will find some very independent prominent scientists who do not believe evolution.  Who do you think convinced me?

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

What other accepted explanation or theory is there for the fossil record and life as we know it? None. Not a single one.

This isn't some pecker measuring contest about credentials. U don't need a degree in genetics to have a critical eye for this type of thing. But if u think the info is relevant... The paper I wrote was for a technical writing class while enrolled in the chemical engineering program as a sophomore I think back in like 1994. I ended up getting my undergrad degree in geology with minors in math and biology. I did not go to grad school for geology. I went to law school. Twas before horizontal drilling and fracking. No work available for geologists back then unless I wanted to take my liberal education and go work for some liberal government organization. ;)

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10
Theory is less than law.

I didn't read any further in your post than this sentence. For reasons that should be pretty obvious by now .....

And that statement is wrong.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10
Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Like I said BTR it's an opinion.   I googled and found word for word your response on uk.answers.yahoo and here I thought you were thinking for yourself.  I'll reference it when I find answers that don't agree ok? 
For example wiki answers says:  A natural law is an empirical observation held to be true. A theory ... A scientific theory begins as no more than a hypothesis about an issue. 
Certainly it becomes more after study, but a theory remains a hypothesis with unprovable conclusions.  Which actually means it can not be taken as absolute truth. So which holds more respect and idea that can not be proven, or one that can be proven?  
I see as I google that it goes both ways.  Most times it does say that theory is more complex.  That's understandable because it's much harder to prove something that can not be proven so to convince anyone you need to exert yourself much more so than proving a law.   It all appears that a theory is little more than a glorified hypothesis.  I guess that's science struggling for credibility, but that could backfire.  That brings us full circle back to the theory of global warming which with the falsified data appears to be little more than personal/political  hypothesis.   

espringer when you mentioned your undergrad work I assumed you had done graduate work.   I also assumed it was in biology since you are debating in that field.  My mistake. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

Plainsman Said:
Like I said BTR it's an opinion.   I googled and found word for word your response on uk.answers.yahoo and here I thought you were thinking for yourself.  I'll reference it when I find answers that don't agree ok? 
For example wiki answers says:  A natural law is an empirical observation held to be true. A theory ... A scientific theory begins as no more than a hypothesis about an issue. 
Certainly it becomes more after study, but a theory remains a hypothesis with unprovable conclusions.  Which actually means it can not be taken as absolute truth. So which holds more respect and idea that can not be proven, or one that can be proven?  

espringer when you mentioned your undergrad work I assumed you had done graduate work.   I also assumed it was in biology since you are debating in that field.  My mistake. 

Theory and opinion?

Still not getting it. Closer though..I think

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

I would argue we are debating much more that biology. The evidence and study of evolution spans many scientific fields. And the testing of the theory of it is done in those same fields.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

First you talk about "your undergrad" paper.  Which is and indication you did graduate work, but you didn't.  Then you start trying to teach way out of your field.  That's liberal.  Bringingtherain what's your background? 

Liberals often win debates with conservatives because they win the war of words.  Maybe I should say democrat instead of liberal.  You know how they say "our democracy" when we really are a republic.  It suckers the stupid thinking democrat = democracy sure I'll vote for that.  Then there is investment instead of tax.  Then simply good sounding words like progressive.  That also suckers people.  Theory has taken that same path.  Over the years those who want to convince people of things like evolution have tried to strengthen the term theory.  In the end however it's simply a hypothesis with support.  For evolution the support is thin. 

So have either of you guys been to Australia?

Oh BTR your video above the guy does have some of it wrong.  A theory doesn't describe how something happens, it describes how one or more people think it happened.  When the guy said it wasn't like an educated guess he was absolutely wrong because that is what it is and educated guess.  If not you could prove evolution and we would not be debating.  If you think it's more then like they say - prove it.  The evidence is no where near what you make it out to be.   You watch these guys on the discovery channel and sure they will act like they KNOW, but they are more bs than brains.  That's a disservice to science to present it as more factual than it is. 

Lets face it we can't jump  in our time machine and prove it or disprove it.  Some will believe it some will not.

So give me an answer on that Australia question OK?

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

I was not talking about "undergrad work". Purdy sure I said I "wrote a paper in undergrad". As far as I am concerned, I could have been a friggin communications major. The fact is the paper was paper was on that subject. In fact, the exact topic was law v theory. That's what's relevant. Not what my stupid major was or whether I did grad work.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

And Wtf do u mean "teach my way" out of my field? And support for evolution is not "thin". It has never been proven wrong.... Never. There is evidentiary support in the fossil record, DNA, cellular biology, skeletal structures, etc... And we even have documentef instances of it occurring in practically real time. I better just shit my mouth before I say something offensive. It doesn't take a liberal to believe in evolution and win a war of words with you.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

 Nuke the Whales

bobkat's picture
bobkat
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

 No, Alpine, normally I don't go to church except for weddings, funerals or grandkids baptisms and confirmations!  I'm very respectful when I'm there, but because of my scientific background I can't buy into the metaphysical jumbo jumbo about a God, miracles, resurrection, the meaning of communion, and all that.  And yes, I've asked all kinds of theologians of every Christian Church about all these meanings of the stuff that parishioners read that they "believe!"  During the services!  And never have I EVER had a rational explanation.  Usually get a nebulous thing like "God knows but its difficult  to understand, and stuff like that!  Or, "it's deep!"  Or "Jesus died to absolve us of our sins!  He just DID, everybody knows that!"  HUH?   
I left church when I listened too a bishop,s sermon who was postalizing against curious doubters and secular humanists like  me?  no explanations just several times he stated "It is written in the bible, therefore it IS".   Take it or leave it, so I left it!
I've long maintained that if everyone followed the Golden Rule and 5/10 of the commandments,(leave out the  God ones) it't be a better world!

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

bobkat Said:
 No, Alpine, normally I don't go to church except for weddings, funerals or grandkids baptisms and confirmations!  I'm very respectful when I'm there, but because of my scientific background I can't buy into the metaphysical jumbo jumbo about a God, miracles, resurrection, the meaning of communion, and all that.  And yes, I've asked all kinds of theologians of every Christian Church about all these meanings of the stuff that parishioners read that they "believe!"  During the services!  And never have I EVER had a rational explanation.  Usually get a nebulous thing like "God knows but its difficult  to understand, and stuff like that!  Or, "it's deep!"  Or "Jesus died to absolve us of our sins!  He just DID, everybody knows that!"  HUH?   
I left church when I listened too a bishop,s sermon who was postalizing against curious doubters and secular humanists like  me?  no explanations just several times he stated "It is written in the bible, therefore it IS".   Take it or leave it, so I left it!
I've long maintained that if everyone followed the Golden Rule and 5/10 of the commandments,(leave out the  God ones) it't be a better world!

(we clearly need an icon with a mouth speaking out of both sides)

 

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

hey bobkat, I have some homework for you

go ask two gay guys why nature made it such that they are attracted to each and nature also makes them want to do very high risk of disease spreading things to each other

you know... since neither of those behaviors are supported by biological need as science would dictate (survival or reproduction) and you're curious. Do so in a respectful manner though.

Enjoy their suuuper-rational explanation.

Then come back to us and go on a rant about how tarded these two guys are... believing in something and engaging in something with no rational scientific explanation as to why their behaviors are abhorred by natural systems but they do it anyway. I'm sure you will log on to FBO and rant on their idiocy - since you're so fair and balanced in your wit.

OR you could eat crow and admit that not everything people do can be rationalized by science in order to be accepted by you. But since that would eliminate your excuse for being able to pick on the faithful - I'm guessing you won't attack them too.

Godspeed in your task.

 

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

guywhofishes Said:
hey bobkat, I have some homework for you

go ask two gay guys why nature made it such that they are attracted to each and nature also makes them want to do very high risk of disease spreading things to each other

you know... since neither of those behaviors are supported by biological need as science would dictate (survival or reproduction) and you're curious. Do so in a respectful manner though.

Enjoy their suuuper-rational explanation.

Then come back to us and go on a rant about how tarded these two guys are... believing in something and engaging in something with no rational scientific explanation as to why their behaviors are abhorred by natural systems but they do it anyway. I'm sure you will log on to FBO and rant on their idiocy - since you're so fair and balanced in your wit.

OR you could eat crow and admit that not everything people do can be rationalized by science in order to be accepted by you. But since that would eliminate your excuse for being able to pick on the faithful - I'm guessing you won't attack them too.

Godspeed in your task.

Neat

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

 "And support for evolution is not "thin". It has never been proven wrong.... Never."

This statement is simply a poor attempt at debate on the issue you pursue, especially if you are trying to claim "science".  Bigfoot has never been proven wrong.  Ghosts living in the attic have never been proven wrong.  While you can maintain an argument for evolution, it in terms of mass development has never been proven right.

"but because of my scientific background I can't buy into the metaphysical jumbo jumbo about a God, miracles, resurrection, the meaning of communion.."

Ahhhh, your scientific background.  What, 8th grade science teacher at a government school??  Regardless, there are great minds of science from the past up to the present that are devout about their belief in God.  You confuse your "scientific background" with self serving arrogance.

" I've asked all kinds of theologians of every Christian Church about all these meanings of the stuff that parishioners read that they "believe!"  During the services!  And never have I EVER had a rational explanation. "

You are trying to equate the science man can understand with faith.  A common misconception.  What is your definition of "rational" ??  There is much in science that in the beginning does not appear to be rational.  There is much in science that at one time was thought to be rational but it turned out not to be.   Elementary science as understood by man can not begin to comprehend the majesty of the universe.  That is mans quest, and as many scientists admit, the chase always leads to God.

"I've long maintained that if everyone followed the Golden Rule and 5/10 of the commandments,"

This one is really sweet.  You are able in one fell swoop able to turn the 10 Commandments into the bobcat 5 !!   Priceless!

 

Pages