The full text supports my thesis.Typhoon wrote:Actually, no. It's an edited excerpt from the The Great Debate - What is Life? meeting.Mr. Perfect wrote:This is actually an argument against evolution but at least you are not alone. Members of that religion struggle, like you, to even define what the idea is. That which is not defined cannot be science.noddy wrote:on a quite fundamental level i dont have a problem with evolution - once you spend enough time learning about enough species and fossils their is so many blurry boundaries and categories up for argument it becomes quite obvious that their isnt a neat separation between permanently fixed species.
N984S9W7VdI
The entire discussion:
The Great Debate - What is Life
Evolution
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: Evolution
The music might not be to everyone's taste, but the footage is great. Evolution has so much time...
rN6nlNC9WQA
rN6nlNC9WQA
Deep down I'm very superficial
- Nonc Hilaire
- Posts: 6240
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am
Re: Evolution
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”
Teresa of Ávila
Teresa of Ávila
Re: Evolution
it seems to suggest that 90% of animals share a common ancestor from the same time due to a near extinction event that massively reduced the previous gene pool.
which is a different concept to the casual reading of that headline.
which is a different concept to the casual reading of that headline.
ultracrepidarian
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
How so.noddy wrote:it seems to suggest that 90% of animals share a common ancestor.
Censorship isn't necessary
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
Lol, from the article.
So much for evolution being settled science."This conclusion is very surprising," says Thaler, "and I fought against it as hard as I could."
Censorship isn't necessary
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
Also,
What an enormous blow for evolution. I have no idea how anyone could believe in that.
Wow, so much for evolution taking "millions of years".More specifically, they found out that 9 out of 10 animal species on the planet came to being at the same time as humans did some 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
What an enormous blow for evolution. I have no idea how anyone could believe in that.
Censorship isn't necessary
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
I'm old enough to remember when we were told that humans were 2-3 million years old, now we are down to 100-200,000 years, give or take 100% lol.
Why would anyone believe an evolutionist. The only thing that evolves is the theory.
Why would anyone believe an evolutionist. The only thing that evolves is the theory.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: Evolution
we have long since established you dont care for such things.
no biggie. status quo remains.
no biggie. status quo remains.
Last edited by noddy on Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
ultracrepidarian
Re: Evolution
how can you argue science isnt self correcting and then get upset when it does ?Mr. Perfect wrote:Lol, from the article.
So much for evolution being settled science."This conclusion is very surprising," says Thaler, "and I fought against it as hard as I could."
ultracrepidarian
Re: Evolution
the article said that the evolution that has been running for millions of years had a bottleneck a few hundred thousand years ago which reduced the genepool to the current, smaller subset.Mr. Perfect wrote:Also,
Wow, so much for evolution taking "millions of years".More specifically, they found out that 9 out of 10 animal species on the planet came to being at the same time as humans did some 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
What an enormous blow for evolution. I have no idea how anyone could believe in that.
please keep up.
ultracrepidarian
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
How do we know if that will be self corrected in the future.noddy wrote: the article said that the evolution that has been running for millions of years had a bottleneck a few hundred thousand years ago which reduced the genepool to the current, smaller subset.
please keep up.
Censorship isn't necessary
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
I care a great deal, that is why I have been studying genetics for years.noddy wrote:we have long since established you dont care for such things.
no biggie. status quo remains.
Censorship isn't necessary
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
It didn't, the original idea wasn't science and neither is this.noddy wrote: how can you argue science isnt self correcting and then get upset when it does ?
If something has to self correct it isn't science.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: Evolution
the clumsy chaos of alchemy turned into the neat organised model of chemistry, self correction constantly to form the shell theory and chart of elements we all know and love.
turns out their is no basis in reality for shell theory and whilst the model works fine for basic chemistry, modern physics has completely rejected and corrected all that previous theory.
self correction again.
this continues to this day with all the arguments and research into modern physics, all the theoretical and quantum, trying to improve that model yet again.
it will still be a model, it will still be open to more correction.
just because it works doesnt mean its reality.. unless your one of those interesting fellows (tm) who thinks reality is a simulation.
our models will always need improvement and as we improve them we build cooler tools based on our better understanding of the nature of things.
that its quite literally the history of science.
turns out their is no basis in reality for shell theory and whilst the model works fine for basic chemistry, modern physics has completely rejected and corrected all that previous theory.
self correction again.
this continues to this day with all the arguments and research into modern physics, all the theoretical and quantum, trying to improve that model yet again.
it will still be a model, it will still be open to more correction.
just because it works doesnt mean its reality.. unless your one of those interesting fellows (tm) who thinks reality is a simulation.
our models will always need improvement and as we improve them we build cooler tools based on our better understanding of the nature of things.
that its quite literally the history of science.
ultracrepidarian
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
so how did we discover these electrical models you actually do agree with ?
did they come down on tablets ?
did they come down on tablets ?
ultracrepidarian
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
Well first we would want to establish if you are JW, because your backflipping technique smells a lot like when they explain away their failed endtimes predictions.
But to answer more directly, some Christians a few centuries ago invented a technique of observations and thorough testing to determine physical laws and relationships.
It works great. You and Michu Kaku has some other ideas about being wrong today but being right tomorrow and never knowing which is which, but I have to pretend you are right today because your process self corrects at some point in the future, and no thanks I will pass.
Remember you are the one gaslighting not me.
But to answer more directly, some Christians a few centuries ago invented a technique of observations and thorough testing to determine physical laws and relationships.
It works great. You and Michu Kaku has some other ideas about being wrong today but being right tomorrow and never knowing which is which, but I have to pretend you are right today because your process self corrects at some point in the future, and no thanks I will pass.
Remember you are the one gaslighting not me.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: Evolution
you assert alot of things i dont believe and then claim i backflip when i say i dont believe them.
its quite odd.
its quite odd.
ultracrepidarian
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
I can only go by what you write. You are sometimes for evolution and sometimes against it, and if so I'm not sure what we are discussing.
Me OTOH am;
1) Pro science: observations and tested ideas, to the point of exhaustion
2) Evolution and big bang are not science for reasons given many times, largely unrebutted.
That is literally my position, and am open to any honest disagreements based on facts, observations and testing.
Me OTOH am;
1) Pro science: observations and tested ideas, to the point of exhaustion
2) Evolution and big bang are not science for reasons given many times, largely unrebutted.
That is literally my position, and am open to any honest disagreements based on facts, observations and testing.
Last edited by Mr. Perfect on Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: Evolution
im pro research into space, which happens to have big bang as a theory of the observations in that research.
im also pro research into biology, which happens to have evolution as a theory based upon its observations.
aslong as the research continues you can call it sally if it makes you feel better.
we need more observations and data, it will make for better theories.
this whole issue of belief is your problem, im not involved in it. strawmen as far as they eye can see.
im also pro research into biology, which happens to have evolution as a theory based upon its observations.
aslong as the research continues you can call it sally if it makes you feel better.
we need more observations and data, it will make for better theories.
this whole issue of belief is your problem, im not involved in it. strawmen as far as they eye can see.
ultracrepidarian
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
Not really. Evolution and big bang are considered settled science and if you disagree with it in public your life can be destroyed.
I have to explain this over and over to you. What you wrote literally doesn't exist.
I can post these all day long. A random CBS reporter who has no biology knowledge pronounced doubting Darwin as "dangerous", a new liberal code word. You can pretend this isn't happening but it doesn't change anything. I won't stop fighting this. It's anti human.
cfg0pGly-LM
I have to explain this over and over to you. What you wrote literally doesn't exist.
I can post these all day long. A random CBS reporter who has no biology knowledge pronounced doubting Darwin as "dangerous", a new liberal code word. You can pretend this isn't happening but it doesn't change anything. I won't stop fighting this. It's anti human.
cfg0pGly-LM
Censorship isn't necessary
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
Lol endless backflips won't change anything. These ideas were began by Sagan, Dawkins, Hitchens, et al going back more than a century and have now filtered down to lowly new hires at CBS.
Gaslighting me on this has never worked.
I can post youtubes on this all day long.
Gaslighting me on this has never worked.
I can post youtubes on this all day long.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: Evolution
So do Flat Earthers.Mr. Perfect wrote:Lol endless backflips won't change anything. These ideas were began by Sagan, Dawkins, Hitchens, et al going back more than a century and have now filtered down to lowly new hires at CBS.
Gaslighting me on this has never worked.
I can post youtubes on this all day long.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.