Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

Sure you have, thats the spirit Gomer !
You think all scientific theories are fact.....SHAZAM!!! We dont need no fuckin magic from you. What about sub-atomic theory ? String theory ? These are facts ? SHAZAM !!! More magic....will you be proving unicorns can evolve ?

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ATOMIC THEORY is suitably factual. Its never been unseated and everything works according to prediction. Im not a believer that String theory is even a theory, andy more than than Intelliegent Design is a theory. String Theory is still a hypothesis and noone been able to show the simplest connection between all the forces. SO, outside of MATHTURABTION, Im not sure what string theory is saying. Ill defer to your brilliance on this Anus . Enlighten me, oh mighty warrior.

Answer the question about String Theory - is it a fact ?

I think Io was asking for fm's opinion on what you had said POM. Why I don't know? It's a waste of time asking his opinion on anything.

But the point was that there are millions of stories in medieval literature. Some are true and some are like the stories we see in cartoons. To take a single one, and obviously one of the cartoon types, and use it as an example of anything is unscientific to the power of the number of angels that can dance on a pin head which, as everybody knows is 6.996 to the power of 69.

I think it is you who is confused but I wouldn't worry about it because science is not a conducive subject to the feminine character except on wallet raiding missions to which the topic here is only connected by unbreakable elasticated bands stretched and tangled to such extremes that only the most discerning intellectuals can see them.

The fact that its an offshoot of Atomic Theory (which is fact) and (Quantum theory) ditto, The feynman Letters have also questioned whether supretstring is even up to the level of HYPOTHESIS.

If you wish to use false attributions you are welcome .
Quantum theory=fact
Atomic Theory= fact

String theory=== HYPOTHESIS?
Maybe you wanna argue with Drs Green et al. Im not savvy enough in String theory to even be able to get involved in a decent discussion. A problem has always been using multidimensional analyses to construct relevant experimentation and predictions. (Its a physicists cop-out according to one of my physicist colleagues )


Your out of your league Anus, youre trying to conflate theories with speculation and hypotheses just to try to confuse the very focused subject that, in science, theories are indeed facts.

The Dark Ages was a period in European history which it is considered unseemly to discuss for reasons which are far too unseemly to mention on a forum dedicated to polite Christian sensibilities. Even to refer to it in educated company can be highly embarrassing to ladies of renown and refinement and to many men as well.

That's taking the art of understatement to extremes previously unexplored fm.

Perhaps you will be good enough to explain those assertions and provide the sort of evidence we normally expect in a scientific discussion.

Are you meaning that it is a fact that there are two theories known by those names and that dropping the labels into conversations casually carries a social cachet which no-one need be ashamed of.

Are you happy contradicting yourself, Gomer ?


Perhaps it is an example of a Theory that isnt.

Ah, Spendi...you are splendid, ol' chap !

Don't you think it would be a good idea fm to start treating the members of A2K with a little more respect than you are obviously habituated to treating the people in the social circles you are familiar with.

Those of us who are used to the ways of the world from long experience know every conversational gambit and trick that was every invented for the purpose of presenting an individual in a light in which he or she stands a long way short of deserving to be displayed in. We even know how to whistle a few bars of Lillabullero when exposed to them.

Hope fm gets this. To me this statement is utterly devoid of meaning.

ANUS, Not everyone uses the word "theory" when talking of string "theory" . Its not my fault Anus. Why not discuss this with the participants on superstring.

Youve called yourself a scientist and then claimed you were a chemist. Are you sure?
"WE" dont normally lower ourselves to attempt to discuss science with you spwndi. You are a bufoon who makes light of everything including your own place on the planet.
BUT, if youre any kind of a chemist , how do you explain an MS workings if not by quantum theory .

So, Gomer, are there any more theories out there that you want to tell us arent theories ? If they are facts, they are theories...but if they are theoretical they arent theories .....is that what you are saying ? Evolution Theory is a fact. Superstring Theory is only Theoretical. Why is it you dont believe in unicorns ?

I dont expect you to have any great investment in knowledge anus. The fact that I can pose the argument that others (not me) have stated. That String "Theory" may be a bit presumptuous . If youre unable to handle the discussions by any means other than diversion then youre just another bag'o gas like your conjoined twin.

If you wish to argue wjether String "theory" is a sciemtidfic theory of the same order as evolution, argue it with its proponents.
I dont see your capability shining through here. Youre more of a science wannabe whose read a few Discover magazines and then gets on a chat line to pick on folks.
When you meet up with someone who has some training in an area, you dont really know how to handle yourself. Your obvious araeas of lack of precxision in your language "DNA does everything"
"Theories can become facts"

**** like that has to be challenged because I dont like to have a thread I engage in swill around in complete defiant ignorance.

OK ANUS?

Theres no evidence out there for the existence of unicorns. Howqever, if you wish to buy that they exist, feel free. Everything else youve been spewing is problematical so why not this too.

Get some sleep Anus, and Ill listen to more of your ravings some time later. Ive gotta go out and oversee dome drilling of several blast holes this morning

Thanks Gomer.
This is not a sentence...what about the fact ? You need a DOING word or it will become increasingly difficult to understand you.
Is that a diversion ?
What bout that..is that a diversion ?
Wait..let me guess..not a diversion but an assertion with no supporting facts...
What a man !
I told you at the time..lets remove your DNA. Was THAT a diversion on your part ?
But not Evolutionary Theory because it is a fact, and not String theory because it is too theoretical.
So, Gomer, are there any more theories out there that you want to tell us arent theories ? If they are facts, they are theories...but if they are theoretical they arent theories .....is that what you are saying ? Evolution Theory is a fact. Superstring Theory is only Theoretical. Can you respond to my question or is it too awkward for you ?

keep trying. Gollllllllllleee ! Shazam ! OK GOMER .

It just seems strange that you have such a confused idea about facts and theories but dont believe in unicorns. Usually your level of confusion would permit unicorns .

It seems you are not the greatest theorist in the world, or even your house for that matter.

Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter. Theory is constructed of a set of sentences which consist entirely of true statements about the subject matter under consideration. However, the truth of any one of these statements is always relative to the whole theory.

As it is a Friday I am feeling a little frisky and somewhat gay (in the medieval sense) and I feel a nice propensity, which fancy it is said by psychiatrists to be dangerous to repress, and quite rightly, to introduce the mythical and most scientific tale of Momus's glass for the consideration of your worships and reverences.

Now Madam, it was Lucian of Samosta, A.D.125-180, an Assyrian wit, who first found out the remarkable story of this device. When the great Intelligent Designer Hephaistos, as He was then known, made man He was reproved by a fellow God, Momus, for failing to incorporate in the design a window in the breast similar to those windows one might see in a dioptrical bee-hive. Hephaistos, being a know all, took the 'ump at such a suggestion as He felt it to be an implied criticism of His intelligence and Momus was banished from the ethereal plane which is now known as Heaven. Or at least in the English Language, which is currently under attack from all quarters in order that we might cease to communicate with each other.

Whether Hephaistos had in mind saving mankind from such things as the evil window tax or the necessity to employ window cleaners is not recorded but the upshot is that we do not have such a viewing facility and Momus was left to sulk in exile and make other mischiefs.

For us to observe the naked souls of our companions so easily was not granted to us by our maker and thus her machinations, her motions, her maggots crawling around, her frisks, gambols and caprices, even her solemnities, needs must be found out by more indirect methods.

Or at least that is the case here on earth. On the planet Uranus it may possibly be so but the intense cold of the countryside there, which is proved by the scientists from Uranus's distance from the sun, on the same principle as one might notice as one retreats from a fire in the grate, is more than equal to that in the freezer compartment in the fridge where succulent lamb chops might be stored for periods which would cause their decomposition at the temperatures in the main compartment, would frost up such a glass as Momus had suggested and require constant applications of de-icing sprays which the Uranians are unlikely to have in their shops at $2.99 a can or the inhabitants would see a very distorted view something like that we see in movies when naked ladies are shown taking a shower behind a frosted glass screen. Or a semi-transparent plastic one. Which are aggravating.

In other words, to place the matter on a sound scientific footing, Madam, our souls or minds are not able to be seen in the clear light of day but are instead wrapped in a shroud so that if we would come to apprehend them we must go some other way at the work.

We might do as Virgil was criticised for doing in Dido's case and rely on gossip and rumour and the integrity of the assertions of certain characters not all of which can be relied upon to be the fountain of scientific truth. And if Virgil can be held to account for such a limitation to his genius what are we to say of lesser mortals?

We might, as many scientists do, carefully examine the bodily evacuations to determine the rough lineaments of the soul but that is very specialised work and is best left to specialists who have been trained for the task in schools of biological science. Francois Rabelais, a man of great genius, was known to touch the tip of a finger which had been dipped into a morning chamber-pot on his tongue in order to find out the nature of his patient's difficulties. A matter Marcel Proust gently alluded to in the scene with Albertine in the Balbec hotel bedroom. One might assume such a mode of operation to have some value in view of the eminence of those two spirits.

The study of what Laurence Sterne, to whom I am heavily indebted here, called the Non-Naturals which were, in his day, thought to be the air the soul breathes, its meat and drink, its sleep and waking patterns, its motion and rest habits, its excretions and retentions, and, last but by no means least, the affectations of its mind.

Some, many, even expert historians, rely on pictures. Portraits, photographs and word descriptions and other forms of posturing and posing which have taken great pains to avoid any such in those inevitable moments of what one might call our most ridiculous attitudes and positions. Zones which even Monte Python was loathe to enter. But I beg you Madam to read on as fast as you can and put such matters far from your thoughts.