Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

@Ionus,

Im back .

I understand that you got this from Google by plopping in the word "Theory". As you must have learned by now, a theory in science is not speculative and has nothing in common with the philosophical or pedantic theory term that you have posted in your last entry as here:

Code:

      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.

I stated before that this was not an acceptable explanation for theory in science terms, but you insist on remaining a defiant denier of fact.

If you , instead would have entered" Scientific Theory " or "Empirical Theory" into Google, you would have gotten what I WAS TALKING ABOUT. Heres a brief excerpt that argues against your false "hierarchy " of values emerging from theory to "fact"

Quote:

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.[10

AS you always try to state when you wish to sound less brutish, You like to ridicule peoples reading skills or engage in an ad hominem about their knowledge base. May I suggest that you follow some of your ow reccomendations.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

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 ?

Im amazed at how youve tried to sneak this statement in your latest seriatem. THIS WAS WHAT I WAS SAYING ORIGINALLY AND HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG DIPSHIT>
> I wouldnt have argued the point at all if you didnt first begin your stupid rant that theories beget facts.
HA HA HA HA HA . You arent that clever Anus, youve done what I predicted. Youve basically adopted my argument and tried to do it quietly so that maybe I wouldnt have noticed. Ill let the readers decide about your duplicity.
I wish I had time to go back several pages where you started your rant on the hierarchy of information and that theories beget facts.

Youve just proven what several have said about you. I think that youve done enough damage to any credibility you think you may have had.

You really are not worth conversing with , except for the fact that you spread inaccuracies to the sky.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

You really are not worth conversing with

Are you leaving AGAIN ? How many times do you threaten to leave but you always remain ? Per thread...just roughly, I dont expect you to count that high....

Quote:

THIS WAS WHAT I WAS SAYING ORIGINALLY AND HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG

Ahhh, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I asked a question. I was not agreeing with you. A question mixed with sarcasm.

Quote:

Im amazed at how youve tried to sneak this statement in your latest seriatem..... tried to do it quietly.....

Sneak ? Quietly ? Do you imagine I wear a disguise before approaching the keyboard on tiptoe ?

Perhaps if you read it a third time.....
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 ?
You see the little squiggly bit on the end ? Like this ? That is a question mark. Are you drunk or losing your mind ?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Theory
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.

Law
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Quote:

but you insist on remaining a defiant denier of fact.

You mean theory.

Quote:

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.

Your quote is bullshit. Do you honestly expect people to believe that a theory can never be anything but a theory ? That it can never be disproven, that it can never become a Law or a proven fact ?
I think your problem is you start off be saying how can I defend evolution against the evil Christians...and you say the most circuitous rubbish in trying to foresee where the argument is headed. Some Theories are abandoned. Are they facts ? Other theories are amended. Are they facts too ? And some theories become Laws. Some theories generate other theories. A Theory by its nature is a temporary statement waiting for further knowledge to make it fact, Law or discarded.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

Your quote is bullshit.

Actually, when one posts "Scientific Theory" into WIKIPEDIA, that was the resulting quote. SO, if you were to understand the diff between a theory as a conjecture or something that still needs verification and a theory of the scientific sense, you wouldnt be so confused (perhaps-Im beginning to wonder about you though).

Wow, I cannot believe that you are that free of intelligence.

Quote:

Do you honestly expect people to believe that a theory can never be anything but a theory ? That it can never be disproven, that it can never become a Law or a proven fact ?

I honestly expect people to understand that A theory can be disproven or amended . If the facts no longer support the theory, (LIKE that of Phlogyston) then the theory will be abandoned or modified. Whats so difficult Anus? Still following grasshopper?

A theory will NEVER be a law since laws are parts of theories (newtons "Theory" was actually a law described as an equation, whereas Einsteins Theory of Universal gravitation includes aspects of Newton but extends beyond to explain WHY the equation works.

Can a theory be disproven?, yes as evidence (facts) are shown to be in disagreement with the theory. The theory , under special conditions (like evolution) is frequently modified to comport with new evidence (such as the attempt by Gould and Eldredge to install Punctuated Equilibrium as part of the theory and that part which tried to explain the "what" of the part of rapid evolution that appeared to be saltation .

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Anus only agrees with Wikipedia when it supports his incorrect idea. When I posted Scientific Theory into Wikipedia, I got something different and then Anus says its bullshit.

Poor argument skills there Anus.

1 Reply

A theory in science is a general statement --(a hypothesis--a hunch, a speculation or a conjecture, proposed as a possible solution to a problem and requiring further investigation for it being accepted by either argument, observation or experiment)--from which particular inferences can be drawn.

For example--if a theory is proposed that all women are whores, then from the information that Mrs Bleasdale, say, is a woman, we can deduce that she is a whore and that observations on her behaviour when offered various levels of financial inducements will confirm or falsify the hypothesis.

Popper, who wise words we see whenever wande posts, is associated with the claim that scientific theories are nothing more than empirical hypotheses no matter how successful they are at withstanding repeated attempts to falsify them.

It might be said, indeed has been, that a scientific theory is an attempt to bind together systematically knowledge deriving from experience. It is an attempt at understanding which hopefully results in explanatory power and/or predictive skill. Logical empiricists think of theories as "hypothetico deductive sytems" where a set of laws connected together by axioms (or hypotheses) produces deductive consequences.

But as "consequences" is an unmentionable on scientific threads on A2K I will go no further in that line of thinking.

But generally, explanations are linked to the laws of the theory and, if all the intervening bullshit is cut out, turn out to be but restatements of the theory which the intervening bullshit serves to camouflage so that they might seem more impressive than is actually the case.

It is widely known in educated circles that the definition of "theory" applies tolerably well to Newton's theory of gravitational attraction but, alas, in the case of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection the integration, the binding of systematic knowledge, is loose enough to render comparisons and identifications between these two usages of "theory" as quaint, at best, and likely to be caused by the desire, a yearning even, to suppose them to be comparable or even, in extreme cases such as ros, identical.

The predictive capacity of the two theories is also instructive of the difference. In the one the brick always lands on the ground when dropped and in the other the offspring is more subject to less exacting determinations. The excuse that "biology is an immature science" and will remedy these profound defects in the course of time is a mere conceit and, not to put too fine a point on it, an irrational belief, born, no doubt, of the reverent tones and quasi-liturgical formulations of the biological priesthood and the ardent desire to be impressed by them in order to make a dash on social occasions where members of hoi polloi gather to sort themselves out into breeding pairs.

The modern approach, having taken this source of confusion to heart, has begun to think of "theories" in terms of the actual practice of science. That theories ought not to be seen as overarching systems trying to embrace in one go major areas of experience. They should be thought of as "models" the meaning of which only apply insofar as they apply to limited areas of empirically observed reality. Thus the theory does not prescribe a priori but is rather a function of the model in use at the time.

In this view, the prescription of an ideal form of science is seen as old-fashioned and today's approach is satisfied with a description of the way in which science is actually performed.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

Anything would be better than you thinking you are a philosopher.

Like what, like ending world hunger or winning the "war" against terrorism?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

Have a look at the arse licking sycophants at a2k...you get thumbs up for saying we agree on an issue and I get thumbs down for saying we agree on an issue

It's called "democracy", Ionus...if some one doesn't like your psychopathic ideas, they have the right to agree or not agree with you...learn how to live with it.

Quote:

...some of the people here are living jokes and couldnt use science to wipe their arse if it was made of toilet paper

This is coming from someone who doesn't have any scientific credentials nor have an education.

Quote:

And they cant understand how someone could take exception to their opinion .....

Look in the the mirror and you will see the "exception".

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

Yes and it wasnt too factual.

But it was factual, nonetheless...

Quote:

Did you read the definition of a bigot I gave you ?

Yes..

Quote:

Or are you too bigotted to read it ?

No when I don't agree with an opinion of yours, doesn't make me a bigot or "begotted"...

Quote:

Wrong. A true statement is demonstrably true and is not dependant on fools agreeing, like you and fm for instance.

fact (fkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
And "fools" like me are able to teach "intellectuals" like how to understand the mechanics of logic.

Quote:

Why are you so stupid ?

Why are you so intelligent? Wink

Quote:

I have siad that several times but you are too bigotted to read it when I write it,

It makes me "bigotted" when I don't agree with your illogical arguments, mite? Sometimes I wonder whether you're being serious or not.

Quote:

but suddenly you discover it and you have a eureka moment

No "eureka moment" while debating with you (let's not call it "debate" ...it's more like educating you)

Quote:

God help you

Which god?

Quote:

, you are pathetic and you think you are doing well......

Show to any rational person the history of our "debate", and you'll find out what I'm trying to let you know for quite some time.

Quote:

And some day theories become a fact in themselves.

And you are coming again with the same nonsense...when you are saying "theory", you mean a guess ...but a scientific theory is an explanation composed of facts...would you also say that music theory, the theory of gravity , the theory of germs, the theory of nuclear fusion, and other scientific theories are not factual? There's no help for you.

Quote:

Some theories are more accurate then others,

Which ones?

Quote:

some have more facts in them,

Which theories have facts, and which theories don't?

Quote:

so to label a theory as fact because you worship science is stupid beyond belief.

I've told you that you have to find Einstein...Einstein is the only way...he's coming back soon!

Quote:

According to you, it is impossible for a theory to be a fact because it is composed of facts KNOWN AT THE TIME.

What the hell does this mean?...rephrase.

Quote:

So nothing has ever progressed passed a theory

What?!!!

Quote:

Stupid.

Gold!

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

Of course you cant.
bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

AAAhhh, quote mining. Why not "his/her own" or "their own"? When did you take this definition from? nevertheless...is a prejudiced person someone who disagree with someone in a debate ? Then, according to you, everybody is a bigot for democratically disagreeing with other people's point of view...WOW, you amaze me.

Quote:

Is that the best you got ?

I didn't even try...
I wrote:

Quote:

So, by me ....not reading it makes me a bigot

You wrote:

Quote:

Correct. Esp when you then comment on it.

What? Come on, mite! Could you elaborate more?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Isaiah 40:22 (New International Version)

Quote:

22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.

The verse above explains how god sits in a throne in heaven and looks down upon the earth and sees people who look small like grasshoppers...but in order to see everything from heaving the CIRCLE of the Earth has to look like this:

Quote:

He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,

Like this:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/geocentrism/ancient-heavens01.jpg

Quote:

and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Have you heard of a dome?

Quote:

Daniel 4:10-11 (New International Version)
10 These are the visions I saw while lying in my bed: I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. 11 The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.

http://www.icis.com/blogs/asian-chemical-connections/FlatEarth.jpg

Quote:

Exactly where do you see the word flat ?

Everywhere!

Let me show you a diagram of what the ancients understood to be the Bible definition of everything:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/scienceandthesacred/Ancient%20Science%20Diagram%20GIBERSON.jpg

Enjoy!

1 Reply

Alright. Enough. I strongly suggest that all of you stop posting. Nothing new is being added.

3 Replies

@plainoldme,

I think I added something new POM.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I think I added something new POM.

Jesus H Christ. The last time you added anything new, they were still dunking witches.

1 Reply

@Jason Proudmoore,

Quote:

Quote:
Anything would be better than you thinking you are a philosopher.

Like what, like ending world hunger or winning the "war" against terrorism?

Is that what they told you to say in the Beauty Queen contest ?

1 Reply

@Jason Proudmoore,

Quote:

Quote:
Have a look at the arse licking sycophants at a2k...you get thumbs up for saying we agree on an issue and I get thumbs down for saying we agree on an issue

It's called "democracy", Ionus...

So if we say the same thing, your version is better so they cant be arse licking sycophants. Why is it you think you understand Philosophy ?

Quote:

This is coming from someone who doesn't have any scientific credentials nor have an education.

I dont ? Is this the same ESP you use to determine you are right ?

Quote:

Quote:
And they cant understand how someone could take exception to their opinion .....
Look in the the mirror and you will see the "exception".

So its THEIR democracy, not mine....rightttttt !

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Actually, when one posts "Scientific Theory" into WIKIPEDIA, that was the resulting quote.

Quote:

That explanation from WIKIPEDIA is kind of bullshitty from a Philosophical basis. Its wholly incomplete when speaking of science Heres a simple series of explanations that are from Answers.com

Well, which is it Gomer ? Do we use Wiki or not ?

Quote:

if you were to understand the diff between a theory as a conjecture or something that still needs verification and a theory of the scientific sense, you wouldnt be so confused

Confused...like when you say that String Theory isnt a theory but Evolution Theory is a fact despite telling us before that a Theory is NOT a fact.....confused....OK Gomer.

Quote:

I honestly expect people to understand that A theory can be disproven or amended . If the facts no longer support the theory, (LIKE that of Phlogyston) then the theory will be abandoned or modified. Whats so difficult Anus? Still following grasshopper?

But not Evolution Theory....OK Gomer.

Quote:

A theory will NEVER be a law since laws are parts of theories

So at no time can a Law in its formative process ever be thought of as a Theory...NEVER.....It just pops into existence without ever being a Theory first....

Quote:

Can a theory be disproven?, yes as evidence (facts) are shown to be in disagreement with the theory.

But not Evolution Theory...OK Gomer..have a lie down.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Anus only agrees with Wikipedia when it supports his incorrect idea.

Werent you the author of :

Quote:

That explanation from WIKIPEDIA is kind of bullshitty from a Philosophical basis. Its wholly incomplete when speaking of science Heres a simple series of explanations that are from Answers.com

Quote:

Poor argument skills there

Well we agree you have poor argumentative skills.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

Eratosthenes of Cyrene - did not PROVE the world was a globe. IF it was, he calculated the radius and from that calculated the circumference needed to produce the effect.

Did you click on the link that directs to a video in which the late Carl Sagan explains this? Why are you adamantly insist that Eratosthenes didn't prove that the world was a sphere? You have not provided a single reference that supports this claim...why do I have to take your word for it when the evidence that contradicts your points is so clear?

Quote:

The first PROOF of the earth being a globe was when it was circumnavigated by Ferdinad Magellan. Until then it was a theory. Then it became fact.

Ancient Near East
Belief in a flat Earth is found in mankind's oldest writings, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. In early Egyptian[7], and Mesopotamian thought the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps such as those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus.[citation needed]

The Hebrew Bible carried forward the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology, revealed partly in the Enuma Elish, which described a flat earth with a solid roof, surrounded by water above and below.[8][9]
Isaiah 40:22

There is an occasional opinion offered that an early statement of a spherical earth occurs in the 8th century BC, in Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...".[10] To support this claim one must address the issue that the Hebrew word translated as "circle" is generally recognized as referring to a plane figure (perhaps the horizon), or possibly the vault of the heavens rather than the shape of the earth.[11] A secondary issue is that this text is part of Deutero-Isaiah, often ascribed to the 6th century BC (and thus roughly contemporaneous with Pythagoras).[12]

source:http:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

From Greek astronomy, the paradigm of the rotundity of the earth gradually spread around the world supplanting the older cosmological belief in a flat earth
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Quote:

That is not a picture of early sailing vessels.

How early do you wanna go?
This early?:

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/pix/ship_views.jpg

or this early?:

http://www.unb.ca/transpo/mynet/capture113200485601_pm.jpg

What's the difference between those type of ships and the argument that the uneducated ancient religious believed that the world was flat?

Quote:

To the simple minded one picture probably proves your point..

Why bother being "difficult minded"?

Quote:

it is obvious you think it does....but your protest are for naught...the early sailing peoples knew the earth was curved.

Are you generalizing a little?

Quote:

Of course you dont understand.

Let's see...

Quote:

The meaning of the words used are very important, but it was your point I was trying to pin down

What point were you trying to "pin down"? I've made many points...

.

Quote:

If you doont know what words were used then admit you were silly to bring it up.

Could you tell me how the ancient used the word and provide me the source of the material?

Quote:

You are a hypocrite, a bigot, a narcistic homosexual, a self-proclaimed philosopher, and worst of all, you are ignorant.

But it is true...everything that comes out of your mouth is not supported by anything, only by your predetermined opinion...this actually give the allegory of a person talking ****; it doesn't happen in real life, Ionus...it's only allegorical...just for the sake of clarity. Twisted Evil

1 Reply

Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know