9
   

15 PHD level scientists say evolution is a bunch of bullshit

 
 
rcleary171
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 01:09 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
No matter what the details, testimonial is not an argument.


I agree! Don't tell me four out of five dentists recommend Crest to fight cavities - I want to know more about these four doctors; how long they have been practicing; where did they go to school. And who is this lone holdout. What's his story?
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 02:01 pm
@rcleary171,
rcleary171 wrote:

Quote:
No matter what the details, testimonial is not an argument.


I agree! Don't tell me four out of five dentists recommend Crest to fight cavities - I want to know more about these four doctors; how long they have been practicing; where did they go to school. And who is this lone holdout. What's his story?

I don't want to know anything about them. Testimonial is not a valid form of argument.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 02:48 pm
@farmerman,
Wow. How on earth somebody cold manage to get a diploma while engaged in such delusion is beyond me.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 02:59 pm
@FBM,
Well, with Ross and Austing its a story fabricated in HELL. These guys, both initially closet Creationists, saw their way through grad school and acquired advanced degrees by keeping their heads down an agreeing with the scientific method. So when they were done with their dissertations and committee defenses, they would immediately turn on science as if they were able to see "flaws" . All the while, they knew they were going that way.
Ross did his MS and Phd in species v stratigraphy of Mososaurian marine reptiles (oceanic dinosaurs who, if the K?T bolide idnt hit, woulda probably been an entirely different class of reptiles.
All along Ross followed the "K/T" timeline without denying it.

Austing, nother one, got his dissertation approved on a subject of radiological "pleiochroism" which is a reaction ring that occurs in specific minerals that host radioactive elements in their crystals.
fter his dissertation, Austing announced his Creationist mindset and began howling about how these "reaction rings" , actually show how the mineral is very young (geologically) His "calculations" all conveniently encircle an age date of roughly 6000 BC.

His arguments are easily disassembled with simple algebra, but hes like gungasnake, being totally screwed up doesn't stop his preaching to the crowds in church fellowship halls.

Im incredulous as to how these guys can keep this crap going in their minds.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 03:03 pm
@Brandon9000,
Youre not the target of this crap Brndon. They want simple un-used minds (preferable the young but the old and stupid will work as well).
Testimonial is still a very powerful advertising technique.

Look at Matthew Mconaughey , all stoned up and driving a Lincoln SUV. Its had an impact on sales?

FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 03:22 pm
@farmerman,
The cognitive disjunct is astounding. I couldn't even maintain my religious beliefs through a minor medical degree and an undergrad in Philosophy. I once attended a physics conference here in town. One of the presenters is of some international renown. He had/has a hypothesis that the entire universe could be result of a single subatomic particle looping back in time, or something like that. His math (apparently) holds up. But if you change the subject to religion, he instantly starts talking in mythological, magical terminology. It's mind-blowing to witness. When he started on it, the other physics professors politely found reasons to wander off...
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 03:54 pm
@FBM,
math is always the easiest to fake. All you need to do is balance n equation, it makes no never mind whether the two sides contain garbage or not, people will be impressed
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 03:59 pm
@farmerman,
Works the same for words, viz religious claims. Hence the need for observation.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 05:10 pm
Quote:
The current success of the big bang model relies on several key areas of observational evidence and predictions. These are discussed briefly below.

Evidence for the Big Bang Model

There are several key areas of observational support for the big bang model. These are:

Observed recession of galaxies: The consensus among astronomers is that Hubble's relationship between the distance to galaxies and their recession velocity is due to the expansion of space. More distant galaxies or clusters of galaxies exhibit higher redshift of their spectral lines than closer galaxies. This is then interpreted as more distant galaxies receding from us faster than closer ones. Note it is important to realise that it is the space between galaxies that is expanding. Galaxies themselves do not appear to expand as the local effects of gravity dominate over any space expansion.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/cobespectrum.gif

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation: In 1965 two scientists working for Bell Telephone Laboratories, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were adapting a horn-shaped antenna near New York for use in radio astronomy. They encountered noise in the system and despite repeated and thorough attempts were unable to remove it or find its cause. They eventually realised that this "noise" was in fact remnant radiation from the big bang. Such radiation had been predicted by Gamow in the late 1940s. As the Universe expanded it cooled so that today the background radiation corresponds to a temperature of 2.725 K and has a black body spectrum.

Over the last 15 years observations of this cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) from space-based missions such as COBE and WMAP and balloon-based missions such as BOOMERanG that operated in the Antarctic have provided a wealth of details. We can now view the slight fluctuations or anisotropies in the CMBR with unprecedented detail and compare observations with theory more thoroughly. The image below shows how the resolution of the CMBR has improved since its discovery in the 1960s. These slight fluctuations in the CMBR intensity are thought to provide information about slight variations in density in the early Universe.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/cmbcobewmap.jpg

Ratios of primordial elements. Astronomers are able to measure the relative amounts of the light nuclei hydrogen, deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen with one proton and one neutron), helium-3, helium-4 and lithium-7 in distant, unmixed clouds of primordial gas. The relative abundances of these nuclei correspond with the calculated predicted ratios from the Big Bang model.

Observed evolution of extragalactic objects over cosmic time. Evidence for this initially came from radio surveys which showed that the more distant (hence older) parts of the Universe appeared to contain stronger radio sources than the local region. Quasars, for instance, are not found in our local region but are far more common at redshifts of 2 or 3.
Recent observations by the Hubble Space Telescope and other telescopes have provided our deepest ever views of the Universe and clearly show evidence of galactic evolution and earlier stages in their formation.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/galxyevolution.jpg
...


http://www.atnf.csiro.au/outreach//education/senior/cosmicengine/bigbang.html

Observation, measurement, necessary inference. Evidence. Solid. Compared to exactly what for the god hypothesis? A collection of Bronze Age myths concocted by illiterate goat herders? Puh-lease.
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 06:23 pm
Well, you know what phd stands for.

Piled higher and deeper.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 06:29 pm
@FBM,
Crap. I just realized I posted that in the wrong thread. Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 07:51 pm
@Brandon9000,
And, of course, five doctors is not a statistically significant sample.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 10:23 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Youre not the target of this crap Brndon. They want simple un-used minds (preferable the young but the old and stupid will work as well).
Testimonial is still a very powerful advertising technique.

Look at Matthew Mconaughey , all stoned up and driving a Lincoln SUV. Its had an impact on sales?

People like this often try to use testimonial because they can't make an actual on topic argument in their own words. Testimonial is invalid in debate. It's not an argument. It's all too easy to find people who agree with you and list them. He needs to prove his thesis by actually making the argument himself.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 10:41 pm
@Brandon9000,
why do you think that these clips that gunga posts only use testimonials? Could it be that they have no arrows in their quiver? They must use what they've got.
If you notice, the entire arguments of the creationists/IDers are based totally upon trying to find "chinks" in science evidence. They NEVER have any evidence of their own besides some legends or biblical references and a single statement that "The Bible is inerrant"

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 10:56 pm
@farmerman,
why is this thread now NSFW?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 11:01 pm
@farmerman,
That's weird. Was it something I said??????
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 11:11 pm
It was chai.
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 09:47 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

math is always the easiest to fake.


As anyone who has read A Beautiful Mind should know, it's possible to complete brilliant mathematical proofs even after one's grip on reality has started to slip.

Math is indeed a game, like chess, which the Bobby Fishers of the world can play quite well. No common sense required; in fact it often gets in the way.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 10:13 am
@Kolyo,
math is a teeter totter of reality. All one has to do is to dimensionally and quantitatively balance what is on either side of the equation. IT DOESNT HAVE TO BE RIGHT .

0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 12:17 pm
Too much thinking. Listing people who agree with you is a priori an invalid argument.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Oddities and Humor - Discussion by edgarblythe
Let's play "Caption the Photo" II - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Funny Pictures ***Slow Loading*** - Discussion by JerryR
Caption The Cartoon - Discussion by panzade
Geek and Nerd Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Caption The Cartoon Part Deux - Discussion by panzade
IS IT OK FOR ME TO CHEAT? - Question by Setanta
2008 Election: Political Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 03:56:12