creation museum (4 Viewers)

[Wilbert]

You have that all wrong. Men will evolve into monkeys - they are the higher form, not us.

Oh right.

Science is hard.

 

[magicbastarder]

Who would have thought that out of all mankind, it would be the nerds who took on God?

that's only cos he can't fight back.

 

[Mitchum]

Who would have thought that out of all mankind, it would be the nerds who took on God?

The geek shall inherit the earth?

Intelligent design innit.

 

[flashback]

This is rediculuous!

Snaky, excellent point, lets discuss over a pint sometime, or not.

Flashback, there are huge holes in the big bang theory, the theory of evolution whatever you like to call it... this doesn't make the theory wrong, but it also makes it inaccurate to say that they have been proven. There is evidence to suggest, but some scientists use the same evidence to suggest alternative premises. It's what makes science interesting, the search for knowledge.

Ok... so, I wasn't hurling abuse earlier.
I was saying, that if presented with the evidence, you still think there is room for magical men in the sky, you are stupid.
I do not believe you have seen all, or even a small part of the evidence.
I dont believe that you are stupid, I just think you do not know what you are talking about.

Big Bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. Nothing. I am not talking about the Big Bang theory.

Evolution has been proven, beyond any reasonable doubt. And when I say reasonable doubt, I am not talking about legal reasonable. When scientists say something, even though they use English, they mean words in a different way. It has been proven as much as anything has been proven in science.

The Earth is round. The Sun is a Helium fusion chain reaction. Objects of mass exert gravitational pull on other objects of mass.

These are things that science has proven (beyond a reasonable doubt).
Evolution has more proof than the above. More.

Yet, people, in a willful quest to meddle about with other people who are (no offense meant) ignorant of the facts, in order to confuse the issue are bad people. They are damaging to humanity.
They are not "being open minded".
They are simply finding ever new ways to batter their mother fucking devine creator into a hole that doesn't exist.

Now, Mormon, and Mitchum are sort of going to the philosphy of science bit, and presumably they are talking about Karl Popper / Feyerabend / Kuhn / Imre Lakatos, about paradigm shifts, about nothing being proven, just other things disproven.

That's grand. And fair play, it is an interesting and valid debating point.

But, it is not my field, I studied it, and wrote about it, but I am not in a position to go there, because I am still ignorant of most of the details.

When I talk about proven, I talk about proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I talk about day to day, actual publication standard proof.
Ie, The earth is round. We are pretty sure this is true. Not as sure as we are about evolution, but, fairly sure.

When we publish stuff, we have to prove it. We have to present the numbers. And the numbers have to leave almost no room for error. It is possible that there is an error. Just as it is possible for the same person buying a single lotto ticket every week, to win the lottery, every week, for year. As a scientist you will say this is possible. That is your duty. But, it doesn't happen.
That is not to say that there is as much chance of your man above there with the lotto winning every time as evolution being wrong. It is much, much, much more likely that he will win the lotto all the time than evolution is wrong.
It is more likely that the sun doesn't produce radiation.

It is hard to explain how unlikey it is that evolution is wrong. So, lets just say, it is not wrong. Lets just say that the earth is round, and this keyboard exists.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

The geek shall inherit the earth?

Intelligent design innit.

Lack of pretension
Lack of extreme cuntishness
Traces of humour

Mitchum - I think you should reset your password.

 

[snakybus]

stupid design in some cases

 

[Mitchum]

Lack of pretension
Lack of extreme cuntishness
Traces of humour

Mitchum - I think you should reset your password.

Is there an emoticon for a withering look?

 

[MDR]

I keep trying to look up stuff on evolution but get bored really quickly - maybe I was created by a higher being? Better than being a hubristic nerd I suppose.

Dawkins is on his third wife by the way, which makes me suspicious that he's only saying this stuff to get laid.

 

[Bladez]

Now, Mormon, and Mitchum are sort of going to the philosphy of science bit, and presumably they are talking about Karl Popper / Feyerabend / Kuhn / Imre Lakatos, about paradigm shifts, about nothing being proven, just other things disproven.

That's grand. And fair play, it is an interesting and valid debating point.

Sorry. I can't agree with this. I think its more than just an interesting debating point but rather a fundamental concept of science that nothing is proven.

 

[Mitchum]

Ok... so, I wasn't hurling abuse earlier.
I was saying, that if presented with the evidence, you still think there is room for magical men in the sky, you are stupid.
I do not believe you have seen all, or even a small part of the evidence.
I dont believe that you are stupid, I just think you do not know what you are talking about.

Big Bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. Nothing. I am not talking about the Big Bang theory.

Evolution has been proven, beyond any reasonable doubt. And when I say reasonable doubt, I am not talking about legal reasonable. When scientists say something, even though they use English, they mean words in a different way. It has been proven as much as anything has been proven in science.

The Earth is round. The Sun is a Helium fusion chain reaction. Objects of mass exert gravitational pull on other objects of mass.

These are things that science has proven (beyond a reasonable doubt).
Evolution has more proof than the above. More.

Yet, people, in a willful quest to meddle about with other people who are (no offense meant) ignorant of the facts, in order to confuse the issue are bad people. They are damaging to humanity.
They are not "being open minded".
They are simply finding ever new ways to batter their mother fucking devine creator into a hole that doesn't exist.

Now, Mormon, and Mitchum are sort of going to the philosphy of science bit, and presumably they are talking about Karl Popper / Feyerabend / Kuhn / Imre Lakatos, about paradigm shifts, about nothing being proven, just other things disproven.

That's grand. And fair play, it is an interesting and valid debating point.

But, it is not my field, I studied it, and wrote about it, but I am not in a position to go there, because I am still ignorant of most of the details.

When I talk about proven, I talk about proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I talk about day to day, actual publication standard proof.
Ie, The earth is round. We are pretty sure this is true. Not as sure as we are about evolution, but, fairly sure.

When we publish stuff, we have to prove it. We have to present the numbers. And the numbers have to leave almost no room for error. It is possible that there is an error. Just as it is possible for the same person buying a single lotto ticket every week, to win the lottery, every week, for year. As a scientist you will say this is possible. That is your duty. But, it doesn't happen.
That is not to say that there is as much chance of your man above there with the lotto winning every time as evolution being wrong. It is much, much, much more likely that he will win the lotto all the time than evolution is wrong.
It is more likely that the sun doesn't produce radiation.

It is hard to explain how unlikey it is that evolution is wrong. So, lets just say, it is not wrong. Lets just say that the earth is round, and this keyboard exists.

Bravo!
Beautifully put fella.

 

[ITalkShite]

Dawkins is on his third wife by the way, which makes me suspicious that he's only saying this stuff to get laid.

The cad!

 

[MDR]

Sorry. I can't agree with this. I think its more than just an interesting debating point but rather a fundamental concept of science that nothing is proven.

If that were true in the way you mean it to be, it would mean that we live in a universe devoid of certainty; that each second would be utterly unpredictable. The 'unproveability' of scientific theories has a very specific meaning; it rules out absolutism. That is a very different thing to suggesting in an argument that the theory of evolution is merely an unproven idea.

 

[Lili Marlene]

When scientists say something, even though they use English, they mean words in a different way.

OMG SUPERPOWERS

 

[MDR]

If that were true in the way you mean it to be, it would mean that we live in a universe devoid of certainty; that each second would be utterly unpredictable. The 'unproveability' of scientific theories has a very specific meaning; it rules out absolutism. That is a very different thing to suggesting in an argument that the theory of evolution is merely an unproven idea.

Lighten up Ro!

 

[MDR]

Seriously though, I've learned and forgotten a lot in this thread.

 

[Pantone247]

If that were true in the way you mean it to be, it would mean that we live in a universe devoid of certainty; that each second would be utterly unpredictable. The 'unproveability' of scientific theories has a very specific meaning; it rules out absolutism. That is a very different thing to suggesting in an argument that the theory of evolution is merely an unproven idea.

thanks christ, I was getting worried there for a moment....

 

[MDR]

If God exists then why don't fish have legs?

 

[flashback]

Sorry. I can't agree with this. I think its more than just an interesting debating point but rather a fundamental concept of science that nothing is proven.

so... if you dont believe that 1+1 = 2, and I have seen the proof for this, its an extremely complicated proof, if you reject all of science, and reject that you or I or anything exists then you can also say that you do not believe in evolutionary science.
Although, there is probably a stronger case to be made for evolution than 1+1 = 2.

Right. I mean, you can go there. You can fundamentally question the basis of everything. That's grand.


But, you are right, if you want to reject all science as fundamentally flawed, because it is a system created by humans or whatever, go for it man. I dont think you can pick and choose though. I think you have to reject all of it.

Once you accept the base, the system is logically coherant from there on in.
But, to start you have to say, 1+1 != 2, or in fact do not accept far more simple things that that, that 1 is a quantity, then you can go there.

I just work from the stand point that 1 represents a quantity, and 1+1 does = 2. And move forward from there.

 

[Lili Marlene]

Why would fish want legs when they can breath underwater?

 

[avernus]

thanks christ, I was getting worried there for a moment....

ro = christ. proof of god. we have proof of god.