Evolution - a very bad joke...

[Magic Man]

You're very quick to presume that an understanding different from yours is a "misunderstanding".

I'm quick to realize that a misunderstanding, such as yours, is a misunderstanding.

I would also argue that belief in God is another way to view the universe. Are you arguing that this too is invalid?

What I'm saying is that popularity is irrelevant to the discussion of accuracy.

 

[Meow Mix]

Two questions Revoltingest... one, how did you escape my friends list for so long?

Two, what happened to Revolting odes/limmericks?

 

[Revoltingest]

Wait, you're actually being serious?

You're welcome to post something more meaningful than your incredulity.

And that argument is incorrect.

Do you have more than contrarianism?

Only as long as you're not talking about a scientific theory. A scientific theory's whole purpose is to explain the phenomenon.

That is always its only purpose? The scientific community is unanimous about this?

 

[Revoltingest]

Two questions Revoltingest... one, how did you escape my friends list for so long?

Tis a revolting thing.

Two, what happened to Revolting odes/limmericks?

They crop every now & then. I just posted one yesterday about moral authority.
Of course, Mball said I was completely wrong & called me a poop head.

 

[Magic Man]

You're welcome to post something more meaningful than your incredulity.

I don't know, your serious use of Murphy's Law in a discussion about scientific laws and theories doesn't deserve more than a laugh and note of incredulity.

Do you have more than contrarianism?

Yes, it's been explained to you. I'm sorry if you choose to ignore it.

That is always its only purpose? The scientific community is unanimous about this?

I thought you were some great expert on science. Now you need me to explain simple things like this? Yes, that is the purpose of a scientific theory, to explain a phenomenon or set of phenomena.

 

[Magic Man]

Of course, Mball said I was completely wrong & called me a poop head.

You are completely wrong! I called you a doo-doo-head.

 

[Revoltingest]

What I'm saying is that popularity is irrelevant to the discussion of accuracy.

Regarding definitions, popularity is everything to accuracy. It's all about communicating a common understanding.
If one uses a definition which is technically correct, but differs from popular usage, then there will be confusion.
Answer my quiz about weights, & you'll see....if you dare.

I thought you were some great expert on science.

You were wrong.

I find your way of seeing things rather rigid & limiting for my taste. You're very concerned with being right,
& far less so with actually understanding those who disagree with you. I just have different goals.

 

[David M]

How does talking about a scientific unproved theory against a PROVED theory call ignorance in question?

Because anyone with even a vague knowledge of science would know that Theories in science are never proved because that is how science actually works.

The fact that you are unaware of one of the basic principles of the scientific method demonstrates your ignorance about science.

The theory of evolution is still not accepted or elevated to a fully accepted theory,

Yes it is. Its a Theory that is one of the best supported theories in science. That you would claim otherwise is evidence of a profund ignorance or dishonesty.

though its sacred to some scientists as a belief, and they BELIEVE that evidences will come through, though the validity of those evidences are not established.

Nothing is sacred to scientists, that bias is left to creationists.

Lies, the evidence has already been found. There are mountains of evidence all of which confirm that ToE is a valid scientific Theory.
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
[/FONT]

That seems like one hell of a belief system without substantial evidence must say.

There is substantial evidence, there is 150 years of substantial evidence and all of it points towarrd ToE being correct.

if scientists can pride themselves as intelligent super beings, they've got to stop talking on and on about what they believe in without evidence.

Stop projecting your ignorance onto others, scientists operate on the basis of evidence, belief is not involved.

With that analogy, Religion and creationism is also an explanation of observation of facts

No, Religion and Creationism are based on the denial of facts.

based on the eye witnesses and experiences of humanity starting from day one.

Both of which are wholly unreliable.

Now, you can choose to be ignorant, or non chalant about anything that verifies human observation and confirmation by faith, IMO that is ignorant. And You just cant merit forming any opinions on creationism when all you have is a hundred yr old unsupported tale of ape fantasy.

We can form opinions on creationism because it is manifectly based on lies and the denial of reality.

And you have just again demonstrated your ignorance of evolution, its not an "unsupported tale of ape fantasy".

But Creationism is a valid observation(as it stands), as far as religions are concerned and dated back.

Lie. Creationism relies on denying reality. Its invalid.

None of the thousands of yrs old books confirm to witnessing of evolution unless you think all men born before you were mere idiots , and would never talk of a thing called ape like ancestors because it was highly irrelevant to them because 1) they were either really lofty elites who looked down upon apes 2) had no common intelligence, were unable to feed and nurture themselves.

You have no idea what you are wittering on about do you?

Creationism is a PROVED theory, a day to day Thriving reality, and evolution is an ignorant attempt to romanticize/legitimize athiesm and related concepts.

No its not, show me any evidence of creation.

I have read up lots on evolution

By this you mean you have read up on creationist lies about evolution.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Yes it has.
[/FONT]Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006) [Full paper downloadable from http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstr...mingham_Salcedo_Jiggins_and_Linares_2006.pdfphttp://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstre...ares_2006.pdfp

Scientific Arguments Against Evolution

Another page of lies and propaganda, this is obviously where you do your reading about evolution.

call me all ignorant that you want , of the hypothetically supported scientific derivations looking to be accepted as truths, but the ignorance surrounding evolution begs to be seen as an evasive athiestic driven disputation rather than anything.

Yeah, you are ignorant about both science and evolution.

 

[Magic Man]

Regarding definitions, popularity is everything to accuracy. It's all about communicating a common understanding.
If one uses a definition which is technically correct, but differs from popular usage, then there will be confusion.

Not quite. It's popular to use "literally" to mean "really", rather than the correct meaning. It's inaccurate, though, and ends up causing confusion. People call evolution "just a theory" because they don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and a regular, old theory. Whether or not those definitions are popular is irrelevant to the fact that they're inaccurate. Using inaccurate definitions causes confusion and misunderstandings.

Answer my quiz about weights, & you'll see....if you dare.

I'll make you a deal. You explain what on God's green earth your "quiz" has to do with anything, and I'll respond.

You were wrong.

Cool, then so were you, when you boasted about your superior study of science.

I find your way of seeing things rather rigid & limiting for my taste. You're very concerned with being right, & far less so with actually understanding those who disagree with you. I just have different goals.

And I find you misunderstanding things again because of your bias. I'm not so much concerned with being right, but I do like accuracy. When we're talking about definitions of scientific terms, accuracy is key, and I'm trying to convey to you the importance of it. I understand what you're saying, which is why I'm trying to correct you on it. You're right, though, that we have different goals. Your goal is to continue to believe your misguided beliefs regardless of what others say, and my goal is to learn and correct misconceptions.

 

[Orias]

Your goal is to continue to believe your misguided beliefs regardless of what others say, and my goal is to learn and correct misconceptions.

One should correct their own misconceptions before going about and telling people how to perceive.

I would of figured more from a prestigious intellect such as yourself.

Let the bible learn and correct people, because apparently everyone is wrong.

 

[Magic Man]

One should correct their own misconceptions before going about and telling people how to perceive.

Indeed.

I would of figured more from a prestigious intellect such as yourself.

Huh?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll make you a deal. You explain what on God's green earth your "quiz" has to do with anything, and I'll respond.

I knew you wouldn't answer.
Scared you might not be "right" about something?
I understand.

 

[Orias]

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah...that.
We ain't get'n anywhere, are we?

 

[Orias]

Yeah...that.
We ain't get'n anywhere, are we?

Heh, not really.

Its rather amusing though.

So now I have a question for both of you, how do you define accuracy?

 

[Meow Mix]

Heh, not really.

Its rather amusing though.

So now I have a question for both of you, how do you define accuracy?

I prefer laser sights.

 

[Revoltingest]

Heh, not really.
Its rather amusing though.
So now I have a question for both of you, how do you define accuracy?

I don't really have a definition....but I'll proffer a guess:
"Accuracy"
- A measure of how closely an understanding describes reality. Eg, I use a word, intending to convey a particular meaning to my audience.
- A measure of how closely a result matches an intent. Eg, target shooting, machining metal to tolerances

 

[Orias]

I prefer laser sights.

That works pretty well. :yes:

But I would prefer up close and personal.

 

[Magic Man]

I knew you wouldn't answer.
Scared you might not be "right" about something?
I understand.

So, that's a "no", then? Why is it so hard to just explain what that completely irrelevant question has to do with anything?

 

[Meow Mix]

That works pretty well. :yes:

But I would prefer up close and personal.

Considering the fact that I don't know kung fu and since retiring from dancing I don't have the upper body strength I used to, I better stick to distance and laser sights :yes: