Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Mock Turtle]

Well duh they don't match, they aren't the same words or ideas. But there is no contradictions lol. Please find one between those two

Now, now, don't get upset again.

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

Huh? Do you equate these with religious doctrine? Do you think science just pulled these notions out of its hat, unevidenced?

Well, how can one argue with such unassailable logic and methodology?

By not being knowledgeable or truthful, by being a hater, by not being scared to be wrong. But I'd love to show you through an argument.

I don't equate them with reljgius doctrine thanks. I dont believe sckence has a hat. Evidence I'd say was partially there but not close to enough needed to verify a massive claim like that

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This thread suddenly took a turn towards the downright hilarious.

If I didn't know any better, I'ld call Poe.
Unfortunately though, I know better.

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

Trust is not something you get for free. It has to be earned.
And so far, all you've done is giving me hundreds of reasons to do the opposite.



Your scenario completely missed the point.



Dude.................................
Are you seriously asking how applied science is useable in everyday life?
For real?

Go ahead. Try and design anything without using any models that predict behavior of materials, processes, mechanics, of any kind...

Try to design a stove without using the predictions of how the encasing materials will react to the heat generated, without using predictions as to how to generate heat.

My prediction of this exercise is that you'll find yourself in the ER real fast, if not in a coffin. Or multiple coffins.

I'm trying to help you here man. Lose the ego just once, it's killing your ability to learn and be likeable. So trust can be free, most times is I think. Innocent until proven guilty. Also I didn't give you reasons not to trust me, you have done that yourself.

My scenario completely missed the point? You can speak to the point of my own scenario?

You asked if I am seriously asking how applied science is useful in every day life when I said nothing similar to that at all, my answer is no if you actually care, doubt you do with this sad state of ego you're in.

I just designed this message and a fart and didn't have to think about either. So when I drew a dog with my pencil it only works because I know how the lead material will react to the paper because that has been explained to me?

Stick with one point and argument man, one lesson at a time

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

Now, now, don't get upset again.

I am not upset and never was

 

[Mock Turtle]

I am not upset and never was

Great, then calm down and don't be so arrogant - or as to abusing others.

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

Great, then calm down and don't be so arrogant - or as to abusing others.

I just said I wasn't upset, continuing to tell me to calm down is counterproductive. You telling me to not be arrogant comes off as arrogance. Who have I abused and how

 

[Valjean]

I didn't have to argue another way, you did it for me. So its a theory and according to you "no theory is ever considered 100% proven". So now I will use that as my argument that evolution isn't 100% proven which is not a lie or being willfully ignorant.

What are you talking about? The spherical shape of Earth, heliocentrism and the germ theory are all 'just theories', but not all theories are equally evidenced. Confidence levels vary.
Some theories, like evolution and heliocentrism, are so well evidenced that disbelieving them would border on absurdity.

How can you think it is so well proven though in day to day life? Gravity seems much more reasonable and observable to me.

You really should familiarize yourself with the evidence supporting evolution.

Also you used or which indicates that it has to be one or the other but I know tons of ways to argue against evolution that you didn't include there which are not using lies or ignorance.

I'll bet I've heard these arguments, and can point out the logical and factual errors.

... Also you seem to only be focusing on the pros of the vaccine not the negative before your no brainer decision. Maybe you should have researched more and considered more and understood that just because people say it is good and will help doesn't mean it's true. Seems reckless to jump into a decision like that so quickly and important.

What are these cons?" Those I've heard are largely unsupported and collapse under investigation

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

What are you talking about? The spherical shape of Earth, heliocentrism and the germ theory are all 'just theories', but not all theories are equally evidenced. Confidence levels vary.
Some theories, like evolution and heliocentrism, are so well evidenced that disbelieving them would border on absurdity.

You really should familiarize yourself with the evidence supporting evolution.

So the majority of the world is wrong because they believe religion over evolution?

Please don't tell me what I should do, evolution and the studies of it was forced onto me for 2 years of university until finally I proved the teacher wrong and didn't need to study anymore

 

[Mock Turtle]

I just said I wasn't upset, continuing to tell me to calm down is counterproductive. You telling me to not be arrogant comes off as arrogance. Who have I abused and how

In another thread you accused me of having a massive ego when all indications are that it is you having such, plus you accused me of having low intelligence, and again this is not true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm trying to help you here man

I don't need your help. And I certainly have no use for your anti-science "help".

Lose the ego just once, it's killing your ability to learn and be likeable.

So trust can be free, most times is I think.

It never is. I never blindly trust anybody. Especially not if and when they have already given me reasons not to.

Also I didn't give you reasons not to trust me, you have done that yourself.

No, you have shown to us all how you despise science and how you are very willfully ignorant.
I don't need any science lessons from uneducated people who don't even know what a scientific theory is, lol

My scenario completely missed the point? You can speak to the point of my own scenario?

Your scenario was in response to a point I made, which was the point you completely missed.

Yes, as a scientifically illiterate person, you can live and function in a society that's been build by science.
But that doesn't diminish the importance of science. There seems to be very little depth to your thinking.

I might not need to understand all the science that goes into building a car to be able to drive it.
But that doesn't take away from the fact that without all that science, the car wouldn't exist.

You asked if I am seriously asking how applied science is useful in every day life when I said nothing similar to that at all

You asked how I "personally" use explanations to predict the behavior of things.
That's just a very juvenile way to ask how explanations that make predictions are useful.
Which in term is synonymous with asking how applied science in general is useful.

Again: I might not need to understand the scientific explanation that allow for building a car in order to be able to drive it.
But the fact remains that the car wouldn't exist without it.
If not me personally, someone needs to design and build it for it to exist.
And science (explanations that make testable predictions) is required to do that. A lot of science, actually.

I just designed this message and a fart and didn't have to think about either. So when I drew a dog with my pencil it only works because I know how the lead material will react to the paper because that has been explained to me?

See, this is the level of juvenile responses I'm talking about.
See above, with the car example.

Yes, you can go through life as a scientifically illiterate wackjob and survive in a 21st century high-tech society.
But you can't build that society as a scientifically illiterate wackjob.

You're going to need educated scientists for that.

Stick with one point and argument man, one lesson at a time

You don't sound qualified to give me any lessons about anything related to science.

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

In another thread you accused me of having a massive ego when all indications are that it you having such, plus you accused me of having low intelligence, and again this is not true.

You just accused me of 2 things, innocent until proven guilty. Your intelligence being low is true though, all of us have low intelligence, be humble

 

[Mock Turtle]

You just accused me of 2 things, innocent until proven guilty. Your intelligence being low is true though, all of us have low intelligence, be humble

Be humble? You are joking - try some for size!

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

I don't need your help. And I certainly have no use for your anti-science "help".



View attachment 100134



It never is. I never blindly trust anybody. Especially not if and when they have already given me reasons not to.



No, you have shown to us all how you despise science and how you are very willfully ignorant.
I don't need any science lessons from uneducated people who don't even know what a scientific theory is, lol



Your scenario was in response to a point I made, which was the point you completely missed.

Yes, as a scientifically illiterate person, you can live and function in a society that's been build by science.
But that doesn't diminish the importance of science. There seems to be very little depth to your thinking.

I might not need to understand all the science that goes into building a car to be able to drive it.
But that doesn't take away from the fact that without all that science, the car wouldn't exist.



You asked how I "personally" use explanations to predict the behavior of things.
That's just a very juvenile way to ask how explanations that make predictions are useful.
Which in term is synonymous with asking how applied science in general is useful.

Again: I might not need to understand the scientific explanation that allow for building a car in order to be able to drive it.
But the fact remains that the car wouldn't exist without it.
If not me personally, someone needs to design and build it for it to exist.
And science (explanations that make testable predictions) is required to do that. A lot of science, actually.



See, this is the level of juvenile responses I'm talking about.
See above, with the car example.

Yes, you can go through life as a scientifically illiterate wackjob and survive in a 21st century high-tech society.
But you can't build that society as a scientifically illiterate wackjob.

You're going to need educated scientists for that.


You don't sound qualified to give me any lessons about anything related to science.

Wow, you continue to fall into the same trap. Generalizations, assumptions, egotistical defensive remarks and representing science in a terrible way.

I love science, it's very important and it happens with or without me being conscious of it. You speak like science designed the car not humans, well who created science? Before humans coined the phrase and concept of it was it always there?

I am still waiting for you to stop crying and spamming me and just end the debate now. Pick any argument about science you want and tell me what side to argue.

 

[Hooded_Crow]

Please don't tell me what I should do, evolution and the studies of it was forced onto me for 2 years of university until finally I proved the teacher wrong and didn't need to study anymore

Can you tell us, please, how you specifically proved your teacher wrong regarding their lessons on evolution?

 

[Valjean]

To each his own but the simple fact is disbelief in God is no different than belief in God. Everything you know is a superstition so call it that.

No, they're very different.
Belief, if rational, is derived from evidence.
Disbelief/lack of belief is the rational default, where evidence is lacking.
Evidence based vs logic based.

 

[Pogo]

Can you tell us, please, how you specifically proved your teacher wrong regarding their lessons on evolution?

The teacher shut up, nodded his head and rolled his eyes and walked away. Obvious evidence of an invincible argument.

 

[Valjean]

We know less about evolution than anything. Because nobody can even agree or prove what it is this all evolved from, big bang or God.

It 'evolved' from neither. Neither one is relevant to the mechanisms described in the theory.
"We" know less.... Wrong pronoun.

Its just funny that modern humans seem to be such a new edition to earth and yet we just assume we can interpret the entire past. So after the ice age was done did we just reset to the beginning and do all the evolution again? If so how did it happen so rapidly when other forms of evolution took forever.

Huh? What are you talking about? What does our research capacity have to do with when our species appeared on Earth?
What 'resetting to the beginning' are you talking about, and what does the ice age have to do with it? How did what happen so rapidly???

Are you not aware of the major factors involved in the speed of evolution?

Most importantly though where did the first thing come from that began evolving.

Google abiogenesis or chemical evolution.

 

[Valjean]

First of all, the earth is not a sphere, it is oblique and fat in the middle. And science isn't very explanatory, more observatory.

Irrelevant to the point.

How can you think it is the most true science can be for explaining things when we can't observe something that took place before our arrival and continuously see it happen rapidly where as some tests such as litmus paper can be done over and over again with great accuracy.

We don't have to directly observe something to know about it, or to understand it.

You do a terrible job representing science which shows me you are very ill informed. The main problem science has is the arrogance of some of their statements. I'd rather just have a conversation about truth rather than theories and ego glorification

How is science arrogant? What is it arrogating? Name an arrogant scientific statement.

Isn't truth derived from theories?

So the majority of the world is wrong because they believe religion over evolution?

Did I say that?

 

[Foxfyre]

No, just like when you put water in your freezer and a day later it turned into ice, you will not be able to say definitively that it weren't undetectable pixies that turned it into ice.

Comparing apples to oranges here I think. What is observable and known is not the same thing as creating life from what has never lived.