It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution, It's only a theory

page: 69
65
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


"when they take modern finding into account and create an idea called "Intelligent Design","

That simply ruins any credibility you ever had. ID is a fiction, plain and simple.




posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


No offense meant ma'am or sir, but what do I care about my credibility with someone as biased and partisian as you?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


If you want to play the science game, here's what you do:

1. Submit your hypothesis to proper testing. Testimonials, intuitions, personal experience, and "other ways of knowing" don't count.
2. See if you can falsify the hypothesis.
3. Try to rule out alternative explanations and confounding factors.
4. Report your findings in journal articles submitted to peer review.
5. Allow the scientific community to critique the published evidence and engage in dialogue and debate.
6. Withhold judgment until your results can be replicated elsewhere.
7. Respect the consensus of the majority of the scientific community as to whether your hypothesis is probably
true or false (always allowing for revision based on further evidence).
8. Be willing to follow the evidence and admit you are wrong if that's what the evidence says.

If you want to play the science game, here are some of the things you don't do:

1. Accuse the entire scientific community of being wrong (unless you have compelling evidence, in which case you should argue for it in the scientific journals and
at professional meetings, not in the media).
2. Design poor-quality experiments that are almost guaranteed to show your hypothesis is true whether it really is or not. Use science to show that your treatment works, not to ask if it works.
3. Keep using arguments that have been thoroughly discredited. (The intelligent design folks are still claiming the eye could not have evolved because it is irreducibly complex; homeopaths are still claiming homeopathy cured more patients than conventional medicine during nineteenth-century epidemics).
4. Write books for the general public to promote your thesis—as if public opinion could influence science!
5. Form an activist organization to promote your beliefs.
6. Step outside the scientific paradigm and appeal to intuition and belief.
7. Mention the persecution of Galileo and compare yourself to him.
8. Invent a conspiracy theory
(Big Pharma is suppressing the truth!).
9. Claim to be a lone genius who knows more than all scientists put together.
10. Offer a treatment to the public after only the most preliminary studies have been conducted.
11. Set up a Web site to sell products that are not backed by good evidence.
12. Refuse to admit when your hypothesis is proven wrong.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Thank you for the diatribe that has absolutely nothing to do with my post or the matter at hand. But it is also worth noting I love how people try to set up the rules to their advantage as if that magically makes them right. Even when breaking said rules themselves.
So, are you done yet?

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Thank you for the diatribe that has absolutely nothing to do with my post or the matter at hand. But it is also worth noting I love how people try to set up the rules to their advantage as if that magically makes them right.
So, are you done yet?


Diatribe? It's a set of rules to do science by. What, specifically, do you have problem with? Other than it will make ID impossible to prove?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Actually, no it doesn't sorry to tell you. But you go on ahead and think that the if a person does not act how you expect them to that it automatically makes them wrong while condeming them for doing what you are doing. I was meaning you collective as those on your particularly side.
Of course those that are proponants of ID are not completely without blame for BS either, but we aren't talking about them.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Actually, no it doesn't sorry to tell you. But you go on ahead and think that the if a person does not act how you expect them to that it automatically makes them wrong while condeming them for doing what you are doing. I was meaning you collective as those on your particularly side.
Of course those that are proponants of ID are not completely without blame for BS either, but we aren't talking about them.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]


Nice bluster, but you haven't got a chance of explaining why you can't follow those rules, except that they're gong to make ID look foolish if you do.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


No bluster about it friend. I am not the source of the bluster in this particular case. But for the sake of argument it is worth noting that every new scientific theory that seeks to replace a older accepted theory is calling the community wrong, sometimes before it has even has a good factual backing. Invalidating your rule #1. The politics of the thing does not matter when speaking of validity *though a great many including yourself think otherwise* and neither side of this silly debate has a leg to stand on as the existance of a "god" or "higher power" is still a probability, in that it is a question not even remotely resolved with alot of leaps of faith in either direction.
Oh, and look, you assume I am a IDer, how cute and utterly not unexpected.
I am Jack's complete lack of suprise.


[edit on 15-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Dodging the question, I see. What problems do you have with my "diatribe"?

BTW:

Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995.

diatribe

NOUN: A long, violent, or blustering speech, usually of censure or denunciation: fulmination,

So, which of us is blustering, again?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Thank you very much for that unneeded dictionary definition. Though I really must ask if you are paying attention or just waiting to post a response after I post so that it appropriately looks like you are, you can guess which direction I am leaning in.
Either way, have a good day and enjoy your feeling of righteousness. We have exhausted the possibilities in this conversation as you are just seeking capitulation that will not come despite how much rhetoric you apply.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


You should try harder to defend your position. Or have you realized it's impossible to defend something that's based purely on fiction?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Ah, still think I am IDer I see, you really must pay attention if you wish to be taken seriously in any sort of real debate. I leave you with some quotes to think about:

The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it.
George Bernard Shaw


“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”
Robert McCloskey


“In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true.”
Buddha


“People say they love truth, but in reality they want to believe that which they love is true.”
Robert J. Ringer


“One comes to believe whatever one repeats to oneself sufficiently often, whether the statement be true of false. It comes to be dominating thought in one's mind.”
Robert Collier


An idea isn't responsible for the people who believe in it.
Don Marquis


We all think we are right, or we should not believe as we do.
William J. Wills


I could never say that one religion is wrong. I could never say that this person's God is wrong, I could never say that someone is wrong because they don't believe in God.
Amber Tamblyn


I believe in general in a dualism between facts and the ideas of those facts in human heads.
George Santayana


I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine.
Bertrand Russell


Whatever you believe with feeling becomes your reality.
Brian Tracy

Big lesson here.

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
Noam Chomsky


I believe that a simple and unassuming manner of life is best for everyone, best both for the body and the mind.
Albert Einstein

Don't worry I don't expect you to actually think about it though.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Sorry, but I have 22 pages of quotes I could post if you want to play that game. Now if you want to stop playing games, that would be even better.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Too bad I am not playing games. Neither are you of course, unless you count self-righteous condemnation of someone who is not what you condeme them as while ignoring anything they say to be a game.
Either way, like I said, good day. Can give a man a book but you can't make him think after all. Feel free to post something further if your ego demands it I just won't be responding so make it a good one, you'll feel better.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


You still haven't explained your problem with my "diatribe". And I'm betting any explanation will be very, very entertaining.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I just can't help but mention again that in the scientific community this debate does not exist.

This debate exists in the political and religious world of rhetoric and semantics.

www.americablog.com...

Evolution Vs. Creationism: There's No Debate
by Michael in New York on 6/22/2005 11:25:00 AM
When Kansas held hearings on the "debate" between evolution and "intelligent design" (ie. the Bible), a curious thing happened according to the New York Times. Most major science organizations refused to take part. Their reasoning is sound, but I don't know if I agree. In short, the National Center for Science Education, top textbook authors and others said showing up would reinforce a lie.

1. There is NO debate in the scientific community on "intelligent design," which has had decades to inspire some research or findings and proven empty.
2. You can't debate faith -- the people arguing for intelligent design are not scientists, are unwilling to accept any other point of view and therefore will never admit they're wrong.
3. The scientific community has spent the last few decades appearing with these groups, taking them on scientifically, proving why their crackpot ideas hold no water and nothing changes -- so why appear?
4. It's a waste of time in a political arena -- in this case, they figured the board had already decided to rule it was an interesting debate and that kids deserved to hear about it in class. They were right.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Ah so a blog is a reputable source now? But either way, as I said before politics does not equate validity. There is also a large logical fallacy to that it's called: argumentum ad verecundiam or maybe argumentum ad populum *I lean towards the latter., regardless of if it's valid or not.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Jezus
 


Ah so a blog is a reputable source now? But either way, as I said before politics does not equate validity. There is also a large logical fallacy to that it's called: argumentum ad verecundiam or maybe argumentum ad populum *I lean towards the latter., regardless of if it's valid or not.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]


Do you lean toward pointing out where the information is wrong? You sound like a doubter to me, you've rejected the information out of hand, without finding out about the source. Good move, that.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Thank you for the diatribe that has absolutely nothing to do with my post or the matter at hand. But it is also worth noting I love how people try to set up the rules to their advantage as if that magically makes them right.
So, are you done yet?


Diatribe? It's a set of rules to do science by. What, specifically, do you have problem with? Other than it will make ID impossible to prove?


It also makes evolution impossible to prove, if you care to,, play along and do lets play like you are Darwit and we'll use your little scientific method there and lets see if we don't find you groping for semantics and equivocating between micro to macro evolution and back again whenever it suits you, or you may even suggest they are one and the same! That would open up the first of many logical fallacy and other double standards, evolutionis't enjoy with their current vice grip control as they lord over the halls of science. they are Science answer to the biblical Pharasee, the teachers of the law the pompous elite with their terminally self righteous, intellectual snobbery, ridiculing with unparalleled hubris assuming the highest levels of condescending arrogance so typically seen among atheist's kitchen cosmetology scientist's



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


You still haven't explained your problem with my "diatribe". And I'm betting any explanation will be very, very entertaining.


Look it up gawds, no one here is responsible to explain to you what you not only will not, but cannot understand. I suggest when you hear big words like "diatribe", you google the definition .

My advice is not so much for you as it is anyone extending the courtesy of taking you serious, or having any other motive then to cheaply enhance your ego by belittling others.

I have seen you do this from the moment you joined this thread. You don't know science and your incessant comments designed to piss off the the fundies using material I have seen others use, only shows that you aren't even original much less impressive



[edit on 15-4-2009 by Aermacchi]



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join