jakee 1,594 #26 August 24, 2011 QuoteEvolution works better at showing ongoing change than establishing the origin. Probably because evolution is the study of ongoing change and is not the study of origins.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #27 August 24, 2011 Quote>If it's untestable, it's worthless as far as science is concerned. Unpursuable, perhaps. I have a feeling if you told a physicist the many-worlds interpretation was "worthless" he might disagree.Only because it would challenge something he's emotionally involved in. Anything - as far as science is concerned - that can't be tested at all, has no weight. It may or may not be true, but it holds no more (or less) water than anything I could dream up, no matter how outlandish.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #28 August 24, 2011 QuoteQuote>If it's untestable, it's worthless as far as science is concerned. Unpursuable, perhaps. I have a feeling if you told a physicist the many-worlds interpretation was "worthless" he might disagree.Only because it would challenge something he's emotionally involved in. Anything - as far as science is concerned - that can't be tested at all, has no weight. It may or may not be true, but it holds no more (or less) water than anything I could dream up, no matter how outlandish. There is such a thing as plausability, as well as mathematical integrity. Much that has turned out to be valid is counterintuitive, but mathematically sound. Gas Dynamics is a case in point. If someone is given to accepting fundamentals on the basis of emotional appeal their stance may be routinely dismissed, since there is no correlation between their model and reality. The accuracy, or lack thereof, of their claims is a matter of happenstance. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #29 August 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote>If it's untestable, it's worthless as far as science is concerned. Unpursuable, perhaps. I have a feeling if you told a physicist the many-worlds interpretation was "worthless" he might disagree.Only because it would challenge something he's emotionally involved in. Anything - as far as science is concerned - that can't be tested at all, has no weight. It may or may not be true, but it holds no more (or less) water than anything I could dream up, no matter how outlandish. There is such a thing as plausability, as well as mathematical integrity. Much that has turned out to be valid is counterintuitive, but mathematically sound. Gas Dynamics is a case in point. If someone is given to accepting fundamentals on the basis of emotional appeal their stance may be routinely dismissed, since there is no correlation between their model and reality. The accuracy, or lack thereof, of their claims is a matter of happenstance. BSBD, Winsor I can create all sorts of fantasy that is mathematically sound. If we can't test it, observe it, get results to repeat, it's useless to science. Gas Dynamics doesn't help your point. It's something we can study and poke around in. Multi-Universe theory is 100% wish & speculation at this point. Maybe there are more out there. Maybe not. But the idea has as much credibility as me saying 5000 years ago, an army of giant, invisible grilled cheese sandwiches instantly appeared on the moon, danced the hula, and left without a trace.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Niki1 2 #30 August 24, 2011 QuoteQuote Oh come on.. God put all those fossils there to prove he was smarter and more powerful than any "scientists" could ever hope to be. That's right! God is just fucking with us. He has a sense of humor. He created Ms. Bachman didn't he? In fact, (here's my theory) he created Republicans. Democrats evolved.Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done. Louis D Brandeis Where are we going and why are we in this basket? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 379 #31 August 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Oh come on.. God put all those fossils there to prove he was smarter and more powerful than any "scientists" could ever hope to be. That's right! God is just fucking with us. He has a sense of humor. He created Ms. Bachman didn't he? In fact, (here's my theory) he created Republicans. Democrats evolved.Well he did create Celine Dion after all. If he could inflict that on us, there's nothing he wouldn't stoop to. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Niki1 2 #32 August 24, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Oh come on.. God put all those fossils there to prove he was smarter and more powerful than any "scientists" could ever hope to be. That's right! God is just fucking with us. He has a sense of humor. He created Ms. Bachman didn't he? In fact, (here's my theory) he created Republicans. Democrats evolved. Well he did create Celine Dion after all. If he could inflict that on us, there's nothing he wouldn't stoop to. Don Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done. Louis D Brandeis Where are we going and why are we in this basket? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #33 August 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteEvolution works better at showing ongoing change than establishing the origin. Probably because evolution is the study of ongoing change and is not the study of origins. first written by Darwin in Origin of Species, no less. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #34 August 24, 2011 >Only because it would challenge something he's emotionally involved in. Uh, no. Many physicists do indeed consider the many-worlds interpretation as having theoretical worth, and that has nothing to do with their emotional involvement. Same with the Higgs boson, dark matter, black holes - pretty much anything that is theorized but (so far) has no experimental backing. >It may or may not be true, but it holds no more (or less) water than anything I could >dream up, no matter how outlandish. Again, physicists would disagree. If you presented a paper on the Devildog boson that looked like a little horse and created rainbows, scientists would take you less seriously than a paper on potential properties of the Higgs boson - even though neither has ever been observed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #35 August 24, 2011 I'm sorry - what exactly did Kallend claim to have discovered? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #36 August 24, 2011 Quote I'm sorry - what exactly did Kallend claim to have discovered? The memory ....no? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #37 August 24, 2011 QuoteI'm sorry - what exactly did Kallend claim to have discovered? America. He got off the plane and - son of a bitch! - there it was! I discovered Europe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #38 August 24, 2011 I wanna know who first interviewed the fossils and did anyone check their claim to having been discovered. You betta discover yo ass right on out of heah! We don't wanna be 'scovered! My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #39 August 24, 2011 All you guys trying to debunk creationism... How do you know that God wasn't a one-celled organism? How do you know that Adam and Eve were not one-celled organisms? ....Or small strands of RNA/DNA from whence we all evolved? ....Or a simple molecular bipole from whence we all evolved? My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #40 August 24, 2011 QuoteHow do you know that God wasn't a one-celled organism? Because it wouldn't be a god. It'd be a single celled organism. QuoteHow do you know that Adam and Eve were not one-celled organisms? Because the Adam and Eve story isn't about a pair of single celled organisms. If it is then Genesis is possibly the most obscure and overly complicated metaphor in the history of human language. Quote....Or small strands of RNA/DNA from whence we all evolved? ....Or a simple molecular bipole from whence we all evolved? See above.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #41 August 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteEvolution works better at showing ongoing change than establishing the origin. Probably because evolution is the study of ongoing change and is not the study of origins. first written by Darwin in (On the) Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection. In other words, it's the study of ongoing change, not origins.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #42 August 24, 2011 Quote All you guys trying to debunk creationism... How do you know that God wasn't a one-celled organism? How do you know that Adam and Eve were not one-celled organisms? ....Or small strands of RNA/DNA from whence we all evolved? ....Or a simple molecular bipole from whence we all evolved? Giving a name to something you don't understand doesn't constitute an explanation.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #43 August 25, 2011 >How do you know that God wasn't a one-celled organism? He might have been. He also might have been one of Lady Gaga's hats. Hard to tell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 379 #44 August 25, 2011 Here's a perspective on the issue from one of my favorite songwriters, Chris Smither. Enjoy. "I'll just lay here in the shade While every one gets laid That's what I call intelligent design!" Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #45 August 25, 2011 Quote>How do you know that God wasn't a one-celled organism? He might have been. He also might have been one of Lady Gaga's hats. Hard to tell. Exactly. So, let's argue about the evolution of hats.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #46 August 25, 2011 QuoteGiving a name to something you don't understand doesn't constitute an explanation. Yup. Nobody understands and nobody can explain a Kallend.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #47 August 25, 2011 QuoteBecause the Adam and Eve story isn't about a pair of single celled organisms. How do you know that? If you DO know, then tell us all how so that we can be enlightened too. Do I guess correctly that you assume God to be man-like with arms, legs and a beard? QuoteIf it is then Genesis is possibly the most obscure and overly complicated metaphor in the history of human language. So either it's a metaphor or not. Which is it to you? And how does the relativity of "obscure and overly complicated" come into play in your world?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #48 August 25, 2011 QuoteHow do you know that? Because I can read. QuoteDo I guess correctly that you assume God to be man-like with arms, legs and a beard? You do not. QuoteSo either it's a metaphor or not. Which is it to you? And how does the relativity of "obscure and overly complicated" come into play in your world? I think it would be difficult to credit a prokaryote with the thought processes and intent needed to be a part of the original sin thing.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #49 August 25, 2011 QuoteQuoteBecause the Adam and Eve story isn't about a pair of single celled organisms. How do you know that? If you DO know, then tell us all how so that we can be enlightened too. Do I guess correctly that you assume God to be man-like with arms, legs and a beard? Well, man DID create god in his own image so it's a fair assumption.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
