|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
 Posted - 01/14/2005 : 02:56:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"Thus a “theory” is not a fact and is not even close to being one."
*Imitates Basil Fawlty when he's really, really pissed off*
quote:
Quite frankly, the proponents of these respective, competing theories, evolution and intelligent design,
Intelligent design is not a theory, it's not a hypothesis, it's just a baseless claim that adds nothing but more mystery. It explains nothing, it's unnecessary, it's superfluous, all these because it hasn't been detected. But, let's pretend it is a theory more than "someone did this, you know." What says that this designer didn't just put together the first selfreplicating molecules and let things go by themselves? Or why not say that a designer made this universe and then just ran the program? Why is ID an opponent to evolution even in the pretend-scenario that ID is more than nothing?
quote:
"We confidently state this even about evolution because, although many scientists believe it to be fact, it has just not been proven."
I realise it must take confidence to knowingly lie all the time.
quote:
For example, the theory of evolution requires that incremental changes occur for one species to change into something similar yet quite different, such as a human evolving from a chimp.
Even I know better than that, and I'm not a scientist in any field.
quote:
but if they were superior to the chimps, then why are they gone while the chimps remain?
Superior in what way? Superior how, in what environment?
quote:
Couple this serious gap in the data to support evolutionary theory with the fact that the theory itself actually violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
No, it doesn't, you fools. And don't dare call yourselves "trained, field experienced scientists" again.
quote:
Intelligent design theory, on the other hand, requires the input of a being of higher order than humans. Most assume this being to be God while others may assume humans are the handiwork of extraterrestrials.
Right. And let's forget who created the extraterrestrials. IPU forbid it was the work of yet other lifeforms, in all eternity. I suspect these lifeforms to be turtles...
quote:
Either way, ID theory has not been proven in scientific terms
Probably because it's not a theory. But we all knew that, didn't we? Yes, yes we did.
quote:
We are both scientists
Right. Then act like scientists, then.
quote:
and we both are Christians who lean toward the ID theory as being more plausible because there are just too many flaws in the data used to support evolutionary theory.
So that would explain it. Religion comes first, even to these fine scientists.
quote:
James Bogart is a part-time college instructor and Cheri Bogart is a biologist.
Scary and unlikely, respectively. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
 |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 03:07:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick
quote:
James Bogart is a part-time college instructor and Cheri Bogart is a biologist.
Scary and unlikely, respectively.
She has a Bachelor's Degree in biology from Shippensburg University.
I bet they are proud today... |
|
|
|
llDayo
New Member
USA
24 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 07:33:49 [Permalink]
|
| Maybe the ACLU should be contacted about what these people are teaching. I know for a fact that Shippensburg receives some state funding (there was an issue a few years ago between the smaller state schools and my alma mater, Penn State, about how much funding PSU was receiving). |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 09:16:41 [Permalink]
|
How the hell can Bogart teach engineering when he does not even understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics??
Maybe he thinks it's the second Theory of Thermodynamics...
What a freaking idiot!
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 10:18:14 [Permalink]
|
Their example:quote:
There have been several famous theories that were agreed upon by most of the world's scientists and philosophers that were later proven to be false. A very prominent example of these is the theory that the earth is flat. The scientists could stand on a boat and see for long distances in every direction so of course the world had to be flat — their observations proved it! We all know that this is not true yet people several hundred years ago were ridiculed for believing otherwise.
is utterly stupid. To begin, isn't this notion of the scientific community of the 15th century buying into the world-is-flat theory a bit of an urban legend of sorts? And surely no one thought that the world was flat because of their standing-in-the-boat example! After all, if the world were flat and you were in your boat, you'd see mountains! That you don't suggests something else. Any child can see this.
Can anyone find the scoop on this-- how big was the Earth-is-Flat theory? My guess is that it's a straw man to prove how the scientific community can be so wrong about their theories and it has no factual basis in reality... |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 12:26:59 [Permalink]
|
| I thought it was the greek philosophers who knew it was round, and then along came the christians and said otherwise? |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 12:51:53 [Permalink]
|
Taken From The Myth of the Flat Earth
The Myth of the Flat Earth
Summary by Jeffrey Burton Russell
for the American Scientific Affiliation Conference
August 4, 1997 at Westmont College
"It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat."
"A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters--Leukippos and Demokritos for example--by the time of Eratosthenes (3 c. BC), followed by Crates(2 c. BC), Strabo (3 c. BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans."
"No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat."
[Edited to make a nice link - Dave W.] |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
| Edited by - astropin on 01/14/2005 13:03:43 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 12:57:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick
I thought it was the greek philosophers who knew it was round, and then along came the christians and said otherwise?
Right. I know that certain ancients figured out that the earth was round. But the question is how a scientist from the late 15th century-- say 1491-- would have answered the question. It's obvious that the authors cited in this thread are referencing the whole Columbus pseudo-myth in discussing what people thought about the earth's roundness. My question is if that's even a valid example of an accepted theory that's later rejected.
[tangent]By the way-- even if it were so, it only serves to weaken their case. After all, it wasn't Christian theologians who forced scholars to re-think the shape of the earth. Indeed, paradigms shift only when new data force such things. The reason the scientific community isn't jumping all over the ID movement is that it explains nothing new and doesn't otherwise force a new reasoning behind life's diversity. Indeed, ID never came about because of new data but because some weasley Christians began to understand that creationism in its rawest form will never make it in main-stream science. They suck and I hate them.[/tanget] |
|
|
|
TG
Skeptic Friend
USA
121 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 15:02:43 [Permalink]
|
All of the misinformation aside, there's one thing that I find particularly offense; inflating one's credentials in order to try and boost their credibility.
quote:
We, as two trained, field experienced scientists ...
James Bogart is a mechanical engineer and Cheri has a BS in biology. Neither of those degrees qualifies someone to refer to themselves as a scientist unless they are trying to impress someone in a bar.
"Scientists" indeed! |
| Edited by - TG on 01/14/2005 15:14:15 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 17:13:28 [Permalink]
|
A BS in biology, depending on what you do, could be considered technically a scientist. More likely a lab assistant though.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 20:40:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Right. I know that certain ancients figured out that the earth was round. But the question is how a scientist from the late 15th century-- say 1491-- would have answered the question. It's obvious that the authors cited in this thread are referencing the whole Columbus pseudo-myth in discussing what people thought about the earth's roundness. My question is if that's even a valid example of an accepted theory that's later rejected.
Columbus knew the Earth was round, he just mistaken thought it was much smaller than it actually is. He expected to find the Orient when he bumped into the Americas. He was off by 9,000 miles or so.
Aristarchus, on the other hand, calculated the size of the Earth to within just a few percent, over 1,500 years before Columbus set sail. The Dark Ages being what they were, though, this particular factoid was lost to Europe for a while. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 22:50:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
A law is a statement that describes a relationship observed to be invariable (unchanging) between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are not met.
....
Letters have erroneously stated that “gravity” is a theory. It is not a theory — the concept is called the Law of Gravity and is called so because it has been proven to be true everywhere in normal space.
A better way to descrbe a "law" would be: a mathematical relation describing a physical phenomenon that is always true. The law of gravity is thus gMm/r^2 (something like that I forget exactly). The thoery of gravity tries to describe how gravity works (gravitons and stuff ...). Theories don't get promoted either. There are still theories and laws for gravity and electromagnetism.
Electromag is a good example of how stupid their "promotion" idea is. Maxwell's Equations could be considered laws as they always produce correct (useful) results. However they assume that light requires a medium to travel in. We all know this to be false.
Haven't those two read this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/forward.asp from their own kind even! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 23:34:32 [Permalink]
|
Funniest line I read:A theory is an assumption based on limited information (also known as a conjecture). I couldn't read much more after that, since according to the authors, I've got a scientific theory that the authors think that 'theory', 'assumption' and 'conjecture' are synonyms.
(I'd put a whole bunch of roll-eyes smileys here, but you already understood that.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 23:38:33 [Permalink]
|
I'll have to check up when I get home, but IIRC, Columbus' error wasn't so much in underestimating the circumference of the Earth- most of the estimates existing in his day weren't horrendously off- but in overestimating how far to the east the continent of Asia extended.
Woolytoad- a concise description I've read of the distinction between law and theory which you've made is "a law describes, a theory explains". Gravity's an apt example- the law of universal gravitation provided a description of how bodies behave under the influence of gravitational attraction that was accurate enough to lead to the discovery of at least one planet, all without saying a word about why an attractive force should exist between two masses. |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
