|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 08/02/2009 : 19:05:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tipok
There's nothing wrong with starting with a conclusion and working backwards as long as it is possible and has evidence to support it. |
Wrong. Starting with a hypothesis is fine, but not with a "conclusion." A conclusion is an end-product of thinking, not a step along the way during evidence gathering. If you've already made a conclusion, you won't bother to look at all sides of the evidence.| Hiding and manipulating evidence to support a theory, on the other hand, is not very scientific at all. |
Absolutely correct. The trouble with Creationists is even worse than this: Normally, they won't come within a kilometer of any scientific evidence, because it's only likely to trip up their conclusions.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
Tipok
New Member
18 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 19:16:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Tipok
There's nothing wrong with starting with a conclusion and working backwards as long as it is possible and has evidence to support it. |
Wrong. Starting with a hypothesis is fine, but not with a "conclusion." A conclusion is an end-product of thinking, not a step along the way during evidence gathering. If you've already made a conclusion, you won't bother to look at all sides of the evidence.| Hiding and manipulating evidence to support a theory, on the other hand, is not very scientific at all. |
Absolutely correct. The trouble with Creationists is even worse than this: Normally, they won't come within a kilometer of any scientific evidence, because it's only likely to trip up their conclusions.
|
Well you can just as easily consider Creation a hypothesis. The original idea came from the Bible which would be like Darwin's finches and such.
Creationists do in fact go by the evidence. If you had read Walt Brown's "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" you would understand that you are stating a false claim commonly made by evolutionists. However, plenty of evolutionists don't come "within a kilometer of," as you say, the evidence against evolution because they or too stubborn to accept any of it. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 19:57:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tipok
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Tipok
There's nothing wrong with starting with a conclusion and working backwards as long as it is possible and has evidence to support it. |
Wrong. Starting with a hypothesis is fine, but not with a "conclusion." A conclusion is an end-product of thinking, not a step along the way during evidence gathering. If you've already made a conclusion, you won't bother to look at all sides of the evidence.| Hiding and manipulating evidence to support a theory, on the other hand, is not very scientific at all. |
Absolutely correct. The trouble with Creationists is even worse than this: Normally, they won't come within a kilometer of any scientific evidence, because it's only likely to trip up their conclusions.
|
Well you can just as easily consider Creation a hypothesis. The original idea came from the Bible which would be like Darwin's finches and such.
Creationists do in fact go by the evidence. If you had read Walt Brown's "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" you would understand that you are stating a false claim commonly made by evolutionists. However, plenty of evolutionists don't come "within a kilometer of," as you say, the evidence against evolution because they or too stubborn to accept any of it.
|
Okay, I give up. It's next to impossible to reason with someone who actually believes in mythology like the Biblical Creation, Noah's Ark, etc. Darwin's Finches were and are real, while those myths were adopted from Mesopotamian religions by a tribe of backward desert wanderers. If you choose to believe that crap as fact, that's your problem.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Tipok
New Member
18 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 20:01:39 [Permalink]
|
Okay, I give up. It's next to impossible to reason with someone who actually believes in mythology like the Biblical Creation, Noah's Ark, etc. Darwin's Finches were and are real, while those myths were adopted from Mesopotamian religions by a tribe of backward desert wanderers. If you choose to believe that crap as fact, that's your problem.
|
Evolution is a blind faith when you think of all the millions of miraculous occurrences that would have to have happened for it to be true so don't even try to claim that I am the one with ridiculous beliefs. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 20:33:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tipok
[quote]Evolution is a blind faith when you think of all the millions of miraculous occurrences that would have to have happened for it to be true so don't even try to claim that I am the one with ridiculous beliefs. |
Read Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker. Or don't, since you seem skeered of scientists and atheists. Meanwhile, enjoy your pre-scientific, bogeyman Koolaid, you poor, benighted fool.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 21:17:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tipok
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Tipok
There's nothing wrong with starting with a conclusion and working backwards as long as it is possible and has evidence to support it. |
Wrong. Starting with a hypothesis is fine, but not with a "conclusion." A conclusion is an end-product of thinking, not a step along the way during evidence gathering. If you've already made a conclusion, you won't bother to look at all sides of the evidence.| Hiding and manipulating evidence to support a theory, on the other hand, is not very scientific at all. |
Absolutely correct. The trouble with Creationists is even worse than this: Normally, they won't come within a kilometer of any scientific evidence, because it's only likely to trip up their conclusions. |
Well you can just as easily consider Creation a hypothesis. The original idea came from the Bible which would be like Darwin's finches and such.
Creationists do in fact go by the evidence. If you had read Walt Brown's "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" you would understand that you are stating a false claim commonly made by evolutionists. However, plenty of evolutionists don't come "within a kilometer of," as you say, the evidence against evolution because they or too stubborn to accept any of it.
|
Hmm.
Fair enough, let's compare; let's starts with the hypothesis and then look at facts to test them.
Hypothese 1: Evolution from common descent.
-There should a mechanism of genetic transmission, one that'd be subject to mutations. Darwin was not aware of the existence of either but it has since been confirmed.
-These mutations should potentially be beneficial, even generating new genes "evolution of a key innovation" .
-Because of the common ancestry, mechanisms should exists that have been conserved during evolutionary times.
-The pattern of the http://rationalrevolution.net/images/phylo.giftree of life that dates back from before Darwin should hold true at the genetic level too, and for every single of the hundred of thousand of sequenced genes.
-Similarly, accidental events such as the insertion of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5AR5S_2S0E should testify of our common ancestry with chimpanzees and the pattern of these ERVs' distribution follow the anatomic and genetic tree of life.
-By looking at two species, one could predict what their common ancestor would look like and even predict when it lived.
All these, tests, of course, have been performed and their results were found consistent with the predictions made by the theory of evolution.
Now, our Hypothese 2: Creationism is right.
It makes the testable prediction that... Well, the Bible says so, so there!
Evolution: we have the fossils, we win!
Ps, I don't expect to convince you or even that you are going to read through the evidences and think about them. But, at least I did my part.
[Edited to re-format a long link. //Dr. Mabuse] |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 08/08/2009 01:56:22 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 22:10:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tipok
Evolution is a blind faith when you think of all the millions of miraculous occurrences that would have to have happened for it to be true... |
What's miraculous about them? The only people who claim that evolution violates any sort of natural law are the creationists. It's a strawman, because they don't understand what "natural law" actually means.
Even if they were miracles, millions of them over the course of billions of years boils down to just one miracle every thousand years. The Bible's miracle frequency is much, much higher than that, especially during the first six days and during the 30-something years of Christ's alleged life.
But really, if you're going to argue that evolution is a religion, and smear it as a faith, doesn't that smear your own faith, also? If your faith is right and proper, then what's wrong with faith in evolutionary biology?| ...so don't even try to claim that I am the one with ridiculous beliefs. |
If you're going to cite Walt Brown as your authority figure, the you've demonstrated your ridiculous beliefs without any help from anyone here. When your go-to guy has long-standing disputes with both Young- and Old-Earth Creationist organizations that are more widely known than he, you can be pretty sure you're backing a loser. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 08:48:41 [Permalink]
|
285 people. Happening right now.
Go to TwitterFall, put "#CreoZerg" into the search box on the left (without quotes), click the "Add" button and when it appears on its own line, check the checkbox. Live Twitters from/to the folks on the Creation Museum trip, without having to sign up with Twitter. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/07/2009 : 11:29:14 [Permalink]
|
Ok, for those who put in 12 foot long links and fuck up the format, here's the trick:
How to make hyperlinked text, insert a URL-link
Example 1 (starting from scratch):
How to hyperlink a word:
Start with finding the hyperlink-icon next to the other Format text icons.
The forum tag hyperlink is the Globe-looking hyperlink icon
This causes the url formatting tag to be inserted in your text where the cursor is located. It looks like this:
After that you need to manually add these characters: ="" to that tag
Next you insert the link (in blue) between the quote-signs and the text (in red) between the start- and end- url-tag:
Awesome website
The result:
Awesome website
Example 2 (formatting a link into an already written paragraph):
Just as when you edit a written text in standard word-processors to change formatting to bold, or italics, you can likewise create a hyperlink.
Simply select the word or words you want to make into a hyperlink.
"A cool website to -->view the taxonomy<--- of almost any living animal."
Then click on the hyperlink icon
The text editor will insert the URL-formatting tags at the appropriate places:
"A cool website to view the taxonomy of almost any living animal."
Just as in the first example, add the characters: ="" (one equal-char and two quote-chars) in the first tag:
"A cool website to view the taxonomy of almost any living animal."
Then what is left is to copy-and-paste the URL-link in between the two quotation marks. Either by standard copy-and-paste command, but most browsers also support drag-and-drop.
"A cool website to view the taxonomy of almost any living animal."
End result: "A cool website to view the taxonomy of almost any living animal."
There you are! Now, go hyperlinking your stuff! ~~ Thanx to Doc Mabuse
Damn, but it sounds like a blast up there! I'm looking forward to reading all about it. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
knightmare
New Member
USA
42 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 14:26:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
The Hamster wrote a blog post about it. Of course, he gets it wrong.
|
I had read the post that Ham referred to about the atheist sign on the buses earlier today. Ham had this to say about it:
| You see, regardless of the creation/evolution issue, these people oppose anyone who believes in God, regardless of whether they accept Genesis as literal history. |
Some christians got mad about it and had it taken off the buses, yet we're the intolerant ones. They are some crazy people. Personally, I don't care what they believe in. What I do care about is when they try to dictate public policy based on their crazy beliefs. |
|
|
|
knightmare
New Member
USA
42 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 14:31:29 [Permalink]
|
That is one of the greatest things I have ever seen!!! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 16:56:37 [Permalink]
|
Here's Ham's take on it: Atheist Group Visits Creation Museum
Today will be another busy Friday at the Creation Museum. We have a number of groups booked in, including around 285 atheists/humanists associated with the Secular Student Alliance group. As they are conducting a conference in the Columbus area, a number of them decided to make a visit to the Creation Museum about two hours away.
Most people (even most of the non-Christians) who come to the museum do so to learn, to be challenged, to search out information, to be equipped, and so on. However, it appears that most of this group has come to do what one of the websites associated with one of the group leaders stated:
|
He continues with some quotes from PZ's site. I get the impression that this visit just tickled him pink. No matter how it comes out, he'll have some blathering points.
Edited to correct some really creative typos. Write in haste....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 08/08/2009 03:03:46 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I don’t think I can make it to this…
