Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact

Started by josephpalazzo, February 03, 2016, 02:53:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Daniel2021

Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 23, 2016, 06:47:43 PM
There was no hominem as my statement is an IF statement.

No, you surely didn't.

QuoteI have but you skipped to common ancestry. Now, go back and read the full post.

I read it, I didn't see the "Scientific Theory" of evolution. Can you bold it in your next post.


QuoteSo far, you've shown the opposite.

Really?  Can you show precisely where, so as to support your Generalized Baseless 'bald' Assertion ?


QuoteThat there is a progression from fossils to fossils is an observation, not an assumption.

Well an Observation is merely an "Observation".  Are you familiar with The Scientific Method (It's Rhetorical @ this point)...

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

You haven't yet breached the First Step.  It's Observe a Phenomenon, not Observe Nouns/end results, then make up a story for goodness sakes.



QuoteHave you ever examine these fossils? I have. But I can see that you haven't.

Really?  By what Method did you arrive @ your conclusion: Crystal Ball, Tea Leaves, Dowsing Rods, Special Mind Powers, Other??  Let's TEST your Blind Conjecture Acumen...what's my Favorite Color?


QuoteSo you're talking with not knowing what is at stakes.

Is English your first language ?


QuoteSo get out of your closet and do some investigations as you are embarrassing yourself.

Yes, like the Chicago Bears embarrassed themselves in Super Bowl XX.


QuoteWell, here we go:

If God exists, then he created the world.
It is true the world exists.
Therefore God exists is true.

So you see, two can play at the same game.

What on Earth sir ? It would be a Fallacy....IF I MADE THAT ARGUMENT (lol).  So you conjure Arguments (Straw Man) then you mow them down, eh? Must be rough.  Tell me, do you prime the flame thrower just before or right after you conjure these?


QuoteHowever, the argument that I gave you is not found on that kind of logic.

Yes it clearly was and I demonstrated it to you.


QuoteIt's based on the notion that certain facts require an explanation.

This isn't "Science" sir, this is "Just So" Story time.  Have you heard of Hypothesis TESTING, by chance?
If so, can you please post the "Independent Variable" you used in the TEST that you never conducted to validate your claim?


QuoteI gave you two examples: gravity and evolution. But you chose to ignore that. Your loss.

Tell ya what, after you post the Scientific Theory of evolution, I'll go ahead and bludgeon those other matheMagical fairytales sr and gr for ya.  Deal??

regards

Daniel2021

Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2016, 08:25:03 PM
This was very well answered in reply #23.

Sir, this is post #23...

"Oh good--another brain dead theist who only believes and can't or won't reason.  WTF, Daniel, who don't you simply return to your wonderful book of Daniel, read a masturbate to that.  And leave us alone.  Or, why not take the time and effort to introduce yourself and indicate whether you are a drive-by stupido or somebody who is going to stay around for awhile."

Can you Highlight the part where the "Scientific Theory" of evolution is....?


QuoteDo you have a problem with what "scientific" is or what "theory" is?  I suspect you don't, you just like to argue.

No I do not; however, it appears MOST don't know what either are. 


QuoteEvidence from both macro and micro biology, substantiate the evolution hypothesis ... into a evolution theory.

So, what is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....?  After that, will get to the Scientific Hypotheses that support it.

regards

Daniel2021

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 23, 2016, 08:13:03 PM
Fossils, strictly speaking, aren't necessarily evidence of evolution.
1. Exactly.  Moreover, you first have to define what your evidence is in support of, right?

2. If your evidence is in support of the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....then what is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution?


QuoteHowever, evolution can be proven without fossils, and in fact the basis of the theory is entirely rooted in biology. The fact that fossil evidence lines up with evolutionary theory is more icing on the cake than anything else.
my emphasis

What is the Scientific Theory ??

regards

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 11:44:52 AM



What on Earth sir ? It would be a Fallacy....IF I MADE THAT ARGUMENT (lol). 

Yes, you used that fallacy  to argue against evolution.

To refresh your mind:

QuoteThe logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag"  Post Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Similarity/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Post Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.

You are a total waste.



Hijiri Byakuren

Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 12:05:15 PMWhat is the Scientific Theory ??
If you're fine reading a somewhat out-dated version, "Origin of Species" explains the theory fairly well. For a more up-to-date version, you'll need to pore over about 150 years of scientific writing and consult evolutionary biologists who actually spend their lives studying this (instead of average joes like us).

We can give you simplified versions like "descent with modification" or "change over time," but a full understanding of a scientific theory can't be given in a 10-second sound byte. Hell, I'd need a few weeks to fully explain everything I know about gravity to you, and the theory of gravity is arguably much simpler than the theory of evolution. So if you really want to learn, go study.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

Daniel2021

Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 23, 2016, 06:39:07 PM
Among all those field examples joseph gave, only paleontology bugged you?

Not so much, he didn't provide anything other than stories.  I merely focused on that because of his "gazillion of fossils---evidence" in the first post I replied to.

QuoteBecause all of them should be problematic for you in the same sense, if you understand what is 'scientific theory'.

1. As mentioned previously, a Scientific Theory is validated/confirmed Scientific Hypotheses.  It "Explains"....The How (Mechanisms/Processes).
As opposed to Scientific Laws which "Describe"....The What/IS, often expressed mathematically.

2. How are they "problematic"....?


QuoteYou don't know what is science or theory, let alone what is scientific theory.

Really??  How so...?

regards

Baruch

Quote from: SGOS on February 24, 2016, 09:18:48 AM
This becomes apparent when you realize creationism does no research of it's own. It tries to pass as science, but ignores the method.  It's methodology is to sit on the sidelines and take pot shots.  It's a process not designed to arrive at discovery, as if all important discoveries are either revealed in the Bible, or will become clear in the afterlife.  There is no mechanism included that leads to new knowledge, discovery, or verification.  It's not a science, it's pure anti-science.  Yet it wants to be included in science classes.  LOL

Biblical archeology similarly messes with proper archeology.  The actual archeology both confirms and denies the Bible claims.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hydra009

Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 11:44:52 AMI read it, I didn't see the "Scientific Theory" of evolution. Can you bold it in your next post.
QuoteTell ya what, after you post the Scientific Theory of evolution, I'll go ahead and bludgeon those other matheMagical fairytales sr and gr for ya.  Deal??
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 11:55:05 AMSo, what is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....?  After that, will get to the Scientific Hypotheses that support it.
I gave you a link to a brief definition that 5th graders (and adult creationists) could understand back in page 1.  It's painfully obvious now that your questions are insincere and you are in fact yet another creationist buffoon unwilling to accept answers that don't fit your religious beliefs.  How can we educate someone who can't learn?

Daniel2021

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 24, 2016, 12:13:20 PM
If you're fine reading a somewhat out-dated version, "Origin of Species" explains the theory fairly well.

There is no "Scientific" theory in any of Darwin's publications.  If I missed it, please post....?


QuoteFor a more up-to-date version, you'll need to pore over about 150 years of scientific writing and consult evolutionary biologists who actually spend their lives studying this (instead of average joes like us.

1.  Up to Date Version??  Ahhh, Scientific Theories are either validated by their Hypotheses or they're NOT. They don't get "UPDATED" they get "Falsified" well before they reach "Scientific Theory".
If it's an "ACTUAL" Scientific Theory, the task to falsify is akin to attempting to summit Mount Everest alone without arms, legs, and sight.

2. Define "average joe"....?

QuoteWe can give you simplified versions like "descent with modification" or "change over time," but a full understanding of a scientific theory can't be given in a 10-second sound byte.

That's not a Scientific Theory.

Scientific Theories are concise statements that elucidate mechanisms validated by Scientific Hypotheses.  If you need more than 3 sentences, you got yourself a story not a Scientific Theory.


QuoteHell, I'd need a few weeks to fully explain everything I know about gravity to you, and the theory of gravity is arguably much simpler than the theory of evolution. So if you really want to learn, go study.

There is the Universal Law of Gravitation. There is no "Viable" Theory of Gravity. (However, that's for another day.  I don't want to derail this discussion)

regards

TrueStory

@ daniel2012   Since you think it is quite easy to post a scientific theory could you post one that is not about evolution and by using that as a model maybe I could post about evolution in the same format.
Please don't take anything I say seriously.

Daniel2021

Quote from: Hydra009 on February 24, 2016, 12:27:57 PM
I gave you a link...

I queried for the Scientific Theory of evolution, NOT a "link".  A 5th grader can type evolution in any search engine then post a "link".  I'm not here to prove "YOUR" case for "YOU", the onus is on "YOU" to prove "YOUR" case, counselor.


QuoteIt's painfully obvious now that your questions are insincere and you are in fact yet another creationist buffoon unwilling to accept answers that don't fit your religious beliefs.

1.  It's Painfully Obvious that nobody on this thread can answer a simple query from "allegedly" the most Validated Scientific Theory in the History of Science for ever and ever and ever.  Kinda strange, don't ya think?

2.  Well the sine qua non of 'Religion' is....Belief without Evidence.  Nobody here can even post what their 'religion' is yet.


regards

aitm

A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Baruch

Daniel - do you know what a sophist is?  And are you aware that in spite of the naming convention, such people are not really sophisticated?  Socrates whiped the floor with poseurs.  I am a theist, so I could tell you what religion is, but that is done many times in other strings here, not in the science section.

Microevolution actually is done, on a lab bench under controlled conditions ... it is indisputably scientific.  Until you go do professional microbiology research ... you won't get it, I fear.

Analysis of evolution ala Darwin, involves plausible inference from existing life forms, not controlled experiments.  Similarly for paleontology (for extinct life forms).

What do you have against change?  If you knew Heraclitus, you would realize that almost nothing stays the same over time, biological or physical .. and slow long term change in biology is what we call evolution.  What does apparently stay the same over time (and is applicable everywhere in space) we call physical law.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Daniel2021

Quote from: TrueStory on February 24, 2016, 12:35:55 PM
@ daniel2012   Since you think it is quite easy to post a scientific theory could you post one that is not about evolution and by using that as a model maybe I could post about evolution in the same format.

Sure...

"Germ Theory in medicine, the theory that certain diseases are caused by the invasion of the body by microorganisms, organisms too small to be seen except through a microscope.'
http://www.britannica.com/topic/germ-theory

Baruch

You accept this germ theory?  But you deny equally validated evolution theory?  And it turns out, these germs (bacteria, protozoa, viruses, prions) i really quite complicated business.  How much more, with evolution theory, since it involves all species that exist or have existed in the past.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.