If Evolution

[Stripe]

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Nope.

It's just a theory. And you're talking about two different things.

That populations evolve over time is a fact.

Nope.

Evolution is the idea that all organisms are descended by means of random mutations and natural selection from a common ancestor.

What we agree on is that organisms can change.

How they [change] over time is the theory.

Which is different from a fact. Facts are not theories. Theories are not facts. You cannot talk about evolution being both. You have to be talking about different concepts.

Why do Darwinists have such a problem with this?

But all you'll ever get from Stripe is "Nope" and re-statements of his empty assertions.

Nope.

Facts aren't theories.

And that's what I had posted about....the pointlessness of trying to engage such a person.

Feel free to ignore me. :like:

 

[Greg Jennings]

Nope.

It's just a theory. And you're talking about two different things.

Nope.

Facts aren't theories.

"A theory of gravitation is a description of the long range forces that electrically neutral bodies exert on one another because of their matter content."
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/Bekenstein/bekenstein.html

You are wrong. Gravity is the theory we use to explain gravitational attraction between masses. We've had to tweak it over and over again to make it work, and STILL there are big unexplained issues

 

[Stripe]

"A theory of gravitation is a description of the long range forces that electrically neutral bodies exert on one another because of their matter content."
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/Bekenstein/bekenstein.html

You are wrong. Gravity is the theory we use to explain gravitational attraction between masses. We've had to tweak it over and over again to make it work, and STILL there are big unexplained issues

You're too stupid to talk to.

 

[Greg Jennings]

You're too stupid to talk to.

My position is supported by facts, that I supported with a credible source (that JoseFly initially provided here)

You respond with "you are stupid."

Nice work. Real solid stuff there.


You're too stupid to have a conversation with

:mock: Stipe

 

[Stuu]

My deleted comment wasn't about what you posted. It was about trying to have conversations with certain posters.

The reality is, evolution--like gravity--is both a fact and a theory. That populations evolve over time is a fact; we see it every single day, and we both exploit it (domestication) as well as fight against it (antibiotic resistance). How they evolve over time, i.e., by what mechanisms and pathways, is the theory. Stripe basically acknowledged this concept when he stated that theories explain facts. So obviously the theory of evolution must explain some set of facts, right?

But all you'll ever get from Stripe is "Nope" and re-statements of his empty assertions. And that's what I had posted about....the pointlessness of trying to engage such a person.

Yes, apologies about my presumption, and I think your deletion was the right policy. Part of Stripe's enjoyment is derived from the likelihood that he has increased your blood pressure or made steam come out your ears.

And I'm not convinced the word 'fact' would itself be used in any special sense in the everyday language of scientists: they would speak matter-of-factly (no pun intended) about their accumulated knowledge and the theories they are testing without using the word. So this is really a point about the philosophy and nature of science.

I have been struck recently by the realisation that, given religions claim the ethical high ground so strongly, that the devoutly religious might be expected to be adept at ethical philosophical debate. But their religions seem to be as useless at preparing them for that as preparing them for any other kind of intelligent discourse. It's all a low-level recall / trivial interpretation of dogma with little philosophy at all. What a waste!

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

:blabla:

 

[Greg Jennings]

:blabla:

Feel free to actually answer the questions asked of you

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, apologies about my presumption, and I think your deletion was the right policy.

Oh no worries at all.

Part of Stripe's enjoyment is derived from the likelihood that he has increased your blood pressure or made steam come out your ears.

His strategy is to try and goad you into insulting him and/or posting something that he then reports to the board's management, which gets you banned. Then he mocks and taunts you once the ban is implemented.

That's why it's better to mostly ignore him.

And I'm not convinced the word 'fact' would itself be used in any special sense in the everyday language of scientists: they would speak matter-of-factly (no pun intended) about their accumulated knowledge and the theories they are testing without using the word. So this is really a point about the philosophy and nature of science.

In my field, we rarely (if ever) get hung up on that sort of thing. Of course when we write up our material we're very careful about how we phrase things, but in the course of our daily work it just doesn't come up.

About the only time I've ever heard much of anything about the use of the terms "fact", "hypothesis", and "theory" is in discussions with creationists.

I have been struck recently by the realisation that, given religions claim the ethical high ground so strongly, that the devoutly religious might be expected to be adept at ethical philosophical debate. But their religions seem to be as useless at preparing them for that as preparing them for any other kind of intelligent discourse. It's all a low-level recall / trivial interpretation of dogma with little philosophy at all. What a waste!

Well, like I said, this only seems to come up around creationists. And they're mostly just looking for something they can use to bash and criticize science.

The good thing is, they're losing. In the developed world, creationism is pretty much only a factor in the US. But recent surveys are showing that public support in the US for creationism is at an all-time low and that the younger generations' views are in line with the rest of the world.

Like the saying goes....it's not so much a matter of changing minds as it is waiting for older generations to fade away.

 

[Stripe]

Darwinists are forever looking at what is popular instead of considering evidence.

 

[Stuu]

Darwinists are forever looking at what is popular instead of considering evidence.

Another Glyn Tucker record.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Another Glyn Tucker record.

Stuart

Physics, Stuu. Wake us up when you're willing to get on topic.

 

[Stuu]

Physics, Stuu. Wake us up when you're willing to get on topic.

Yes I have no doubt you can't tell the difference between a principle of physics and a platitude. After all, they both start with the letter P.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Yes I have no doubt you can't tell the difference between a principle of physics and a platitude. After all, they both start with the letter P.

Stuart

Nope.

The last post of yours to threaten the gates of common sense was when you listed a whole lot of things that you don't like about the Hydroplate theory. Only one of that list was a scientific concern, and even it showed ignorance of what the book describes.

How can you hope to contribute to a discussion when you have no idea what it is you're arguing against?

 

[Stuu]

Nope.

The last post of yours to threaten the gates of common sense was when you listed a whole lot of things that you don't like about the Hydroplate theory. Only one of that list was a scientific concern, and even it showed ignorance of what the book describes.

How can you hope to contribute to a discussion when you have no idea what it is you're arguing against?

I acknowledge your complete lack of engagement with the objections I raised. All I can conclude is that you aren't interested in contributing to a discussion either.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

I acknowledge your complete lack of engagement with the objections I raised. All I can conclude is that you aren't interested in contributing to a discussion either.

:rotfl:

:mock: Stuu-pid.

 

[Stuu]

:rotfl:

:mock: Stuu-pid.

Yep, that's your best argument.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Yep, that's your best argument.

Nope.

Here is the list of your objections:

The theological implications of having an earth that is preplanned for killing off most of its inhabitants.

The ... low rate of mention of any gods in this idea.

How you could have a reservoir of saline water erupt and rain down on everything. Recent salt water inundation in a campground in Nelson has started the death of all the plant life, so what would the ark inhabitants have eaten while waiting for new crops to grow (and to grow in what)?

The aesthetic value of having a creation that must have looked much more appealing after the flood.

Only one of those is a scientific objection, and that objection shows ignorance of what the book says.

How can you engage sensibly when you have no idea what you're talking about?

 

[Stuu]

Nope.

Here is the list of your objections:



Only one of those is a scientific objection, and that objection shows ignorance of what the book says.

How can you engage sensibly when you have no idea what you're talking about?

Why do my objections have to be scientific? Hydroplate is a religious fantasy, so scientific questions are least appropriate.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Notice how you have no interest in the science, just in venting?

Why do my objections have to be scientific?

They don't. :idunno:

It's just that in a discussion about physics, one would expect you to steer clear of theology. :chuckle:

And speaking about physics, do you know why taps become calcified?

Evolutionism is religious fantasy, and rational, scientific questions are appropriate.

 

[Stripe]

Notice how in one post, Stuu-pid is wailing about the lack of religious content in Dr Walt Brown's book (available in its entirety online at www.creationscience.com), but in another post rants that the Hydroplate theory is entirely religious in nature.

He's so worked up, he can't think straight. :chuckle: