|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
Porkncheese writes: Goodbye Hello! Since you're leaving already and won't be replying I'll take a few minutes to say a few parting words classifying your comments as true, false, misleading and/or ignorant and/or confused, beginning with Message 1.
Porkncheese in Message 1 writes: It is surprising that so many people seem to be so sure of their views and opinions when neither evolutionists or creationists have very convincing stories. False. Evolution has evidence, creationism doesn't.
The creationists are relying on ancient texts some of which is so absurd they cannot be taken literally. These texts are not written by God but by man. True - religious texts are written by men.
Evolutionists on the other hand seem to have just created this theory without conclusive evidence. False and ignorant. The theory began with a mountain of evidence in Darwin's Origin of Species, and the evidence has increased enormously since then.
Their only objective seems to be to discredit religion. False and ignorant. Read a biology textbook someday and you'll find it contains nothing discrediting religion.
I find this extremely frustrating. Religion should not factor into any scientific field. Ignorant and confused. You must be thinking about the efforts of scientists to oppose the teaching of creationism in schools.
When you see Richard Dawkins admitting that intelligent design is possible then you have to ask yourself. False. You've been watching Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, where an interview with Richard Dawkins is manipulated to make it seem like he endorses intelligent design. He was actually only describing how intelligent design contains an infinite regression that can only end at God. In other words, intelligent design is a failed attempt by creationists to hide God in order to make their ideas seem more scientific.
Why did you go on such a hate campaign against all religions... False and ignorant. Those on the side of science only oppose those who are promoting the teaching of creationism in schools.
...when you cannot even explain the beginning of life... Confused. The origin life (abiogenesis) is not part of the theory of evolution. It's about the origin of species, not the origin of life. It's about how species come from prior species, how species change over time, through the processes of descent with modification and natural selection.
...and you actually admit that intelligent design is possible. False and confused. Intelligent design is certainly possible, but if life on Earth didn't arise here but was brought here or created here by an intelligent race, that intelligent race had to have a prior intelligent race create it. And that prior intelligent race had to have a yet even earlier intelligent race create it. Somewhere back in time there had to have been the first intelligent race. Where did that first intelligent race come from? Anyone who truly believes that life could never arise naturally will answer "God," and that's why intelligent design does not remove God from the equation.
A wise man once said "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing" This still applies today False, as you admit later when you say it was overstated and that you were just trying to get attention. I do think that most people here believe it helps to know the limits of your own knowledge. Moving on to your Message 7:
Porkncheese in Message 7 writes: Evidence is not conclusive nor is it absolute. True, but nobody said it was. Science is tentative.
I agree but then why do people take issue with questions being raised. False and misleading. You asked no questions in your first message. You asked accusatory questions, such as, "Why did you go on such a hate campaign..."
1. No one knows everything which some people seem to deny Blatantly false. No one claimed there are people who know everything, and it would be absurd to do so.
2. The evidence used is inconclusive and not absolute which most people have a really hard time accepting. Misleading at best. Science is tentative, something no one here has any trouble accepting. But the evidence for evolution is copious and persuasive.
And something being taught as fact in public schools should be absolute and conclusive like F=ma. Ah, physics, yes, absolute and conclusive, like spooky action at a distance, wave/particle duality, and Schrdinger's cat. Schools teach the current state of knowledge, not what is "absolute and conclusive".
As for silly questions, are you saying I've asked silly questions. If so is there no tolerance for someone who admittedly is ignorant in biology and confused? Misleading. Some may have called your questions silly, but as I said before, I think they were accusatory.
And if my questions are so outrageous than why has no one been able answer them. False. Your questions were answered. The accusations they made were untrue.
They are questions not made up by myself. I am merely parroting the ideas and points made by many others. True. You're parroting creationist points.
Like why don't we see thousands of intermediate fossils of humans? Ignorant. First, let's be clear about what you're asking. Obviously you're not asking why we don't find fossils of thousands of intermediates - so many intermediates would be ridiculous. So you must be asking why we don't find thousands of fossils of intermediate human species, and the answer is that we do. This link to the Human Fossils page at the Smithsonian says:
quote: Let me ask you a question: Why do you ask questions without doing any homework, in this case that imply something that is actually false?
What kind of predictions have been made to support the theory? Probably the most well known recent prediction was of Tiktaalik. From geological and fossil evidence Neil Shubin, a scientist at the University of Chicago, predicted that if he searched in a certain region of the Arctic that he would find fossil evidence of the transition of animal life from sea to land. And he did.
What are the best forms of evidence supporting the theory? Good question, and there were a few good answers. Among the best: the nested hierarchy, the fossil record, genetics. If you ever come back from your snow trip we can dig into the evidence for evolution as deeply as you like.
Have I been rude at all? Yes, of course. Why would you think accusatory questions are anything but?
Haven't I stuck to the subject? I suppose you've stuck to the subject about as closely as someone ignorant of the subject could.
But my points are never addressed. Misleading. You didn't make any points.
And no one can produce anything for me to consider. False, though it does seem that no one can produce anything you're willing to consider.
Furthermore i keep being accused of being a heretic which makes my blood boil. If you're going to parrot (your term) the ideas and points of creationists, what else can people conclude but that you're a creationist?
Yet I have kept my cool and stayed on track. False. You haven't. You've run off in a huff of profanity and accusation to play in the snow. Moving on to Message 23.
Porkncheese in Message 23 writes: I've seen and heard enough. People are still making these religious allegations that are so fucking insulting I cannot stand it anymore. Like I said before, if you dislike being mistaken for a creationist, then don't draw all your source material from creationists.
This is not a religion. This is a cult. False. Unfounded and emotional assertion.
These ToE people love to try and read between the lines not only in terms of my writing but life. Seeing their insulting theories about me were incorrect then I wonder if all their theories are incorrect. False. You're confounding two different definitions of the word theory.
I see different opinions in your people. As with the statement "no evidence is conclusive nothing is absolute". There are differences in peoples view of that. True. That's just normal. What would be really strange is if everyone interpreted your question the same way and provided the same answer.
Interestingly is that both views involve inbreeding at the very beginning (even though ToE doesn't cover that it is still "science"). False and ignorant. Inbreeding requires sexual reproduction, and there was no sexual reproduction "at the very beginning".
And both have the same beginning of there just being nothing. False, in any way you mean it. If you're referring to the beginning of life, evolution is not about the origin of life. And if you're referring to the origin of the universe, we don't know what came before the Big Bang.
To RAZD after taking time to objectively read your post... You mean his post that isn't in this thread and that you don't link to? Good show!
Review your statements on Newtons Law (not theory) because I think you have misunderstood it and its practical application on earth as it is not superseded by general relativity which I have never seen used in mechanical engineering. False. All motion is Einsteinian. It's just that the effects aren't noticeable at non-relativistic speeds, so Newtonian laws of motion are sufficient.
Every damn argument here has involved religion. False.
Why has religion influenced science like this? FUCK RELIGION OK FUCK IT. Why is it always part of your explanations? Getting back to something you claimed before, hey, way to maintain your cool! This site was created to host the debate between evolution and creation. There have been exceptionally few members who were against evolution but were not creationists, and your objections echo creationist objections.
People I know in biology tell me that any hypothesis formed by a student must comply to the theory of evolution regardless of the strength in the data, facts or evidence before them. False. And nobody here said this.
Like WTF, this outrages me even more than teaching false information to our children. And I learn that this is the case in all western universities. So in order of preventing people disproving the theory we will make it unacceptable to do so. It is holding back science. Cellular biology is apparently waiting to advance but are held back by this Neo Darwanistic regime along with other fields of science too. Get over it, just because these stupid people are following these stupid religions it does not mean you must stoop to their level. At the moment Biology has stooped to that level. I must trust these scientists. Have faith in them and their all encompassing knowledge. Ye sure. If you don't want to be taken for a creationist then why are you speaking just like a creationist?
Anyway Im off on a snow trip now and will most likely not re visit this site so best of luck to all (even the haters) Be objective, trust the word of no one and question everything. Goodbye If you're truly not a creationist and are actually just an innocent intelligent design advocate, don't forget that infinite regression that must end at God. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typos.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
Hey, Porky, welcome back! I didn't think we'd see you again.
Porkncheese in reply to RAZD writes: This is on that website you provided."Dendrogram The following dendrogram represents a somewhat misleadlingly linear "great chain of being" / "ascent of man" model of human evolution. Hopefully this will be corrected in future, as the various other branche son the primate evolutionary tree are fille dout." What you quoted is on the website, but it's not one of the webpages RAZD linked to. It's on Palaeos Vertebrates Primates Dendrogram. Don't know why RAZD sent you to that website. That dendrogram makes it seem like chimps (Pan) are descended from gorillas (they're not), and that people are descended from chimps (they're not). And then there's the typos.
Its says it's misleading. All the suggestions I've read on that site and elsewhere start with "probably" "perhaps" "maybe" or other words of this nature. Yes, it's very misleading. And the words "probably", "perhaps" and "maybe' do not occur on this page, and I don't see where they occur on any other pages in ways that would lead you to question them, so you're going to have to be specific about which webpages. Primate evolution, especially hominid evolution, is thought to be more of an incestuous bush than a linear progression. I'm not sure what RAZD was trying to communicate, but here's a simple evolutionary tree that gives a good idea of degree of relatedness. As you can see, humans are closest to chimps, next closest to gorillas, next closest to orangutans, and so forth (click on image to enlarge):
You asked about evolution before primates, and that turns out to have a complicated answer. Old World monkeys split from New World monkeys about 35 million years ago, so obviously there were already primates by that time. As near as I can tell by poking about on Wikipedia (try Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia) the first primates came about around a 100 million years ago at the same time as tree shrews, rodents and rabbits. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
POrkncheese writes: ToE has collapsed under its own admissions of speculation being drawn from fossil evidence that is very fragmented. In a revealing statement that completely exposed the theory it was admitted that Mammals will remain rather shadowy creatures for us until more fossil data become available Well, so much for objectivity, clear thinking and careful analysis. Plus you're misquoting and distorting the information provided by Tangle in Message 51. The quote said "very fragmentary", not "very fragmented". And it was referring to the "first primate-like mammals", not mammals in general. "Mammals will remain rather shadowy creatures..." - what a hoot!
Obviously not enough data to draw factual conclusions from The ToE doesn't depend upon on the fossil evidence for the origin of primates. What information we do have fits into the ToE framework. I thought we'd already settled that we don't know everything, but you seem to have returned from your snow trip believing that if there's something we don't know then we don't know anything. I guess in your view cosmology is "completely exposed" since they don't know what dark matter is. And I guess you think quantum theory "has collapsed under its own admissions of speculation" since they don't know which slit a particle will pass through. And I guess you believe geology had better throw in the towel since they don't know the complete geological history of that rock in your back yard. Have any other stunning revelations for us? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
Porkncheese writes: Links to articles claiming to refute dna evidenceNew Discoveries In Genetics Refute Evolution Theory DNA Evidence Debunks the "Out-of-Africa" Theory of Human Evolution | Wake Up World From the Forum Guidelines:
In any case, the first link is to a creationist website - you dismissed creationists in your first message. The second link is to a hodgepodge of a website. The homepage is about Home and Garden, but he's got articles about all kinds of topics, including the one you link to called DNA Evidence Debunks the Out-of-Africa Theory of Human Evolution. What on earth does debunking the "Out of Africa" hypothesis have to do with debunking the theory of evolution? The previous and next articles are completely unrelated: Black Seed Extract ‘Cures’ HIV Patient Naturally and What If Animals Could Talk to You?. So these are the kinds of websites you think are providing you reliable information: creationist websites on the one hand, and wacky "no topic too weird" websites. Again, what a hoot! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
Porkncheese writes: Ridicule... Number 1 defence for the defenceless. Ridiculing myself with unfounded claims that are irrelevant to the debate. Ridiculing every link I have posted to avoid addressing the points made. Its a weak defence. Ridicule? By JonF in his Message 66, the message you replied to? Are you daft? There was no ridicule there, but you sure deserve some ridicule now. Get a clue, mate.
I haven't personally attacked anyone despite being outnumbered by a team with a hostile attitude. You accused us of a campaign of hate.
I have accepted all forms of media without criticism of its source, including random pictures without reference and even pictures that have no relevance to the issue. And managed to come away from it all without learning a thing.
Given these statements can man accurately be traced back from 80 million years back to 6.5 billion years to ocean creatures? The way the animations depict it? With every step of evolution for every species? Wow, you sure like to move the goalposts a bit, don't you? From human evolution to primate evolution to the origin of primates to how life came from the oceans. By the way, you're going to have a bit of a problem tracing the evolution of anything "back to 6.5 billion years to ocean creatures." The Earth is only around 4.6 billion years old.
The conclusion I draw from this is that we don't have enough evidence to conclude much at all before this era. Certainly not enough to track the evolution of man back to the sea. Rarely has no much conclusion been based on so little knowledge.
Is that not a fair assessment given the scientific text presented and the given statement? Be honest. You're drawing conclusions about how much we know about human evolution "back to the sea" from a single paragraph that was about the origin of primates? That's idiotic. You not only know little, you have no clue how to improve your situation. Be honest. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
Porkncheese writes: The simple fact that we don't know everything has really ruffled feathers. No one thinks or claims we know everything, and this has been explained to you several times before. What's wrong with you?
Even against dozens of fanatics, one man with only a basic knowledge of ToE... Don't flatter yourself. Your errors have been rampant. Plumbing the depths of your ignorance will take time.
With no scientific arguments against the facts... You haven't introduced any facts into the discussion, which has mostly been us correcting your errors.
In conclusion I find the arguments of both sides to be totally exaggerated. You haven't examined the creationist side in this thread, you've barely touched the evolutionist side, and almost everything you've said has been wrong.
Neither side will accept the others arguments and both sides claim to be in the possession of total knowledge based on faith of scripts. Wrong again. Those on the side of science do not "claim to be in the possession of total knowledge." Besides just being a silly and absurdly untrue claim, as a practical matter total knowledge would leave scientists with no research to do.
Anyways I'll leave... What, you're leaving again? That's the second time.
...and go back to a real science which doesn't accept the theoretical without it being shown in practice. Where assumptions lead to fatal catastrophies. Where the laws of physics are truthful facts that remain constant and are never in doubt or questioned. Okay, Mr. Erector Set Man. Have fun in your fictional world of certainty. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
Porkncheese writes: wtf... the constant false accusations is not abuse??? What false accusations? There have been no false accusations and no abuse. You must make errors at the rate of one per sentence. It seems that if you're typing you're being wrong about something.
the constant ridicule is not abuse??? If you dislike ridicule then stop being ridiculous.
im out of here This is the third time you've announced your departure. Your history suggests you're wrong about it this time, too. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
Porkncheese writes: have fun picking it all apart... Picking it all apart? There was nothing to pick apart. Your posts were just a series of simple and obvious errors and falsities.
...and avoiding the point again ok... There is no need to avoid a point that was never made
have a good laugh.... Stop feeling sorry for yourself, stop being emotional, start learning some things, and start saying things that are actually true.
this has wasted enough of my time back to the real world for me. leave it for the fanatics i reckon Yet a fourth announcement that you're leaving - shall we guess that you are yet again wrong? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
Porkncheese writes: RAZD I asked you about the dendrogram on message 44. Ur explination came much later on message 85. Meanwhile on message 46 Percy also calls it misleading and says that it is wrong. I don't know why RAZD is using that misleading diagram. It makes it seem that chimps descended from gorillas and that humans descended from chimps. That definitely is not the case. Here's a much less detailed diagram that at least lends an accurate picture:
Chimps and bonobos are on the right and are very closely related to each other. Humans and chimp/bonobos shared a common ancestor around 4-6 million years ago. It's very important to understand that that common ancestor was neither human nor chimp nor bonobo. It was something else that was closely related. Further down the tree you can see that humans/chimps/bonobos shared a common ancestor with gorillas around 6-8 million years again. Again, it's important to understand that this common ancestor was neither gorilla, human, chimp or bonobo but something else that was closely related. I'll repeat again that this chart is way oversimplified, but it at least accurately reflects the current state of our knowledge. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
Using diagrams that even people who agree with you easily misinterpret is probably going to work even less well with people who don't agree with you.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
Porkncheese writes: RAZD asked me to ask you why that diagram was wrong. Can u just tell him directly please. I don't need to be a mediator. I don't think RAZD's diagram is wrong, it's just misleading, and I think it's because the character graphics they use to show descent just don't mean to me what was intended. For example:
└─┬─Pan └─Hominini To my eyes this says that Hominini is descended from Pan, when what I think it is trying to say is that Pan and Hominini were descended from a common ancestor. In other words, to me it looks like it's saying this:
Pan \ Hominini But that's obviously wrong, so then I thought it might mean this:
/\ / \ / \ / \ Hominini Pan But looking up Hominini at Wikipedia it seems that it includes Homo, Pan and Australopithecina (extinct), which would be this and would mean RAZD's diagram is wrong or I just have no idea how to interpret it properly:
Hominini | --------------------------- | | | Homo Pan Australopithecina RAZD is rarely wrong, but he tends to unload a lot of data all at once that is much more lengthy and complex than necessary to making the point. The analogy would be day 1 of a course where someone asks a question, and in response the professor jumps forward to Chapter 14 and expects everyone to follow along. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024