Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 61 of 1104 (844808)
12-05-2018 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Tanypteryx
12-05-2018 12:21 PM


Re: Hehehehe u guys are such jokers
Political science is the one that makes me roll my eyes.
Actually, 'political correctness' is even more asinine. If that isn't an oxymoron, I don't know what is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-05-2018 12:21 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(3)
Message 62 of 1104 (844809)
12-05-2018 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Porkncheese
12-05-2018 4:31 AM


Re: Survey
Porkncheese writes:
100 scientists were surveyed and asked
What are the chances of ToE being completely correct?
Answers varied from 0% to 100%
I would hope that no scientist thinks ToE is 100% correct. What would be the point of continuing to study it if we already understood it completely?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Porkncheese, posted 12-05-2018 4:31 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 63 of 1104 (844814)
12-05-2018 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Porkncheese
12-04-2018 7:38 AM


Re: Hehehehe u guys are such jokers
Dr Adequate writes:
Mechanical engineering isn't a science though.
Bahahahahshaha. OMG. That is hilarious.
Except that Dr Adequate is correct. Engineering isn't a science, but rather a discipline which ideally should make use of the findings of science, but doesn't always. In fact, we've had engineering a lot longer than we've had science. Basically, engineers only concern themselves with what works and what doesn't and they don't care why something works.
I'm a retired software engineer with a strong background in hardware (first trained as a computer systems technician, took a number of university EE classes for fun) having worked closely with EEs for most of my 35-year career. Science is about discovering what's happening and why, hence developing theories is very important. Engineering is only about getting something to work, thus caring next to nothing why something is happening; hence engineers care nothing for theory. The strongest rebuke that an engineer can receive is to be derided for conducting a "science project".
In one job, I was designing the software interface to a new sensor (a humidity sensor, as I seem to recall). Part of that is to take the ADC value (digital form (0 to 255) of an analogy voltage level (0-5 V)) and convert it to the units (eg, % relative humidity). The data sheet only gave us a graph. So I started working on conversion formulae derived from curve fitting. Our EE put an immediate halt to my "science project" and ordered me to just build a look-up table.
In my Linear Circuit Analysis class, our professor had worked as a EE and he often expressed his contempt for scientists and mathematicians as well as for theory. When he introduced the subject of convolution, he told us the story of the delta function. Basically, the delta function is a pulse with an area of 1 and whose pulse width gets shrunk down to zero such that when you apply it to a circuit you're hitting that circuit with an instantaneous signal of infinite amplitude. Engineers came up with it and put it to practical use. It took mathematics about a century to prove the delta function and our professor just laughed at those idiots and their silly fixation with theories and proofs.
Next time you read a list of "creation scientists", notice how many of them are engineers (also how many have degrees in theology and in "food science").

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Porkncheese, posted 12-04-2018 7:38 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 64 of 1104 (844816)
12-05-2018 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Porkncheese
12-03-2018 10:08 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
There was confusion about the term naturalism. I responded and cleared that up.
No, you did not. Please stop lying.
The term in question was not "naturalism", but rather "the naturalistic theory". That is not the same thing. Furthermore, all you did to "clear it up" was to tell us to look it up, then later from Wikipedia you gave a definition for something other than "the naturalistic theory". Of course you couldn't find that definition since it doesn't exist. "The naturalistic theory" is just something that you made up or else you got it from a creationist who had made it up.
I told you to look on YouTube for a video debate between Aron Ra and Mr. Kent Hovind. The reason is because they both use the term "evolution", but entirely differently from each other. Aron Ra uses it correctly, so if you were to look the term up (as you chided us to do) you would find that that definition agrees very strongly with how Aron Ra uses the term. However, Hovind's definition (which he only hints at, because keeping parts of it hidden makes it more useful for deception) is completely at odds with the definition. They both use the same word, but Hovind is talking about something completely different. We would be very justified to ask Hovind to explain what he's talking about, something that would not be satisfied by your glib "Go look it up!".
So our question to you still stands unanswered: Just what exactly do you mean by "the naturalistic theory"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Porkncheese, posted 12-03-2018 10:08 PM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 65 of 1104 (844825)
12-05-2018 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Porkncheese
12-05-2018 4:31 AM


Re: Survey
100 scientists were surveyed and asked
What are the chances of ToE being completely correct?
Answers varied from 0% to 100%
Varying levels of FAITH as some BELIEVE it more than others
Hardly a science when they can't even agree on it
Boy, you have some really shitty arguments, don't you?
But I notice you've given up on the shitty argument in the OP. So is this new one going to be the topic of your next thread, or are you going to find a different way to embarrass yourself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Porkncheese, posted 12-05-2018 4:31 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 66 of 1104 (844829)
12-06-2018 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Tanypteryx
12-05-2018 12:21 PM


Re: Hehehehe u guys are such jokers
"Bible Science" is the one that totally gets me. It's offered at the first University I attended. All they did was reading different versions of Christian Bibles. A degree in Theology followed. That's it. They call themselves scientists after the 3 years of taking that course.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-05-2018 12:21 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by dwise1, posted 12-06-2018 12:59 PM Pressie has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 67 of 1104 (844848)
12-06-2018 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Pressie
12-06-2018 3:25 AM


Re: Hehehehe u guys are such jokers
As I suggested to PnC, take a standard creationist "list of scientists who believe in creation" and read what their degrees are.
Several have degrees in theology or directly related to theology (eg, Hovind's albeit fake PhD in Religious Education). As you just noted.
Several have degrees in education.
A large number have degrees in engineering and in other technical fields. For example, I have seen two with PhDs in "food science", a valid field (read the O'Reilly book, "Cooking for Geeks") but what the frak does that have to do with evolution (not counting the truly stupid creationist argument asking how food evolved)?
Some do have degrees in the sciences, but they are definitely the minority in those lists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Pressie, posted 12-06-2018 3:25 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 68 of 1104 (844849)
12-06-2018 1:55 PM


I think what we're witnessing here is evidence of absense.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

  
Porkncheese
Member (Idle past 268 days)
Posts: 198
From: Australia
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 69 of 1104 (844861)
12-06-2018 9:36 PM


Fossil Record

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Pressie, posted 12-07-2018 3:21 AM Porkncheese has not replied
 Message 71 by Taq, posted 12-07-2018 2:36 PM Porkncheese has not replied
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-09-2018 10:41 PM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 70 of 1104 (844866)
12-07-2018 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Porkncheese
12-06-2018 9:36 PM


Re: Fossil Record
You were not asked to classify the fossils as either Ape or Human.
This was the question asked after the image:
Taq writes:
"A" is a chimp and "L" is a modern human. The rest are laid out in chronological order. This sure looks like macroevolution to me. If you disagree, please tell us what features these fossils are missing that you would need to see in order to accept it as evidence for macroevolution.
Please comment on this. After all, this forum is there for dialogue.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Porkncheese, posted 12-06-2018 9:36 PM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 71 of 1104 (844903)
12-07-2018 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Porkncheese
12-06-2018 9:36 PM


Re: Fossil Record
We need to see a list of criteria you are using to determine if these fossils are transitional or not. If you can't list these criteria, then it is pretty obvious that all you have is straight denial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Porkncheese, posted 12-06-2018 9:36 PM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 72 of 1104 (844995)
12-09-2018 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Porkncheese
12-06-2018 9:36 PM


Re: Fossil Record
Fascinating. So you think that of these three A and M are two of a kind, and N is the odd one out?
So, some questions spring to mind.
(1) In god's name why?
(2) Are you legally blind?
(3) Why do you suppose so few creationists even agree with you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Porkncheese, posted 12-06-2018 9:36 PM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 73 of 1104 (845006)
12-10-2018 6:02 AM


I think that Porkncheese abandoned us. The basic and honest replies to the statements he/she made were just too hard for him/her to be able to comprehend.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-12-2018 2:11 PM Pressie has replied
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2018 10:03 PM Pressie has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 74 of 1104 (845095)
12-12-2018 4:09 AM


Bump for Porkncheese.

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(2)
Message 75 of 1104 (845146)
12-12-2018 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Pressie
12-10-2018 6:02 AM


The basic and honest replies to the statements he/she made were just too hard for him/her to be able to comprehend.
It has to be a he. I have never heard a woman blame the atheists for not getting laid. He is definitely a guy who had his balls handed to him by female atheist evolutionist.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Pressie, posted 12-10-2018 6:02 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Pressie, posted 12-13-2018 6:03 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024