21 Nov 08
after all your comments people i think that we can safely assume , not that we want to base anything on assumptions, no Socrates would never have that would he beetle my friend, that you also acquiesce and are of the same mind that Darwinian evolutionairy theory cannot be subjected to the scientific model and therefore is unscientific, any objections?
21 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou've just ignored a whole list of objections to your misrepresentation or misunderstanding of Dobzhansky and Popper. According to your logic, it would be appear, no scientific theory can be 'scientific fact' (what is a scientific fact?) because all theory is conjecture to some extent. Yet you claim the Earth is billions of years old. Such contradictions.
after all your comments people i think that we can safely assume , not that we want to base anything on assumptions, no Socrates would never have that would he beetle my friend, that you also acquiesce and are of the same mind that Darwinian evolutionairy theory cannot be subjected to the scientific model and therefore is unscientific, any objections?
I have to laugh. You draw on Dobzhansky to support your views blithely ignoring what he actually thought -- that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Come on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
21 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Problems_and_issues
after all your comments people i think that we can safely assume , not that we want to base anything on assumptions, no Socrates would never have that would he beetle my friend, that you also acquiesce and are of the same mind that Darwinian evolutionairy theory cannot be subjected to the scientific model and therefore is unscientific, any objections?
In the twentieth century, a hypothetico-deductive model for scientific method was formulated (for a more formal discussion, see below):
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
do this with evolution. tell me if you can disprove it.
21 Nov 08
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagelol, most of the objections had nothing to do with evolution but rather with the biblical account of genesis, the best you guys can come up with is words like 'misrepresentation and misunderstanding', so if that's the best you got i have no other option to conclude, due to lack of supporting evidence, that the statement stands!
You've just ignored a whole list of objections to your misrepresentation or misunderstanding of Dobzhansky and Popper. According to your logic, it would be appear, no scientific theory can be 'scientific fact' (what is a scientific fact?) because all theory is conjecture to some extent. Yet you claim the Earth is billions of years old. Such contradicti ...[text shortened]... ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
however i would agree with you whole heatedly for as evolutionist Peter Medawar puts it: 'for a biologist the alternative to thinking in evolutionary terms is not to think at all.'
cunning i know to use protagonists of evolutionary 'science', but i had to have recourse to something that you would at least respect, if not accept, even the great Wily E Coyote would have agreed with this stance, as it is if you have no further objection then the statement stands. ding ding round two!
21 Nov 08
Originally posted by Zahlanziyou are OUT, please you are wasting your time, i do not read your posts!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Problems_and_issues
In the twentieth century, a hypothetico-deductive model for scientific method was formulated (for a more formal discussion, see below):
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then mo ...[text shortened]... s called affirming the consequent.
do this with evolution. tell me if you can disprove it.
21 Nov 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageRobbie, like everybody, has his unique, personal view, and that's allright.
I'll give you a "Braise Jebus" 🙂
Yes, robbiecarrobie is a politician of the spiritual, marrying YEC views with Islamophobia of the worst kind. Apart from that he seems a nice enough bloke with a good brain.
Popper also pointed out how important it is for the Human to become able to let the theories die due time on their own, Bosse; for, thanks to the basic operation of the spirit of the World 3, the Human is able to critisize everything and at the same time he can choose the theory which he considers as best, without feeling the need to force the death of the creator and of the supporters of the rival theories.
robbie debates using reasoning, and he does it because he wants to express his views and to hear the views of the others -and he wants to have a good time too. He does not preaching but he debates, therefore prooving that his reasoning is wrong is more than enough. And surely over here the tools required are solely aporetics, comprehension, sympathy and a cup of kindness yet.
21 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
after all your comments people i think that we can safely assume , not that we want to base anything on assumptions, no Socrates would never have that would he beetle my friend, that you also acquiesce and are of the same mind that Darwinian evolutionairy theory cannot be subjected to the scientific model and therefore is unscientific, any objections?
21 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI showed you that your use of Popper misrepresented him by quoting his actual words, but you've repeatedly ignored that. In fact you haven't responded adequately to any of my posts. So I'll ring the bell this time: ding, ding, ding, you're, out.
lol, most of the objections had nothing to do with evolution but rather with the biblical account of genesis, the best you guys can come up with is words like 'misrepresentation and misunderstanding', so if that's the best you got i have no other option to conclude, due to lack of supporting evidence, that the statement stands!
21 Nov 08
Originally posted by black beetleThe point about theories dying over time is well taken.
robbie debates using reasoning, and he does it because he wants to express his views and to hear the views of the others -and he wants to have a good time too. He does not preaching but he debates, therefore prooving that his reasoning is wrong is more than enough. And surely over here the tools required are solely aporetics, comprehension, sympathy and a cup of kindness yet.
Your charity is commendable but I find robbiecarrobie's persistent refusal to address rebuttals of his argument annoying in the extreme. I would limit myself to one pint with him and then go to another table.
21 Nov 08
Originally posted by black beetleoh beetle, you claim that there is no virtue in your poor atheistic being, once again you have shown otherwise, oh but i were born a noble Greek rather than a Scottish peasant farmer, my claim to nobility would lay safe in the ancestral legacy of reason and logic, with the spirit of Socrates i would descend upon measly opinion and subject it to the rigors of interrogation to ascertain its true value, but alas i am but a peasant, and like the field mouse must make ready for winter, for greater forces than both are afoot and i must away with bickering prattle!
Robbie, like everybody, has his unique, personal view, and that's allright.
Popper also pointed out how important it is for the Human to become able to let the theories die due time on their own, Bosse; for, thanks to the basic operation of the spirit of the World 3, the Human is able to critisize everything and at the same time he can choose the the ...[text shortened]... ere the tools required are solely aporetics, comprehension, sympathy and a cup of kindness yet.
21 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo here is a non-ad hominem attack argument with real teeth and you refuse to acknowledge it, instead, sticking your thumbs in your ears and yelling, Nya Nya Nya Nya, I can't hear you.....
you are OUT, please you are wasting your time, i do not read your posts!
21 Nov 08
Nope, robbie🙂
A whole complex of sciences supports the theory of the evolution due to sientif facts and evidence. This theory is the best we have today regarding the evolution of the species, and this is the reason why it is accepted by so many scientific fields, by philosophers and by scientists. And, I assure you, the very moment that a single fact or scientific evidence at any scientific field will become a hint that the theory of the evolution is false, then the whole scientific community will take asap the new direction. No ultimate truth, nothing holy 😵
21 Nov 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWrong. I play chess but I am not Kasparov. Help me boost my elo, you filthy BdN😵
The point about theories dying over time is well taken.
Your charity is commendable but I find robbiecarrobie's persistent refusal to address rebuttals of his argument annoying in the extreme. I would limit myself to one pint with him and then go to another table.
21 Nov 08
Originally posted by black beetlei didn't see reason yet in his posts. he claims evolution to be pseudo-science yet he doesn't explain why. he just uses quotes that he mostly doesn't understand (or uses them incorrectly). by his own views, evolution, like creationism cannot be proven or disproved. so they are both therefore unscientific.
Robbie, like everybody, has his unique, personal view, and that's allright.
Popper also pointed out how important it is for the Human to become able to let the theories die due time on their own, Bosse; for, thanks to the basic operation of the spirit of the World 3, the Human is able to critisize everything and at the same time he can choose the the ...[text shortened]... ere the tools required are solely aporetics, comprehension, sympathy and a cup of kindness yet.
however, he did said later that the world was not created 6000 years ago. that says that creationism is contradicted by reality. plants cannot exist without the sun yet the sun was created before the plants: another contradiction. genetics say that serious problem arise if you have children with your mother or sister, yet the whole population of earth came from adam, eve and their children and then from noah, his wife and their 3 sons with their wives.
the only way creationism can work is if God personally intervened in every step of the process, make sure incest doesn't produce retards and still born babies, that cain is not murdered by the other people of the earth(who appeared magically), that the koalas and kangaroos survive even if they were not invited on the arc, that all the early people live hundreds of years.
so in order for the theory to work a magical being must intervene, to tweak it whenever it goes wrong. this opens the way of new and interesting opportunities: like the existence of pink fluffy dinosaurs that existed in Antarctica just before the explorers went there and were made to magically disappear by god just before anyone could see them. this is definitely not science