 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Alternative to Science??
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 13 Dec 12 - 12:55 PM ""The scientist is a kind of artist."" So are you Guffish. We're just trying to decide what kind. Now let's see, P*ss?, or T*ss? or just plain Con? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 13 Dec 12 - 03:18 PM Con????...I'm not trying to get anything from you, to 'con' you out of anything.....but it would be to YOUR benefit, to have an open mind...beyond the 'party line of bullshit'...after all, WE are the artists(?)...it would behoove you to rise about repeating the same ol' crap over and over....and give your 'art affectionados' something more to think about...or you could always sing 'Kumbaya' and 'Michael Rowed the Boat Ashore'...and strum it boringly, and give them NOTHING to think about.... Hey..maybe you could 'inspire' them to join a political party..either one...that way all they have to do is nod their heads, while others do their 'thinking' for them, and tell them what to think...just about anything! Welcome to the 'Center of Nothing'! Wanna' roast a marshmallow?....maybe someone else can sing 'Kumbaya' FOR you!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Dec 12 - 07:41 PM Hi Steve. I just wondered if you had any thoughts on what Dawkins has to say about falsifiability. The key semtence, in case you missed it is "Evolution, in other words, is a falsifiable, and therefore scientific, theory." Not hectoring, just couching a very apposite question. Your problem is, oh slime-traily one, that you think I'm somehow opposed to Popper and his falsifiability. The fact of the matter is that you are are trying to show how clever you are by raising it. So, let me ask you, hectoring-free, why it is that you suspect, apparently, and so misguidedly (your trademark, actually), why you think I don't adhere to yer man? Because (just like Popper - why don't you check?) that I consider that science is capable of yielding truths? Or, heaven forfend, that you think I've never heard of Popper because I've never mentioned him or that you think, heaven forfend ever more, I've never heard of him? Ooooh, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Dec 12 - 07:54 PM My my...inquisitive minds want to know.....hmmm...do I know the nature of my position on homosexuality.....well, as I said before, I know what it is,...so I don't have to be bullshitted by anyone's political agenda telling me something that isn't....and I know what it's not......so I don't have to be bullshitted by anyone's political agenda telling me something that isn't......and then I have another opinion....but alas, it's supported by science. You wouldn't be interested. Oh but I am interested! I'd simply love to know what your homosexuality position is, darling Guffster! Especially if supported by science (call me Mr Kinky)! Now melover (as we say here in Kernow), do apprise us as to whether you personally, science aside and all that, think that it's OK to be gay. I'm an innocent in all this, Guffo! I have no agenda! I'm open to everything! (hey, but slow down, fella!). As they say on the Beeb every Saturday at 2pm, any answers? (Cor, and isn't that Jonathan Dimbleby just gorgeous!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Dec 12 - 08:32 PM Gosh, went a bit mad with the never heard of stuff there, Helix! Amazing how a few hours on the M6 can addle the brain. :-( |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 13 Dec 12 - 11:30 PM Steve Shaw: "I have no agenda! I'm open to everything!" I'm calling your bluff.... Do you mean what you say?.....or just speak from what's in you? Enjoy! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 Dec 12 - 06:01 AM Heheh. Talk about evasive. He resurrects his tired old shroud videos and hopes I won't notice the diversion. Hey, Guffers! Give me a 400-word summary of yer video! I have tunes to learn! And, when you've done, do tell me whether you think it's OK to be gay. I'm increasingly coming to think that you don't. That it's immoral. Should be illegal. That you think gay people are just dirty buggers. Should be banned. Demonstrate to us how you're not a homophobe, old chap! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: TheSnail Date: 14 Dec 12 - 12:41 PM Well, Steve, passing over your senior moment on the M6,we have a bit of you usual schoolboy style abuse, an ad hominem attack and a few questions of your own but absolutely no attempt to answer my question. (Heheh. Talk about evasive.) Nevertheless... you think I'm somehow opposed to Popper and his falsifiability. ... why it is that you suspect, .... why you think I don't adhere to yer man? For a start, there is your recently unsupported claim that Popper "had to acknowledge his own reservations about it. That makes it a bit strange that, 12 years after Popper's death, Dawkins was emphasising the importance of falsifiability to justify the scientific status of evolution. On a previous thread when I quoted a website on falsifiability you responded "utterly risible" "a load of pretentious old bollocks" "crock of shite". Doesn't sound like a very positve response. Because (just like Popper - why don't you check?) that I consider that science is capable of yielding truths? Nobody is denying that science can yield truths and Popper described science as the pursuit of truth with the proviso that certainty could never be achieved. That doesn't mean you can describe a theory as true. Perhaps you could provide me with some supporting references. While looking for evidence, I did find some good Popper quotes - Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve. The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game. I have no way of knowing whether you had heard of hin before this and I doubt if you are going to tell us. There are two possibilities; either you haven't heard of him in which case you have a learning opportunity or you have and you reject what he has to say. So who do we trust? Professor Sir Karl Popper, CH FRS FBA who has been decribed by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy thus - Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. or Steve Shaw. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 Dec 12 - 01:22 PM Well you don't trust Dawkins but I wouldn't accuse you of not having heard of him, etc. (and I don't not trust Popper, before you start). The rest of your post is self-justifying waffle. Here, have a read about truth from Wednesday's Grauniad. If it's true, it's true, and there's nowt you can do about it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2012/dec/12/don-t-believe-in-quantum-physics The difference between science and both politics and religion is that it doesn't require followers or believers. If it's true then it's true, even if no one believes it's true. If it's false, then all the believers in the world won't make it true. So far as believing in quantum physics, it doesn't matter at all, as long as you aren't a science teacher or a designer of integrated circuits, because quantum physics operates at the subatomic level. But your computer wouldn't work if quantum physics wasn't true, just as your satnav wouldn't work if Einstein's theory of special relativity was wrong. And finally: Nobody is denying that science can yield truths You are! Scientific study has demonstrated the truth, in its main tenets, of evolution. Not of evolution theory, of evolution. If you know of anything truer than evolution that science has ever elucidated for us, then let's be having it. The trouble with you, apart from your extremely thin skin, is that you seem to think that we must reserve the word truth only for Goddish things (see how you defend pete, the man with by far the most malign views in this thread). You don't trust Dawkins either. Hmm. Fits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: saulgoldie Date: 14 Dec 12 - 02:14 PM You don't believe in science? Science doesn't care. Science believes in you, anyway. Don't believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun? It does, whether you "believe" or the Catholic Church "believed" it when Galileo first said otherwise 500 years ago. Don't believe in gravity? Gravity does not care. It still sucks. You don't "believe in" evolution? Well, evolution doesn't particularly givashit whether you do. Most species of living things have evolved, although some might argue that *some* beings in the shape of humans somehow, um, missed the boat. Don't "believe" in medical science? Well when was the last time you opted to not avail yourself of modern medicine because you don't "believe" it exists? But I grow weary of your silliness. I just check in from time to time to see if there is any "intelligence" from the non-"believers." So far, there isn't. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 14 Dec 12 - 06:47 PM far as i can see ,saul,you just check in from time to time to keep repeating the same thing-albeit in alternate takes-and not acknowledging others that expressed the mis-apprehension of your claim that there is in fact no faith and science conflict ,-certainly not in the realm of useful science. what has darwinism contributed to practical science that is not already within the creation model. i can remind you again of where it has hindered scientific advance! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 15 Dec 12 - 03:15 AM Perhaps because Darwin never tried writing an alternative to your precious bible. Prior to Biblical times nobody had heard of the Bible. Prior to Darwin evolution existed and didn't alter its entropatic course as a result of its inclusion in human knowledge. Whereas your Bible and other scriptures only existed once they had been written. Before some bloke with a vivid imagination wrote Genesis, it didn't exist. Along with your time frame for creationism. .. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 15 Dec 12 - 04:04 AM "what has darwinism contributed to practical science that is not already within the creation model." Whoooaaa! Where the hell do you start with a question like that? Like relativity and quantum mechanics, Darwin's theory of evolution has given us profound insights into the world around us and an explanation for how aspects of it work. Creationism, on the other hand, is based on an obsolete and discredited guess confined within the pages of an old book. A small group of fanatics, mainly driven by by an irrational force called "faith", insist on clinging to this guess. They have contributed nothing whatsoever to "practical science" but would destroy it if they could because it threatens their "faith". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 Dec 12 - 05:47 AM I wouldn't even bother starting with a question like that. It's the wrong question and it was put by an ignorant troll. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: TheSnail Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:48 AM Thanks for the link to the Guardian Notes & Queries column Steve. The reader contribution you quoted was from someone calling himself Robbothedoc. Quite what his academic status is we can't tell but he appears to be from the Scientific-theory-as-a-belief-system school of thought. Well you don't trust Dawkins Who said? I am sure he is a very capable and knowledgeable man; I just find some of his pronouncements a bit puzzling. He invokes falsifiability to justify the claim that evolution is scientific yet declares it to be true. How can he have it both ways? Here's a video of him in action. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIkZ42cmiTA And finally: Nobody is denying that science can yield truths You are! No I'm not, I'm saying that scientific theories can't be described as true. Scientific study has demonstrated the truth, in its main tenets, of evolution. Not of evolution theory, of evolution. Not really getting anywhere am I? Since you have frequently used evolution and the theory of evolution interchangeably (sometimes in the same sentence), it's difficult to be sure what you mean. You once referred to evolution as a concept. Could you give a straightforward definition of what you mean by evolution ( as opposed to the theory)? It helps if we agree on what we are talking about. Perhaps this would help from the New Scientist Evolution has several facets. The first is the theory that all living species are the modified descendents of earlier species, and that we all share a common ancestor in the distant past. All species are therefore related via a vast tree of life. The second is that this evolution is driven by a process of natural selection or the - "survival of the fittest". That seems to imply that the term "evolution" is a composite of two theories. I notice that in the quote from Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution he calls evolution a theory. If you know of anything truer than evolution that science has ever elucidated for us, then let's be having it. The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 metres per second. Since you are very good at brushing aside quotes from the great and good, how about this one? "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong" Albert Einstein Thank you for laying off the childish abuse. If you could drop the ad hominem attacks as well it would do no end of good for your credibility. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:26 PM If you know of anything truer than evolution that science has ever elucidated for us, then let's be having it. The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 metres per second. Evolution is abundantly demonstrable to such a degree that, in its major tenets, it cannot be overturned. The speed of light in a vacuum (by which I assume you mean a perfect vacuum) has never been demonstrated, as a perfect vacuum has never been detected nor has ever been produced. Actually, I'm pretty sure you're right that your speed of light example is true. But the evidence for it is indirect. It involves an extrapolation. The evidence for evolution, on the other hand, is very direct. So I don't know how you can possibly say it's truer than evolution. As for this, which you say is from New Scientist: Evolution has several facets. The first is the theory that all living species are the modified descendents [sic] of earlier species, and that we [sic] all share a common ancestor in the distant past. All species are therefore related via a vast tree of life. The second is that this evolution is driven by a process of natural selection or the - "survival of the fittest". This is a very poor representation of evolution theory, written in sloppy (and, in one case, misspelled) English. Very Daily Express. The final sentence in particular makes me squirm. I can't begin to imagine what your point in reproducing it might be. Still, we all have our off days, I suppose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:35 PM Well, a quick read of your New Scientist article proved to be quite entertaining. I suppose you spotted the misspelling of "resources" and had a good laugh at the rubbishy section on sexual selection. Had Darwin been alive today he'd be turning in his grave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:10 PM You mean, "*Were* Darwin alive today, he'd be turning...." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Dec 12 - 12:54 AM Steve Shaw: "Steve Shaw: "I have no agenda! I'm open to everything!" Well i posted the video again, not that you'd look at it, but to demonstrate once,and for all to see, that you are so full of shit..you don't stand behind what you say, and you are in fact just a troll-like blowhard! This time YOU got to prove it..i just merely gave you the opportunity...and you fell in it! As for what I personally think about homosexuals...what's it to you?? your opinion, as your words, mean absolutely nothing!...remember, "Steve Shaw: "I have no agenda! I'm open to everything!" What a crock! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:35 AM Hang on Goofus. . Am I reading you correctly? You say your precious ruddy video that you put forward as a panacea to answering this sticky issue.. needs watching prior to being able to dismiss it? Two things here. If it supports previously discredited bullshit then no, it doesn't need watching to dismiss. Your own earlier commentary is adequate. Secondly, to observe is to affect. (Ok at the Heisenberg quantum level but hey, the word science is in the title) and surely you don't really want people to watch it? It would affect what credibility you even afford yourself, surely? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:46 AM Yes, Lighter, I did tussle with that one before posting it. But it was late and I was feeling tense (geddit?). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:47 AM troll-like Ah good. I'm making progress. I'm not a troll after all. I'm only like one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST Date: 16 Dec 12 - 09:41 AM I've been following this thread since its inception and have followed the various strands with some amusement. For the record, as an unimportant onlooker, I feel that Snail has defeated Steve Shaw hands down. It's interesting to note that Steve Shaw has finally got his potty mouth under control, presumably in an attempt to give himself some credibility. Good move but doesn't change the outcome - he still comes across as evasive and a bit slippery. I do not understand why anyone is responding to pfss and GfS. The former is clearly determined not to think, with a mind more closed than a closed thing and the latter appears to be completely irrational. It seems to me that both are trolls and should be ignored - neither has anything to contribute. There again, I suppose you could say that neither have I. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:37 PM You are the troll, oh "Guest". You choose to post under the kind of anonymity that brings this website into occasional disrepute, and, while you're at it, you choose to bad-mouth people who, unlike you, put a fair bit of time and effort into their posts, whether you agree with them or not. I suggest that you either identify yourself forthwith or crawl back into the foetid swamp where you belong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Dec 12 - 10:51 PM YEAH!!..Steve is right on this one....(mark your calenders, declare an international day of 'wonderment'!)!!! Besides, he likes posting silly posts and getting slapped for it...it gives him something to break his boredom! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 17 Dec 12 - 08:12 AM looks like a measure of agreement on this one! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 17 Dec 12 - 06:49 PM I would appreciate it if you two eejits would not throw your weight behind anything I say. I don't bother to protect my reputation but I will make an exception for you two mental cripples who misrepresent yourselves so well on this board. Even the faintest association with either of you in the matter of your ludicrous opinions tends to do my brain in. Instead, I should like to invite "Guest" to come back and enlarge on his statements, though, as I have this irrational suspicion that he may actually be Snail's uncle, I won't be holding my breath. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 Dec 12 - 01:01 AM Stevie: "I don't bother to protect my reputation but ...." Don't bother..we've already got you clocked......oh, and speaking of clocks and your last post.....even a broken clock is right..twice a day! (I was going to have fun shredding the last post...and it would have been fun....but never mind, I think anyone could fill in the blanks). GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 Dec 12 - 03:09 AM It is very nearly impossible... to become an educated person in a country so distrustful of the independent mind. James A. Baldwin GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Musket Date: 18 Dec 12 - 04:01 AM Yeah Goofus. We have special hospitals set up for those who have an independent mind..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 18 Dec 12 - 06:37 AM steve can be quite amusing when not vulgar especially when confessing to another "irrational suspicion". musket-as we say in the UK -shooting his mouth off! i seem to remember the communist regimes had a habit of putting dissenters in institutions too. merry christmas pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Dec 12 - 06:46 AM Extreme right-wing religious nut-jobs with misguided evangelical ideas (ring any bells, pete?) have also managed to torture and slaughter millions, so you can drop that stupid clap-trap here and now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 Dec 12 - 06:53 AM ""oh, and speaking of clocks and your last post.....even a broken clock is right..twice a day!"" What a wonderfully original and amusing comment Goofie. Pity you expressed it so much less elegantly than I did when applying it to you just a few days ago. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST,BrendanB lost cookie Date: 18 Dec 12 - 08:36 AM First of all, an apology for not identifying myself in my last post of 16 December, I forgot that I have been rendered cookieless by the powers that ordain these things on this forum. Yes Steve Shaw, I am that evil troll. I was however interested in SS's reply. Apart from the invective which is inseperable from any posting bearing his name his disapproval appeared to be focused mainly on the fact that my posting was anonymous, which led me to wonder whether using a moniker such as 'Guest from Sanity' or 'pete from seven stars link' isn't just as anonymous. Neither label gives any clue as to the identity of the poster. Even using one's own name,( as I do when I remember! ) gives little indication of who I am. This is underlined when a poster is challenged to present his/her credentials to support claims they have made and refuses to do so, as one frequent contributor to this thread has done. Regarding my previous post I stand by every word. I do not know Snail (who has identified himself very clearly) from Adam, but I am persuaded by his arguments and by the way he presents them. I find Steve Shaw's strident ad hominem approach to debate repellent and unconvincing. I suspect that Snail will pay little attention to this posting while SS will work on a scathing, rebarbative response designed to underline his intellectual, moral and personal superiority, I look forward to it gleefully. (Poking the tiger with a stick? Who? Me?) My remarks regarding GfS and pfss are surely a reflection of views voiced by several posters, not least Steve Shaw. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Musket Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:52 AM Dissenters. That's a nice word for describing those with enduring mental health issues, personality disorder, acute depression and schizophrenia. I bet most can't wait for the hospital chaplain to come and tell them that they must have angered Jesus in order to have such an illness. Communists (?) put people away in the pretext of mental illness because it is a convenient description for a predetermined decision. We protect them and others from themselves, whilst attempting curative or palliative care. A bit of a difference or... An excellent example of science versus alternatives. Or the theological versus the scientific approach. Not surprised our evangelical weirdo in residence call people with mental illness dissenters... zzzzz Mind you, he seems to have acknowledged my presence for once. So, as I go away to nurse my semi ........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:56 AM As with the offending guest post (where have you been all this time?) you make no substantive contribution. You simply tell us whose side you're on. Your conclusion is hardly surprising, as Snail is a suspect closet man of God and you are a definite God-squadder and I am a stinkin' atheist with whom you have traded vitriol before. Now, about these arguments of Snail's that so convince you. Well you've now apprised us of that twice, but have yet to expand and tell us which bits have particularly impressed you. I rub my sweaty hands with glee at the very prospect of your telling us, in so doing your entering the debate properly instead of sitting at the ringside shouting in like a groupie. Or shouldn't I be holding my breath? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST Date: 18 Dec 12 - 06:37 PM I think we have to face the fact that Steve has passed beyond the reach of rational debate. A pity because I had been doing more research. A couple of things I don't want to let go to waste - "The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 metres per second." isn't an experimental measurement. It is true because the metre is defined as the distance travelled by light in 1/299,792,458 of a second. I stumbled on this gem - Did you know that thanks to a common little snail you can find in your garden, in the park or under a hedge, you can see evolution in your own back yard? (http://www.evolutionmegalab.org/) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: TheSnail Date: 18 Dec 12 - 07:35 PM Dammit! My Grand Exit ruined by a wandering cookie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Dec 12 - 08:05 PM Gosh, if that really was your grand exit I shall rejoice at the thought that the world's balance has tipped just a fraction more towards rationality. As for the speed of light in a vacuum, well there is truth there somewhere, but let's remember that seconds and metres are our own constructs and that the obstinate fact remains that the speed of light in a pure vacuum has never been observed and can be assumed by extrapolation only. Perfectly reasonably in my view, so much so that I'm prepared to accept the arrived-at value as truth. I like truth. Truth is there for us to find, but only via science, never by religion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Dec 12 - 08:26 PM One also ought to point out that seeing banded snails with different shell patterns in your garden is no more an example of evolution in action than is the much-vaunted but equally misquoted example of the poor old peppered moth. As with the moth, the varieties are all there to begin with. Selection may well favour some varieties over others at a given time, but a change in the environment can reverse any changes in the balance of numbers of each variety. A little more is required before one can say that evolution is taking place. Over to you, Snail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 Dec 12 - 10:57 PM DonT: "Pity you expressed it so much less elegantly than I did when applying it to you just a few days ago." I missed your prior post, other wise I would have said something like, "We can forgive those who bore us...we can never forgive those who we bore!" Listening?...even though you've been also known to be right, twice a day, as well! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 Dec 12 - 02:07 AM ooops...they were 'wrong' for 2 million years??...or did they just figure wrong? Just goes to show ya'! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Dec 12 - 06:20 AM "They were 'wrong' for two million years", eh? Who was wrong? Homo erectus? Homo habilis? Why, I never knew that either had declared that whale to be extinct! What ancient scrolls did you find containing this information? You come on here with your alleged knowledge of mathematics, claim to be a practitioner in a medical discipline and you pontificate to scientists, yet you can cheerfully type that twaddle and even turn it into a link. Dear boy, the whale had been assumed to have become extinct two million years ago. We were not wrong about it for two million years. We've probably only known about it for a couple of hundred or less. So, we will not be eating humble pie over it at all. Instead, we celebrate the discovery as an increase in our knowledge. You really don't get this science lark, do you? You certainly don't get the need to express yourself with any degree of accuracy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 19 Dec 12 - 07:03 AM Just saw a U.S. Congressman (Republican) on TV asserting forcefully that "everything I was taught in high school and college about evolution and embryology is a lie straight from the pit of hell." Note the inclusion of embryology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Dec 12 - 07:06 AM Actually, Snailie, your link to the Evolution Megalab is quite good. I took it from your "gem" remark that you saw something wrong with it. Not at all. I like it. Admittedly, it takes a bit more than counting snails to see evolution in action. But you do see the potential for the non-random survival of heritable traits. There's truth in there. Can't be bad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Dec 12 - 07:14 AM Lighter, you should also have mentioned that Mr Broun included the Big Bang in his rant, that he believes the world was created in six days, that he is a doctor (how did that happpen!) and that he is a member of the House Science Committee, of which Todd Akin is also a member. The Todd Atkin who said last month that women don't get pregnant from "legitimate rape" because their bodies have "ways to try to shut that whole thing down." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 19 Dec 12 - 11:01 AM ""Listening?...even though you've been also known to be right, twice a day, as well!"" Thank you for that admission Goofie, but if you had been paying attention, my comment was "I have a broken watch at home that is right more often than you!" Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 19 Dec 12 - 11:31 AM hey steve you almost sounded like you were singing from the creationist hymnbook in acknowledging that the natural selection involved in snail shell variation is no evidence of evolution.creationists have talked about this before darwins origins .perhaps you would like to explain how natural selection became macro evolution-except of course you wont! lighter-may be he meant embrionic recapitulation-another evolutionary story hello brendan-i thought i recognized your style |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Dec 12 - 02:04 PM hey steve you almost sounded like you were singing from the creationist hymnbook in acknowledging that the natural selection involved in snail shell variation is no evidence of evolution I acknowledged no such thing. To add to all your other severe shortcomings you now display misunderstanding of plain English. The variety of shell colours seen in snails in your garden is evidence that natural selection has taken place and is evidence that the material for more natural selection is present. However, the variety of shell colours also represents natural variation in a sexually reproducing species of snail. A bit like in people. Some are tall, like me, and some are stupid, like you. You don't go into a pub and see tall and stupid people all mixed up and shout "Hooray! Look! Evolution in action!" You might, however, observe that the variation you see is evidence that evolution has occurred and that the potential for further evolution is present. Evolution doesn't just mean the numbers of each variant swinging to and fro. Other stuff has to happen, such as some variants being lost altogether or new variants thrown up by mutation getting into the mix. And so on. Dynamic stuff, evolution, Exciting too. And, best of all, it definitely happens. It's true. And, unlike your "truth", there's a ton of evidence for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science?? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 Dec 12 - 03:23 PM Don T: "...but if you had been paying attention, my comment was "I have a broken watch at home that is right more often than you!"... For what it's worth...the 'broken clock being right twice a day', I've used for years..and have posted it on here for a while...however, I like the 'watch' one pretty well, as well. ..now go out and buy a new watch!...on the way, stop by and see the shrink, and explain to him that all your watches keep stopping and not telling the right time.....maybe they're soaking up the energy..and you wanna make sure..... Stevie, your blathering and not saying much, except venting how you 'FEEL'........yeah, I'd be bored, too! GfS |
