Exposing the Fallacies of Science/Atheist-ism & Proving Intelligent Design!

[QUOTE=Jello]Now you're attacking a scientist that has a phD in these subjects because he publishes an article in discover.:facepalm
Wrong. Natural selection is a theory. Evolution is fact. Gravity is fact. Any attempts to explain how it works through mechanisms is a theory.[/QUOTE]
No disrespect intended. Although he is a little overhyped due to his popular lit (much like jared diamond or brian fagan), hes a brilliant evolutionary scientist, no doubt. My point is simply that bringing a ****ing magazine article rather than something peer-reviewed is weak. Nothing is more powerful than a theory (in that laws are theories and sometimes not distinguished). People seem to forget that theory means something entirely different in science than in the vernacular.

[QUOTE=boozehound]No disrespect intended. Although he is a little overhyped due to his popular lit (much like jared diamond or brian fagan), hes a brilliant evolutionary scientist, no doubt. My point is simply that bringing a ****ing magazine article rather than something peer-reviewed is weak. Nothing is more powerful than a theory (in that laws are theories and sometimes not distinguished). People seem to forget that theory means something entirely different in science than in the vernacular.[/QUOTE]
Look. You made the statement
[QUOTE]also, you need to quit using the word fact. in science, fact means a piece of measurable data or, basically, the basic unit to be explored. it does not mean "proven beyond question" or something like that.[/QUOTE]
I said
[QUOTE]Not true[/QUOTE]
Which was confirmed by a scientist more qualified than you and the prevailing scientific community.

[QUOTE=Jello]No he's wrong. He made an absolute statement, now he's backpedaling.[/QUOTE]
**** you and backpedal it right up your ass. He can call it a fact all he wants, his point is this "in science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

Fact is only used in this sense with dealing with nimrods who dont understand scientific terminology properly. In science, fact means the most basic of understandings, observable/measurable data. Now, if you would read the link about this, you would see that the uses like Gould's are not only incredibly rare, but are in direct response to attacks on the "theory" of evolution.

[QUOTE=Jello]Look. You made the statement

I said

Which was confirmed by a scientist more qualified than you and the prevailing scientific community.[/QUOTE]
can you bother to read any of the wiki links I provided? Fact means basic observable data in 99% of scientific usages. OK? Jebus Christo

besides, the way that fool tennesseefan was using it was entirely inconsistent with either proposed usage. so, he still needs to quit using it/modify how he uses it.

[QUOTE=boozehound]can you bother to read any of the wiki links I provided? Fact means basic observable data in 99% of scientific usages. OK? Jebus Christo

besides, the way that fool tennesseefan was using it was entirely inconsistent with either proposed usage. so, he still needs to quit using it/modify how he uses it.[/QUOTE]
since you cant be bothered to click a link.

[QUOTE]When scientists say "evolution is a fact" they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical, and when this is what scientists mean, then "evolution" is used to mean observed changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.
Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) [8] even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with other primates.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:
Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.[18]
Philosophers of science argue that we do not know anything with absolute certainty: even direct observations may be "theory laden" and depend on assumptions about our senses and the measuring instruments used. In this sense all facts are provisional.[1][19][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=boozehound]can you bother to read any of the wiki links I provided? Fact means basic observable data in 99% of scientific usages. OK? Jebus Christo

besides, the way that fool tennesseefan was using it was entirely inconsistent with either proposed usage. so, he still needs to quit using it/modify how he uses it.[/QUOTE]
No, because I know for an absolute "fact" that you're wrong.

so, you agree jello, evolution is a fact as laid out under the above criteria?

[QUOTE=boozehound]so, you agree jello, evolution is a fact as laid out under the above criteria?[/QUOTE]
I accept evolution as the change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next.
This is a fact.

[QUOTE=Jello]No, because I know for an absolute "fact" that you're wrong.[/QUOTE]
really? SO, he was using it to refer to evolution or gravity as fact? Or he was describing an observational data point? Uhm, no.

Sure, 1% of the time, the term fact means a highly tested and well grounded theory or law. the rest of the time, it means a direct observation. Which, cant actually be made due to our need for sensory perception to perceive or record anything!

Happy now? Jebus, you sure to like to nitpick a point. and thats saying something coming from me.

[QUOTE=boozehound]really? SO, he was using it to refer to evolution or gravity as fact? Or he was describing an observational data point? Uhm, no.

[B]Sure, 1% of the time, the term fact means a highly tested and well grounded theory or law. [/B] the rest of the time, it means a direct observation. Which, cant actually be made due to our need for sensory perception to perceive or record anything!

Happy now? Jebus, you sure to like to nitpick a point. and thats saying something coming from me.[/QUOTE]
So this directly contradicts your original statement.:facepalm

[QUOTE=Jello]I accept evolution as the change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next.
This is a fact.[/QUOTE]
but you do not accept differential breeding and phenotypic variation in a population drive those changes? Really?

[QUOTE=boozehound]but you do not accept differential breeding and phenotypic variation in a population drive those changes? Really?[/QUOTE]
That's not evolution... Those are the supposed mechanisms that drive evolution.:facepalm

Booze, I think you're the one that needs to brush up on the terminology.

[QUOTE=Jello]How is it mediocre? Please inform me.[/QUOTE]

I said everything is mediocre.

[QUOTE=Jackass18]I said everything is mediocre.[/QUOTE]
How is DNA replication mediocre? Answer the question please.

[QUOTE=Jello]How is DNA replication mediocre? Answer the question please.[/QUOTE]

I said everything is mediocre based upon observation and experience. Why are you trying to make an argument that's not there?

[QUOTE=Jackass18]I said everything is mediocre based upon observation and experience. Why are you trying to make an argument that's not there?[/QUOTE]
Dumbest poster on this board.:facepalm

[QUOTE=Jello]Dumbest poster on this board.:facepalm[/QUOTE]

LOL, you're not making any kind of sense and yet I'm the dumbest poster on this board? You have 0 idea of what you're arguing about, and yet you're trying to make some sort of stupidass argument that's not even there, but I'm the dummy? GTFO please. Seriously, you're arguing for the sake of it, but you don't have a clue about what you're even arguing.

[QUOTE=Jackass18]LOL, you're not making any kind of sense and yet I'm the dumbest poster on this board? You have 0 idea of what you're arguing about, and yet you're trying to make some sort of stupidass argument that's not even there, but I'm the dummy? GTFO please. Seriously, you're arguing for the sake of it, but you don't have a clue about what you're even arguing.[/QUOTE]
Explain to me how DNA replication is shoddy and mediocre and stop playing with words.

I was going off on a bit of a tangent and not specifically calling out 'DNA replication'. I'm talking about all of 'God's work'. If this is all God's work, then he made some shoddy products and a mediocre universe. According to the OP, God has such attributes as: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, but this is what we have? All these flaws in a ****ed up world? Couldn't he have done better? What, did you want me to comment about mutation? If the process (DNA replication) is near perfect as they say it is, then in comparison to most things it's not shoddy, but I guess you were just looking to nitpick about something.

[QUOTE=Jackass18]I was going off on a bit of a tangent and not specifically calling out 'DNA replication'. I'm talking about all of 'God's work'. If this is all God's work, then he made some shoddy products and a mediocre universe. According to the OP, God has such attributes as: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, but this is what we have? All these flaws in a ****ed up world? Couldn't he have done better? What, did you want me to comment about mutation? If the process (DNA replication) is near perfect as they say it is, then in comparison to most things it's not shoddy, but I guess you were just looking to nitpick about something.[/QUOTE]
No you said that you were generous in calling DNA replication mediocre.

[QUOTE=Jello]No you said that you were generous in calling DNA replication mediocre.[/QUOTE]

That "it" wasn't referring to something specific like DNA replication, but you can count it in with everything.

[QUOTE=Jello]Dumbest poster on this board.:facepalm[/QUOTE]

You are a whiny little b*tch. I hate people like you.

[QUOTE=chungerball]You are a whiny little b*tch. I hate people like you.[/QUOTE]
Where did I whine? You're the one whining. Idiots on this board can't have an intellectual debate, I see.

Insulting everyone is a great way to have an intelligent debate.

Bladers has been watching that boring, biased Ben Stein documentary too much.

I love how the religious argument always only tries to attack the logical and researched idea of life, but never try to explain it with anything besides "God did it".

You can't prove something's true by claiming something isn't true. If not A, it's not automatically B. That's the biggest fallacy of all, and it's embarrassing that it's still being argued this way.

It's time to stop trying to "prove" God made life since there's no proof of it at all, there's only speculation. All religious nuts like Bladers can do is do their best to try and pull the wool over everyone's eyes by claiming nobody knows 100% for sure how life started, so that it must be God.

We don't completely understand right this second, but how is that proof of a religion that was thought up out of thin air? At least scientific theories are based upon facts that we can see and have researched. Religious arguments are all built upon non-facts, and trying to disprove all evidence against itself 24/7.

Example: Religion didn't want anyone to think the Earth revolved around the Sun. Religion wanted everyone to think the Earth was the center of the universe and that this was a special place designed by God, where everything was designed around us. Clearly this is massively incorrect, and despite religious factions' futile attempts to torture and kill off people who tried to spread this information, we now know what's actually true.

Another example: Evolutionary theory. Here's a big one. Religious factions again fought tooth and nail to disprove this theory. Thankfully religious factions had far less power than they did in the past and couldn't just kill off anyone who tried to spread this information to protect their interests.

With the spread of information now almost completely unchecked, religious belief is at an all time low. Is this a surprise to anybody? Coincidence? Or inevitability?

[B]Now, we have the hilarious altered argument (Bladers even did this in the OP) that evolution exists, but only after God created the first cell. :lol I'm happy to know that the religious argument has failed so hard, and to such a massive extent that their argument is now debased to the final, and lowly argument of, "God made the first cell, you can't prove otherwise!".

That's just pathetic. We can't prove that he didn't any more than you can prove he did. In fact, even if a scientist does create a cell on their own (one of the stupid arguments you made in the OP), you would simply say, see, look, it took an intelligent being to create a cell. When have we seen cells spawn out of nothingness? Until we see that, God made cells!

That's clearly the next step in the religious argument once we do make cells after we develop the means to do so. And at that point we obviously can't witness spontaneous cell production. . .and even by some chance we do, it'll be claimed God did it. You can't prove he didn't!

It's a circle of logic, created to prey upon the ignorant. Religion is built upon countless fallacies. Every religious argument is a fallacy by definition.[/B]

In conclusion, to Bladers, and everyone else trying to make people believe in what they have to peddle, we're living in an age where you have to give proof of your argument, you can't just try and debunk another argument then pretend that somehow validates yours. It doesn't.


In the end:

Science: Information.

Religion: Misinformation.

I'll take science, thanks.

[QUOTE=Jello]That's not evolution... Those are the supposed mechanisms that drive evolution.:facepalm[/QUOTE]
and I was asking if you accept them. simple question requiring a simple answer. Funny how you can accept the broad implications of differential breeding changing allele frequencies in a population, but not acknowledge that the changes in allele frequencies are due to differential breeding success based on phenotypic traits. So, you dont eat domesticated foods then?

[QUOTE=SinJackal]Bladers has been watching that boring, biased Ben Stein documentary too much.

I love how the religious argument always only tries to attack the logical and researched idea of life, but never try to explain it with anything besides "God did it".

You can't prove something's true by claiming something isn't true. If not A, it's not automatically B. That's the biggest fallacy of all, and it's embarrassing that it's still being argued this way.

It's time to stop trying to "prove" God made life since there's no proof of it at all, there's only speculation. All religious nuts like Bladers can do is do their best to try and pull the wool over everyone's eyes by claiming nobody knows 100% for sure how life started, so that it must be God.

We don't completely understand right this second, but how is that proof of a religion that was thought up out of thin air? At least scientific theories are based upon facts that we can see and have researched. Religious arguments are all built upon non-facts, and trying to disprove all evidence against itself 24/7.

Example: Religion didn't want anyone to think the Earth revolved around the Sun. Religion wanted everyone to think the Earth was the center of the universe and that this was a special place designed by God, where everything was designed around us. Clearly this is massively incorrect, and despite religious factions' futile attempts to torture and kill off people who tried to spread this information, we now know what's actually true.

Another example: Evolutionary theory. Here's a big one. Religious factions again fought tooth and nail to disprove this theory. Thankfully religious factions had far less power than they did in the past and couldn't just kill off anyone who tried to spread this information to protect their interests.

With the spread of information now almost completely unchecked, religious belief is at an all time low. Is this a surprise to anybody? Coincidence? Or inevitability?

[B]Now, we have the hilarious altered argument (Bladers even did this in the OP) that evolution exists, but only after God created the first cell. :lol I'm happy to know that the religious argument has failed so hard, and to such a massive extent that their argument is now debased to the final, and lowly argument of, "God made the first cell, you can't prove otherwise!".

That's just pathetic. We can't prove that he didn't any more than you can prove he did. In fact, even if a scientist does create a cell on their own (one of the stupid arguments you made in the OP), you would simply say, see, look, it took an intelligent being to create a cell. When have we seen cells spawn out of nothingness? Until we see that, God made cells!

That's clearly the next step in the religious argument once we do make cells after we develop the means to do so. And at that point we obviously can't witness spontaneous cell production. . .and even by some chance we do, it'll be claimed God did it. You can't prove he didn't!

It's a circle of logic, created to prey upon the ignorant. Religion is built upon countless fallacies. Every religious argument is a fallacy by definition.[/B]

In conclusion, to Bladers, and everyone else trying to make people believe in what they have to peddle, we're living in an age where you have to give proof of your argument, you can't just try and debunk another argument then pretend that somehow validates yours. It doesn't.


In the end:

Science: Information.

Religion: Misinformation.

I'll take science, thanks.[/QUOTE]

This post is consistent.

The only problem is that it's based on a false assumption.

Religion (or at least the Catholic one - that I think you are referring to when writing) doesn't refute the theory of evolution at all. The Vatican has accepted the theory of evolution long ago.
It's really crazy how you Americans are so busy with this false debate on evolution, whereas in Rome they have solved it years and years ago.

The debate is actually on a completely different field, whereas you seem to think that somehow the Roman Church still states that man was made out of mud...?!

You must have some pretty crazy priests/preachers there in the US that make you think that :lol

[quote=boozehound]and I was asking if you accept them. simple question requiring a simple answer. Funny how you can accept the broad implications of differential breeding changing allele frequencies in a population, but not acknowledge that the changes in allele frequencies are due to differential breeding success based on phenotypic traits. So, you dont eat domesticated foods then?[/quote]

Booze check your PMs.


Oh and organized religion is the root of all the world's problems......blah blah blah.

[quote=Jasi]You must have some pretty crazy priests/preachers there in the US that make you think that :lol[/quote]

No we just have the ones that like to touch you, you know, there.

Seriously the Catholic Church in the US is not even involved in any debate on evolution.

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]No we just have the ones that like to touch you, you know, there.

Seriously the Catholic Church in the US is not even involved in any debate on evolution.[/QUOTE]

So why does this topic come out regularly in the US (not only on ISH, I mean)?
Seen from here, it really seems like a topical issue.
Seriously, that has always puzzled me.

Who doesn't accept the theory of evolution in the US?
Is this group big enough for other groups (atheists, Catholics, actually every group I can think of) to even care?

[quote=Jasi]So why does this topic come out regularly in the US (not only on ISH, I mean)?
Seen from here, it really seems like a topical issue.
Seriously, that has always puzzled me.

Who doesn't accept the theory of evolution in the US?
Is this group big enough for other groups (atheists, Catholics, actually every group I can think of) to even care?[/quote]

Because Christianity in the US is dominated at the moment by a number of evangelical sects, ie the Southern Baptist Association, along with numerous mega churches that don't have any type of hierarchy and sort of make the rules up themselves. Not that there's anything wrong with that but evolution has been a target of a lot of them and it really doesn't make them look all that smart.

[QUOTE=Jasi]This post is consistent.

The only problem is that it's based on a false assumption.

Religion (or at least the Catholic one - that I think you are referring to when writing) doesn't refute the theory of evolution at all. The Vatican has accepted the theory of evolution long ago.
It's really crazy how you Americans are so busy with this false debate on evolution, whereas in Rome they have solved it years and years ago.

The debate is actually on a completely different field, whereas you seem to think that somehow the Roman Church still states that man was made out of mud...?!

You must have some pretty crazy priests/preachers there in the US that make you think that :lol[/QUOTE]
the catholic church in the US supports the papal bull acknowledging evolution and biblical belief are consistent. Although there may be individual priests who present different view, I would imagine that they are told to shut it pretty quick.

ALmost every major organized religion in the US has issued a statement acknowledging that evolution and their faith are compatible. Its really just a fringe (but a really large one, kind of like one of those buckskin jackets) of "bible" churches/evangelicals that are rabidly anti-evolution/science. Unfortunately, they are in place on schoolboards all across the country, with an agenda to introduce their religious view into the science curriculum. Sad really, when Xtians talk about being oppressed in this country because they cant force everyone to publicly pray in the classroom. Ill show you oppression!

[quote=boozehound]the catholic church in the US supports the papal bull acknowledging evolution and biblical belief are consistent. Although there may be individual priests who present different view, I would imagine that they are told to shut it pretty quick.

ALmost every major organized religion in the US has issued a statement acknowledging that evolution and their faith are compatible. Its really just a fringe (but a really large one, kind of like one of those buckskin jackets) of "bible" churches/evangelicals that are rabidly anti-evolution/science. Unfortunately, they are in place on schoolboards all across the country, with an agenda to introduce their religious view into the science curriculum. Sad really, when Xtians talk about being oppressed in this country because they cant force everyone to publicly pray in the classroom. Ill show you oppression![/quote]

This. And that's the rub for Christians like myself. We tend to get lumped into this group because they are so vocal atm.

Uh so it's the Evangelicals?
Wow.
I didn't know they were that big.
Thanks for the info!

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]Because Christianity in the US is dominated at the moment by a number of evangelical sects, ie the Southern Baptist Association, along with numerous mega churches that don't have any type of hierarchy and sort of make the rules up themselves. Not that there's anything wrong with that but evolution has been a target of a lot of them and it really doesn't make them look all that smart.[/QUOTE]
the baptist's (at least the national org) have a statement about evolution as well.

and yes, evangelicals/biblers are important in the US (even though its maybe 20 million people IIRC) because they vote as a block and run for local offices such as school board. GWB doesnt get elected in 2000 without the block support of these groups. of course, then the head of the national organization was caught buggering other dudes. but that doesnt matter right? As long as we get a fundamentally unscientific view taught in science classes, god will forgive all buttbuggery.

[QUOTE=Jasi]Uh so it's the Evangelicals?
Wow.
I didn't know they were that big.
Thanks for the info![/QUOTE]
they may not all identify as such, but the national evangelical congress? is a big part of it. Basically people who are xtian, but dont have a denomination. born againers, "bible" churches, evangelicals and so forth.


they spread so much mis-information about evolution (both the process as well as the various records of it) that a great deal of more casual people also buy into it. "Jimbo says evolution means there is no god. well, i believe in god, so evolution must be full of it." I bet 90% of those people polled who dont "believe" in evolution couldnt explain a single aspect of the theory, geologic record, embryology, etc.

[quote=boozehound]of course, then the head of the national organization was caught buggering other dudes. but that doesnt matter right? As long as we get a fundamentally unscientific view taught in science classes, god will forgive all buttbuggery.[/quote]


That would be funny if it weren't true.:facepalm

[QUOTE=boozehound]and I was asking if you accept them. simple question requiring a simple answer. Funny how you can accept the broad implications of differential breeding changing allele frequencies in a population, but not acknowledge that the changes in allele frequencies are due to differential breeding success based on phenotypic traits. So, you dont eat domesticated foods then?[/QUOTE]
You implied that I didn't accept those mechanisms, when we were talking about differentiating facts(evolution) and theories that attempt to explain evolution(natural selection, non-random differential breeding, etc). Those mechanisms are theories that attempt to explain how the fact of evolution occurs.

People debate with neg reps on this board.:oldlol: