Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 9:23 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
I could say the same to you. We are Christians here and we believe God created the Universe. Were you expecting no one to push back with your Theory of Evolution on a Christian Website? You are here because you feel you have to set the record straight on your Theory of Evolution. We may not have as much "knowledge" as you do on the subject but we know enough not to give in to it.

It's not a question of not expecting pushback. I mean, this is the Creation & Evolution subforum... it's to be expected. Your comment of "...forcing me to respond and then you'll respond to my response." sounds like you don't even want to have a dialogue with anyone.

And it's not MY theory of evolution. It's just the theory of evolution, which describes the processes we see in studying God's creation in the natural world.

Hvizsgyak · Saturday at 9:23 AM

River Jordan said:
Since your stance is that you won't believe any of it no matter what, your evaluation of the material isn't meaningful.

But they gave it the old school try.

AV1611VET · Saturday at 9:30 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
And it's not MY theory of evolution.

It's yours by subscription.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 9:30 AM

AV1611VET said:
It's yours by subscription.

... Eh, I'll give you that one.

Hvizsgyak · Saturday at 9:35 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
It would still be incorrect since truth is something that only philosophy deals with, not science. Once again: science deals with evidence.

Then you guys must be the Guardians of "Evidence" (no matter how flimsy and faulty it is).

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 9:37 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
Then you guys must be the Guardians of "Evidence" (no matter how flimsy and faulty it is).

I work in retail, so I'm only a guardian of the tills. The other members of this site who are actual scientists are the 'guardians', and again: just because you say it's 'flimsy and faulty' does not mean it is, and you've never once shown how it could be.

Larniavc · Saturday at 9:57 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
You know what I mean, upfront and close (right at your fingertips while they were alive).

Why is that more informative than looking at the same thing through a telescope?

Exactly how for away (in miles please) does something need to be before it cannot be trusted?

Larniavc · Saturday at 9:59 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Just because you don't agree with it,

Silly goose! The word you should use is ‘understand’.

Larniavc · Saturday at 10:02 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
Some of your evidence is very questionable and speculative.

No. No it’s not. You have conflated ‘questionable’ and ‘speculative, with ‘too hard’.

Do you see now?

Larniavc · Saturday at 10:03 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
We may not have as much "knowledge" as you do on the subject but we know enough not to give in to it.

Hang on. You are very definitely ‘giving it’ when you make your anti science arguments. Cogent much?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 10:05 AM

Larniavc said:
Silly goose! The word you should use is ‘understand’.

I'm inclined to say it's both.

2PhiloVoid · Saturday at 10:08 AM

Hans Blaster said:
I've read Smolin's book. He criticized string theory and to an extent the larger area of fundamental particle theory for focusing on string rather than other ideas that might be fruitful (particularly LQG, his preferred theory). He has some more useful discussion about hiring (particularly as he knows it in theory) the same as she has some legitimate complaints from her personal experiences. The difference is that Smolin didn't attack all of science wasteful and she did. Nor did he even attack all of physics (but she did). Her initial complaint about theory seemed fine, but her broader attacks are now just providing cover for anti-science forces, particularly in culture and politics.

Yes, I understand. Part of the difference between her and Lee Smolin is that while she has the degree, she intentionally focuses on philosophical practicalities that intersect Physics and Social Life, while Smolin has focused on criticizing the institutions of Physics research. It should probably have been known that this is the case being that she titled her recent book, "Existential Physics" rather than "Problems with Physics." I can understand her existential concerns. Whether I fully agree or not with her viewpoints is another issue.

A Scientist's Guide To Life's Biggest Questions Existential Physics Existential Physics

Existential Physics -- A Scientist's Guide to Life's Biggest Questions

existentialphysics.com

Hans Blaster · Saturday at 11:48 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
The debate is still out on whether the scientists really know what they are doing with nuclear fission.

Seriously? There is a whole industry built around nuclear fission. The basics have been handed over to engineers. Engineers!

Hvizsgyak said:
Ok, I'll give it to you, I shouldn't have called some science answers Science Fiction.

No it shouldn't.

Hvizsgyak said:
Maybe it should go under, ummm, religious belief or folklore.

FYI: Read the rules of this sub-forum.

Hvizsgyak · Saturday at 11:48 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You saying it is doesn't mean it is so. But let's entertain you: if the evidence is 'very questionable and speculative', why is it accepted as evidence in science?

You guys are sometime delusional?

Larniavc said:
Why is that more informative than looking at the same thing through a telescope?

Exactly how for away (in miles please) does something need to be before it cannot be trusted?

Less than one foot is preferable and with the right pieces of equipment (some of which have not even been created yet).

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 11:50 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
You guys are sometime delusional?

Let's try again with an actually serious answer: if the evidence is 'very questionable and speculative', why is it accepted as evidence in science?

Hvizsgyak said:
Less than one foot is preferable and with the right pieces of equipment (some of which have not even been created yet).

Wow. Just... wow. And you call scientists delusional.

Hvizsgyak · Saturday at 11:58 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Only if you don't accept that events in the past left evidence.

It's all in reading the evidence correctly and with absolute truth, not just "I think this looks like something that fits between this and that on the evolutionary chain. What do you think, Hans?" And after the to agree it gets publish in the world by the liberal media and then new laws and policies are created around "the new discovery".

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 12:02 PM

Hvizsgyak said:
It's all in reading the evidence correctly and with absolute truth, not just "I think this looks like something that fits between this and that on the evolutionary chain. What do you think, Hans?" And after the to agree it gets publish in the world by the liberal media and then new laws and policies are created around "the new discovery".

To copy a post above: Wow. Just... wow. And you call scientists delusional.

Hvizsgyak · Saturday at 12:02 PM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Let's try again with an actually serious answer: if the evidence is 'very questionable and speculative', why is it accepted as evidence in science?

Wow. Just... wow. And you call scientists delusional.

What can I say, if the right tools aren't there to analyze the thing in question, maybe we should wait until they are. But if they must speculate on them because they just want to, place that information under "religious belief and folklore" so that the liberal media doesn't take it and create all sorts of stories from it as fact.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 12:05 PM

Hvizsgyak said:
What can I say, if the right tools aren't there to analyze the thing in question, maybe we should wait until they are. But if they must speculate on them because they just want to, place that information under "religious belief and folklore" so that the liberal media doesn't take it and create all sorts of stories from it as fact.

But they have the right tools, there's no speculation involved, the information cannot in anyway shape, form or sense be called 'religious belief and folklore' and you've even yet to show it could, and the liberal media (which is 100% telling about you) is not involved in the slightest.

You are just delusional on this whole matter.

River Jordan · Saturday at 12:22 PM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You are just delusional on this whole matter.

It's become Poe's Law in action. "Weird" doesn't even begin to describe it.

Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Well-Known Member

My count is a bit shy of the Mark!

Raised by bees

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency