Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 16 of 154 (818429)
08-28-2017 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Porkncheese
08-28-2017 12:29 AM


Re: Inconclusive not absolute
Porkncheese writes:
They are questions not made up by myself. I am mearly parroting the ideas and points made by many others.
Those others are lying to you.
Porkncheese writes:
Like why don't we see thousands of intermadiate fossils of humans?
We do.
Porkncheese writes:
Have I been rude at all?
Maybe you just can't see past the chip on your shoulder. You've been demanding short answers to complex questions. Ironically, in a topic about the limits of knowledge, you're expecting a silver bullet answer to every question you ask.
Take your time. Pick a topic and ask questions about it. Then consider the answers and ask follow-up questions. If you come in here and complain after a dozen posts that your questions haven't been answered then yes, that is a little rude.
There are people here who can teach you more about science than you will ever want to know but you have to take the responsibility to learn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Porkncheese, posted 08-28-2017 12:29 AM Porkncheese has not replied

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


(2)
Message 17 of 154 (818430)
08-28-2017 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Porkncheese
08-28-2017 12:29 AM


Re: Inconclusive not absolute
1. No one knows eveything which some people seem to deny
Well, "some people" is pretty general. Are you saying some people here at EvC claim to know everything?
2. The evidence used is inconclusive and not absolute which most people have a really hard time accepting.
That's a bit vague, isn't it? What evidence are you claiming is inconclusive? Be specific.
which most people have a really hard time accepting.
Who are you talking about?
As for silly questions, are you saying I've asked silly questions.
No, I was pointing out that there is a whole class of questions that have been answered many times before. They are so common that we have a name for them: PRATTs
And if my questions are so outrageous than why has no one been able answer them.
No one said anything about your questions being outrageous. People can answer your questions, but you have to be willing to learn something and not ride in all convinced that no one can. When someone shows up making inaccurate claims about what science or biology or evolutionary theory says and then demands an immediate accounting the likely result will be us pointing out that your version of evolution is inaccurate.
Like why don't we see thousands of intermadiate fossils of humans?
We do see thousands of intermediate fossils in the human lineage.
What kind of predictions have been made to support the theory?
What are the best forms of evidence supporting the theory?
One of my favorite predictions is that life fits into nested hierarchies when we classify them. This holds true for morphological classification as well as genetic. These nested hierarchies show how life is interrelated.
Have I been rude at all? Haven't I stuck to the subject?
But my points are never addressed. And no one can produce anything for me to consider.
You did seem to arrive with a chip on your shoulder. You claim not to be a creationist, but your questions and claims about science (physics & math & biology) show a lack of knowledge and understanding how science works.
They are questions not made up by myself. I am mearly parroting the ideas and points made by many others.
Yep, we know, Creationists.

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 9 by Porkncheese, posted 08-28-2017 12:29 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 18 of 154 (818432)
08-28-2017 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Porkncheese
08-28-2017 12:29 AM


Re: Inconclusive not absolute
Porkncheese writes:
I agree the title may be a touch overboard but it get peoples attention first. But you are a seemingly logical person to point out the 2 things that im just making a point of.
1. No one knows eveything which some people seem to deny
2. The evidence used is inconclusive and not absolute which most people have a really hard time accepting. And something being taught as fact in public schools should be absolute and conclusive like F=ma.
And yet you probably accept many theories that are based on evidence that is inconclusive and not absolute, such as the Theory of Atoms or the Germ Theory of Disease. What you are saying is that we shouldn't teach science. Period.
Like why don't we see thousands of intermadiate fossils of humans?
Because they are still in the ground. We have only searched a tiny, tiny fraction of the Earth for fossils.
What kind of predictions have been made to support the theory?
Here are 29 predictions and evidences for the theory of evolution:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
But my points are never addressed. And no one can produce anything for me to consider. Furthermore i keep being accused of being a heritic which makes my blood boil. Yet I haved kept my cool and stayed on track.
I get the feeling that we will address your questions, and you will just ignore it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Porkncheese, posted 08-28-2017 12:29 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 19 of 154 (818441)
08-28-2017 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porkncheese
08-27-2017 9:49 AM


It is surprising that so many people seem to be so sure of their views...When you see Richard Dawkins admitting that intelligent design is possible
Which is it - are they 'so sure' or do they leave room for tentativity?
The evidence used is inconclusive and not absolute which most people have a really hard time accepting.
It is conclusive.
And something being taught as fact in public schools should be absolute and conclusive like F=ma.
Even though it's not actually true? For a start f is proportional to the product of mass and acceleration - and it is only if relativity doesn't exist. Otherwise the complexities of velocity and acceleration on mass have to be taken into account as well as issues of time and length.
That which is taught as fact is that life on earth has changed over time. This is as absolute and conclusive as F=ma.
The theory that explains this fact is taught, factually, as 'what scientists believe' along with why they believe it - or the like. This too, is indisputable.
Like why don't we see thousands of intermadiate fossils of humans?
There's no reason to suppose we should. There's no reason to suppose we should find fossils at all.
What kind of predictions have been made to support the theory?
Genetics - Darwin had no idea about it but knew for his theory to hold there must be some kind of unit of inheritance.
Genetic dating and radiometric dating of fossils, as predicted, largely concur with one another.
There's two.
What are the best forms of evidence supporting the theory?
The genetics as above, the dating of fossils, the geographic distribution of fossils, observations of biological life with small generational lives, mathematics and computer modelling and so on. All point towards the same direction.
I give more details in my open thread Confidence in evolutionary science

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porkncheese, posted 08-27-2017 9:49 AM Porkncheese has not replied

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


(1)
Message 20 of 154 (818465)
08-29-2017 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porkncheese
08-27-2017 9:49 AM


Yes, you have been very, very rude. One example.
Porkncheese writes:
Evolutionists on the other hand seem to have just created this theory without conclusive evidence. Their only objective seems to be to discredit religion.
That's very, very rude towards those thousands of Biologists who are Christians and accept evolutionary theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porkncheese, posted 08-27-2017 9:49 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 21 of 154 (818466)
08-29-2017 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porkncheese
08-27-2017 9:49 AM


Intelligent design is possible.
But that is no reason to suspect it actually happened.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porkncheese, posted 08-27-2017 9:49 AM Porkncheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Pressie, posted 08-29-2017 5:14 AM Larni has replied

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


Message 22 of 154 (818467)
08-29-2017 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Larni
08-29-2017 5:00 AM


Yes, it is possible that gravity will stop working the way it has been working for the last 14 billion years. Tonight. Anything is possible. There's no scientific evidence that it can happen, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Larni, posted 08-29-2017 5:00 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Larni, posted 08-29-2017 12:03 PM Pressie has not replied

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


Message 23 of 154 (818469)
08-29-2017 5:53 AM


I've seen and heard enough. People are still making these religious allegations that are so fucking insulting I cannot stand it anymore. This is not a religion. This is a cult.
These ToE people love to try and read between the lines not only in terms of my writing but life. Seeing their insulting theories about me were incorrect then I wonder if all their theories are incorrect.
I see different opinions in your people. As with the statement "no evidence is conclusive nothing is absolute". There are differences in peoples view of that.
Nearly everything about this is dejavu for me ok. The way it is presented to the inability to explain things I saw it all before in religion. Both have exactly the same traits in so many aspects I couldn't even list them all if I tried. Interestingly is that both views involve inbreeding at the very beginning (even though ToE doesn't cover that it is still "science"). And both have the same beginning of there just being nothing. But even though I hate religion I was never insulted for asking questions or abused for looking at things from another perspective. That's why I call this a cult.
To RAZD after taking time to objectively read your post that begins with Newton you then end it all be insulting me, claiming I'm some sort of undercover creationist. I actually was taking you seriously before you revealed you true thoughts. Review your statements on Newtons Law (not theory) because I think you have misunderstood it and its practical application on earth as it is not superseded by general relativity which I have never seen used in mechanical engineering. You need to also confirm your assumptions on steel quality, strength and testing. They are also incorrect in general but especially in highly critical applications such as a bridge where the material is not just bought from walmart or something.
Every damn argument here has involved religion. Why has religion influenced science like this? FUCK RELIGION OK FUCK IT. Why is it always part of your explanations?
People I know in biology tell me that any hypothesis formed by a student must comply to the theory of evolution regardless of the strength in the data, facts or evidence before them. Like WTF, this outrages me even more than teaching false information to our children. And I learn that this is the case in all western universities. So in order of preventing people disproving the theory we will make it unacceptable to do so. It is holding back science. Cellular biology is apparently waiting to advance but are held back by this Neo Darwanistic regime along with other fields of science too. Get over it, just because these stupid people are following these stupid religions it does not mean you must stoop to their level. At the moment Biology has stooped to that level. I must trust these scientists. Have faith in them and their all encompassing knowledge. Ye sure.
I would like to thank JonF for actually providing links to information, the only person to do so. I thought he was the most objective and sane person here until ending it with a statement on creationists which left a sour taste. My posted links were not accepted (again a religion based mentality) claiming I cannot use outside sources to argue my point or something along those lines. I, however, do not have such objections and will take them on board to have a closer read of them.
At this stage of my life I feel let down by everyone and everything I thought I trusted. I feel I must question everything and trust no one. When there are so many people opposing ToE with good arguments that aren't countered very well you have to ask yourself. When Richard Dawkins, forefather in ToE makes such statements and admissions I have to question it.
Anyway Im off on a snow trip now and will most likely not re visit this site so best of luck to all (even the haters) Be objective, trust the word of no one and question everything. Goodbye

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Pressie, posted 08-29-2017 6:29 AM Porkncheese has not replied
 Message 25 by JonF, posted 08-29-2017 6:55 AM Porkncheese has not replied
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2017 7:41 AM Porkncheese has not replied
 Message 27 by herebedragons, posted 08-29-2017 8:09 AM Porkncheese has not replied
 Message 28 by Tangle, posted 08-29-2017 10:37 AM Porkncheese has not replied
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 08-29-2017 11:54 AM Porkncheese has not replied
 Message 31 by Larni, posted 08-29-2017 12:24 PM Porkncheese has not replied
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 08-29-2017 12:54 PM Porkncheese has not replied
 Message 35 by Tanypteryx, posted 08-29-2017 2:26 PM Porkncheese has not replied
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 08-29-2017 3:29 PM Porkncheese has not replied

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


(1)
Message 24 of 154 (818470)
08-29-2017 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Porkncheese
08-29-2017 5:53 AM


So, you basically don't like your world view being shaken, nor stirred.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Porkncheese, posted 08-29-2017 5:53 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 25 of 154 (818471)
08-29-2017 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Porkncheese
08-29-2017 5:53 AM


What a steaming heap. You got substantive replies and ignored them.
No, not every damn argument here has involved religion. Message 19, Message 18, Message 17, Message 11. Are you here to post incoherent rants or discuss?
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Porkncheese, posted 08-29-2017 5:53 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(4)
Message 26 of 154 (818474)
08-29-2017 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Porkncheese
08-29-2017 5:53 AM


To RAZD after taking time to objectively read your post that begins with Newton you then end it all be insulting me, claiming I'm some sort of undercover creationist. I actually was taking you seriously before you revealed you true thoughts. ...
Not what I said. Your posts reek of creationist influenced education, but that is not your fault. Ignorance is curable -- by learning. Being deceived is curable -- by learning. When you rather obviously do not know enough about evolution theory and processes, you are in no position to criticize it. Learning what they actually are (instead of creationist versions) would go a long way.
If you think I was insulting, I apologize.
...Review your statements on Newtons Law (not theory) because I think you have misunderstood it and its practical application on earth as it is not superseded by general relativity which I have never seen used in mechanical engineering. ...
And you won't because the theory of relativity for near earth solutions devolves to Newton's "law" (actually a theory). It doesn't even affect calculation enough to significantly alter calculating paths for landing craft on Mars.
But Newton's "law" (actually a theory) does not explain the anomaly of Mercury's orbit, relativity does. Because Mercury is close to the sun. The scale is entirely different than talking about how combustion engines work.
... You need to also confirm your assumptions on steel quality, strength and testing. They are also incorrect in general but especially in highly critical applications such as a bridge where the material is not just bought from walmart or something.
Curiously, I have actually tested steel strength, in a lab, with equipment designed and calibrated to measure the progress of failure under load. No two test results are identical, but they follow similar paths. And it is critical when that steel comes from other countries that don't have the production quality standards of US corporations. You do know that steel is an alloy - with impurities - and not a pure element, and that the alloy fractions (and impurities) have critical effects on strength, brittleness, and elasticity, don't you? That's why there are different grades of carbon steel and stainless steel -- each with different general characteristics.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Porkncheese, posted 08-29-2017 5:53 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 27 of 154 (818475)
08-29-2017 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Porkncheese
08-29-2017 5:53 AM


Be objective, trust the word of no one and question everything.
"Trust the word of no one..." except for your word of course. You have certainly come across as far less than objective and simply questioning evolution. You have come across as a pretender, we've seen it many times before (as has been explained). If you want to be taken seriously, ask serious questions, which so far you haven't. Be more specific. You want evidence of transitional species in the fossil record... ask about that. Serious questions, questions that really deserve answering are specific, not vague "everything is wrong and untrustworthy" type questions. How could "everything" be addressed in one post when its not even clear what you object to? You object because a few people made videos that question the ToE? People make videos about EVERYTHING - all kinds of wacky ideas... that doesn't make them worthy of scrutiny.
To RAZD after taking time to objectively read your post that begins with Newton
RAZD didn't even post in this thread.
you then end it all be insulting me, claiming I'm some sort of undercover creationist.
You do have the earmarks of an undercover creationist. Do you think throwing a couple of F-bombs around eliminates that suspicion?
People I know in biology tell me that any hypothesis formed by a student must comply to the theory of evolution regardless of the strength in the data, facts or evidence before them.
Total BS. I am a biologist and can tell you this is just not true. In science, the evidence leads where it leads. A hypothesis must be testable, it must be measurable, it must be reasonable. If your hypothesis for how a particular cell process came to be was "It was intelligently designed!" well of course that will be rejected as a valid hypothesis... it is not testable, measurable or reasonable. If the reasoning behind why that would not be a valid hypothesis is not clear, that could make a good discussion. Propose the discussion topic.
If you were ill and went to the doctor and he said "I think the germ theory of disease is just a religion and I don't believe it, so I am going to treat you for bad humors." You would get out of there, wouldn't you? Why wouldn't you allow a doctor to treat you with his "alternative theory of disease"?
Cellular biology is apparently waiting to advance but are held back by this Neo Darwanistic regime along with other fields of science too.
Source please? Was it Jonathan Wells? lol
I feel I must question everything and trust no one.
No problem, but throwing around accusations is not the same as questioning.
When there are so many people opposing ToE with good arguments that aren't countered very well you have to ask yourself.
1. There are not "so many people" opposing the ToE, just a small minority, usually religious zealots.
2. The arguments have been countered, you are just apparently not aware of that. That's what you could get from a place like this. Take the chip off your shoulder and loosen up the combative attitude and ask specific and focused questions.
Anyway Im off on a snow trip now and will most likely not re visit this site so best of luck to all (even the haters)
You have come across as the hater, as far as I am concerned... and you haven't even tried to engage in a discussion. I don't really care if you don't come back, that's up to you. But it's kinda crappy to blame everyone else for your short comings in the ability to have a productive scientific discussion.
Good luck to you as well.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Porkncheese, posted 08-29-2017 5:53 AM Porkncheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2017 2:16 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


(1)
Message 28 of 154 (818477)
08-29-2017 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Porkncheese
08-29-2017 5:53 AM


PorknCheese writes:
At this stage of my life I feel let down by everyone and everything I thought I trusted. I feel I must question everything and trust no one.
It's obvious that you're very angry about something - you arrived here looking for a fight, you seem even more angry by not getting one.
When there are so many people opposing ToE with good arguments that aren't countered very well you have to ask yourself. When Richard Dawkins, forefather in ToE makes such statements and admissions I have to question it.
The ToE is a scientific concensus. The only people opposing it are those with fundamental religious beliefs. Dawkins does not question the validity of the ToE, if you stick around we'll explain why.
Anyway Im off on a snow trip now and will most likely not re visit this site so best of luck to all (even the haters) Be objective, trust the word of no one and question everything. Goodbye
If you don't come back you'll confirm our fears that you're just another whacky creationist trying it on. If you do come back, start by asking a single, specific, non-loaded question.
Have a good trip.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Porkncheese, posted 08-29-2017 5:53 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 29 of 154 (818480)
08-29-2017 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Porkncheese
08-29-2017 5:53 AM


Porkncheese writes:
At this stage of my life I feel let down by everyone and everything I thought I trusted.
A lot of us felt like that when we were young. You might get over it or you might turn into a psychopath. You do have some control over your destiny.
Porkncheese writes:
I feel I must question everything and trust no one.
It isn't enough to question everything. You have to listen to the answers. Some of the answers will be wrong. That's not an excuse to stop asking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Porkncheese, posted 08-29-2017 5:53 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 30 of 154 (818481)
08-29-2017 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Pressie
08-29-2017 5:14 AM


Yeah.
All the things I can imagine and yet they never seem to become real.
I don't think it's fair.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Pressie, posted 08-29-2017 5:14 AM Pressie 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