Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2018 4:27 AM
189 online now:
Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, vimesey (3 members, 186 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,778 Year: 18,601/29,783 Month: 546/2,043 Week: 98/386 Day: 1/47 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 753
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 61 of 73 (844808)
12-05-2018 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Tanypteryx
12-05-2018 12:21 PM


Re: Hehehehe u guys are such jokers
Political science is the one that makes me roll my eyes.

Actually, 'political correctness' is even more asinine. If that isn't an oxymoron, I don't know what is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-05-2018 12:21 PM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15740
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(2)
Message 62 of 73 (844809)
12-05-2018 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Porkncheese
12-05-2018 4:31 AM


Re: Survey
Porkncheese writes:

100 scientists were surveyed and asked
What are the chances of ToE being completely correct?
Answers varied from 0% to 100%


I would hope that no scientist thinks ToE is 100% correct. What would be the point of continuing to study it if we already understood it completely?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Porkncheese, posted 12-05-2018 4:31 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3207
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 63 of 73 (844814)
12-05-2018 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Porkncheese
12-04-2018 7:38 AM


Re: Hehehehe u guys are such jokers
Dr Adequate writes:

Mechanical engineering isn't a science though.

Bahahahahshaha. OMG. That is hilarious.

Except that Dr Adequate is correct. Engineering isn't a science, but rather a discipline which ideally should make use of the findings of science, but doesn't always. In fact, we've had engineering a lot longer than we've had science. Basically, engineers only concern themselves with what works and what doesn't and they don't care why something works.

I'm a retired software engineer with a strong background in hardware (first trained as a computer systems technician, took a number of university EE classes for fun) having worked closely with EEs for most of my 35-year career. Science is about discovering what's happening and why, hence developing theories is very important. Engineering is only about getting something to work, thus caring next to nothing why something is happening; hence engineers care nothing for theory. The strongest rebuke that an engineer can receive is to be derided for conducting a "science project".

In one job, I was designing the software interface to a new sensor (a humidity sensor, as I seem to recall). Part of that is to take the ADC value (digital form (0 to 255) of an analogy voltage level (0-5 V)) and convert it to the units (eg, % relative humidity). The data sheet only gave us a graph. So I started working on conversion formulae derived from curve fitting. Our EE put an immediate halt to my "science project" and ordered me to just build a look-up table.

In my Linear Circuit Analysis class, our professor had worked as a EE and he often expressed his contempt for scientists and mathematicians as well as for theory. When he introduced the subject of convolution, he told us the story of the delta function. Basically, the delta function is a pulse with an area of 1 and whose pulse width gets shrunk down to zero such that when you apply it to a circuit you're hitting that circuit with an instantaneous signal of infinite amplitude. Engineers came up with it and put it to practical use. It took mathematics about a century to prove the delta function and our professor just laughed at those idiots and their silly fixation with theories and proofs.

Next time you read a list of "creation scientists", notice how many of them are engineers (also how many have degrees in theology and in "food science").


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Porkncheese, posted 12-04-2018 7:38 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3207
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 64 of 73 (844816)
12-05-2018 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Porkncheese
12-03-2018 10:08 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
There was confusion about the term “naturalism”. I responded and cleared that up.

No, you did not. Please stop lying.

The term in question was not "naturalism", but rather "the naturalistic theory". That is not the same thing. Furthermore, all you did to "clear it up" was to tell us to look it up, then later from Wikipedia you gave a definition for something other than "the naturalistic theory". Of course you couldn't find that definition since it doesn't exist. "The naturalistic theory" is just something that you made up or else you got it from a creationist who had made it up.

I told you to look on YouTube for a video debate between Aron Ra and Mr. Kent Hovind. The reason is because they both use the term "evolution", but entirely differently from each other. Aron Ra uses it correctly, so if you were to look the term up (as you chided us to do) you would find that that definition agrees very strongly with how Aron Ra uses the term. However, Hovind's definition (which he only hints at, because keeping parts of it hidden makes it more useful for deception) is completely at odds with the definition. They both use the same word, but Hovind is talking about something completely different. We would be very justified to ask Hovind to explain what he's talking about, something that would not be satisfied by your glib "Go look it up!".

So our question to you still stands unanswered: Just what exactly do you mean by "the naturalistic theory"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Porkncheese, posted 12-03-2018 10:08 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16065
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 65 of 73 (844825)
12-05-2018 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Porkncheese
12-05-2018 4:31 AM


Re: Survey
100 scientists were surveyed and asked
What are the chances of ToE being completely correct?
Answers varied from 0% to 100%

Varying levels of FAITH as some BELIEVE it more than others
Hardly a science when they can't even agree on it

Boy, you have some really shitty arguments, don't you?

But I notice you've given up on the shitty argument in the OP. So is this new one going to be the topic of your next thread, or are you going to find a different way to embarrass yourself?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Porkncheese, posted 12-05-2018 4:31 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1965
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 66 of 73 (844829)
12-06-2018 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Tanypteryx
12-05-2018 12:21 PM


Re: Hehehehe u guys are such jokers
"Bible Science" is the one that totally gets me. It's offered at the first University I attended. All they did was reading different versions of Christian Bibles. A degree in Theology followed. That's it. They call themselves scientists after the 3 years of taking that course.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-05-2018 12:21 PM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by dwise1, posted 12-06-2018 12:59 PM Pressie has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3207
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 67 of 73 (844848)
12-06-2018 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Pressie
12-06-2018 3:25 AM


Re: Hehehehe u guys are such jokers
As I suggested to PnC, take a standard creationist "list of scientists who believe in creation" and read what their degrees are.

Several have degrees in theology or directly related to theology (eg, Hovind's albeit fake PhD in Religious Education). As you just noted.

Several have degrees in education.

A large number have degrees in engineering and in other technical fields. For example, I have seen two with PhDs in "food science", a valid field (read the O'Reilly book, "Cooking for Geeks") but what the frak does that have to do with evolution (not counting the truly stupid creationist argument asking how food evolved)?

Some do have degrees in the sciences, but they are definitely the minority in those lists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Pressie, posted 12-06-2018 3:25 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6352
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 68 of 73 (844849)
12-06-2018 1:55 PM


I think what we're witnessing here is evidence of absense.

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.


  
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 116
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 69 of 73 (844861)
12-06-2018 9:36 PM


Fossil Record

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Pressie, posted 12-07-2018 3:21 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Taq, posted 12-07-2018 2:36 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-09-2018 10:41 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1965
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 70 of 73 (844866)
12-07-2018 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Porkncheese
12-06-2018 9:36 PM


Re: Fossil Record
You were not asked to classify the fossils as either Ape or Human.

This was the question asked after the image:

Taq writes:

"A" is a chimp and "L" is a modern human. The rest are laid out in chronological order. This sure looks like macroevolution to me. If you disagree, please tell us what features these fossils are missing that you would need to see in order to accept it as evidence for macroevolution.

Please comment on this. After all, this forum is there for dialogue.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Porkncheese, posted 12-06-2018 9:36 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7610
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 71 of 73 (844903)
12-07-2018 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Porkncheese
12-06-2018 9:36 PM


Re: Fossil Record
We need to see a list of criteria you are using to determine if these fossils are transitional or not. If you can't list these criteria, then it is pretty obvious that all you have is straight denial.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Porkncheese, posted 12-06-2018 9:36 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16065
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 72 of 73 (844995)
12-09-2018 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Porkncheese
12-06-2018 9:36 PM


Re: Fossil Record
Fascinating. So you think that of these three A and M are two of a kind, and N is the odd one out?

So, some questions spring to mind.

(1) In god's name why?
(2) Are you legally blind?
(3) Why do you suppose so few creationists even agree with you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Porkncheese, posted 12-06-2018 9:36 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1965
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 73 of 73 (845006)
12-10-2018 6:02 AM


I think that Porkncheese abandoned us. The basic and honest replies to the statements he/she made were just too hard for him/her to be able to comprehend.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


    
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018