Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?

I hope you realize that this singularly silly lie won't deceive anyone who's not already a creationist.

Very well. This post contains an complete absence of thousands of references to all the nonexistent scientific papers that creationists have utterly failed to write.Are you familiar with the phrase "burden of proof"?

And yet if you try telling that to scientists, they'll just laugh at you, strange, isn't it? It's almost as if they know something you don't.---As I have pointed out, you are not going to deceive anyone with this nonsense who has not been deceived already. You are not, for example, going to make me forget all the evidence that proves the theory correct simply by telling me that the theory of evolution is "very bad". To achieve that, you would have to open my skull and amputate large portions of my brain until I know as little about science as a creationist.That's one great advantage evolutionists have over creationists, (which goes along with being right) it is in principle possible for us to educate a creationist, though I confess that the occurence is rather rare. But it is not possible for you to make us as ignorant as yourselves without actual surgery.By the way, I suggest that if you are going to use the word "theory" you should find out what it means.Here, let me help you: Note the words "well-substantiated". I have never met any "evolutionist" who believes any such thing. Have you? What on earth does the existence of God or your fantasies about the universe "coming from nothing" have to do with evolution?(Hint: the answer to this question is "sweet damn-all".)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It's because they learn to recite words without ever wondering what they mean.

This is a statement so utterly wrong that it would make any scientist laugh like a hyena.Scientific theories such as the theory of gravity, quantum theory, the germ theory of disease, the atomic theory of matter, the theory of relativity are how scientists understand the world. That's what "theory" means in science.The facts are the things to be understood. The theories are the understanding of the facts.Before you decided to shoot your mouth off about science, a subject of which you evidently know nothing, why didn't you bother to find out the meaning of the words you so witlessly recite?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If you had ever paid any attention to science you'd know that you're talking rubbish. And the the name scientists give to their knowledge of the relationship between cause and effect is "theory". It's made us a whole lot less ignorant. Well, those of us who were paying attention.

And I hope you got the floors all nice and clean. What a shame you didn't speak to any scientists while you had the opportunity; many of them would have been happy to fill in the appalling gaps in your schooling, like what scientists do, what science is, and what the word "theory" means.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You know that doesn't mean anything, right? If you wish to pretend that that's what evolutionary biology is like, you're not going to deceive anyone. If you did a little research into what you're talking about, you wouldn't even deceive yourself. Actually, it's not "the evolutionary model" that "proclaims itself as true science".It's these people called "scientists". Who know science when they see it. And who don't get all muddly and confused over the basic terms and concepts of science like you do.

Splendid. Here are 72 Nobel Prize winners. Guess what, they're "true scientists". In fact, they may well know even more about science than you do, like, for example, the first damn thing about what they're talking about. Now, who should I believe about science, them or you?Well, have you won 72 Nobel Prizes in science?No.Do you have the faintest idea what you're talking about?No.Do you even know the meaning of the words you're using?No.Do they know something you don't?Yes.So perhaps instead of arrogantly shooting your mouth about what is and isn't scientific, a subject of which you evidently know damn-all, perhaps you ought to find out some of the things that scientists know about science and you don't. Like what science is and what scientists do.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes. My understanding of "what true science is all about" is in agreement with the 72 Nobel Laureates I quoted. The 72 Nobel Laureates whom I cited do not, in fact, all "attend my university", though I am flattered that you should place me in such august company.

I point out that you, a non-scientist, know less about science than 72 Nobel Laureates put together ... and you treat that as an "attack" and condemn it as non-rational?It is perfectly rational, not to mention 100% true. Denying it would be irrational. And treating it as a personal insult smacks of megalomania.You, I see, have chosen to whine about me pointing it out but without actually denying it, which is neither rational, nor, indeed, an argument.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

... in other words, theories. Your statements are gradually becoming more accurate, one day you may make it through an entire paragraph without making a mistake. Only if they're historical sciences. That description would not, for example, fit chemistry very well, because it is not one of the historical sciences. ... oh dear, you're back to gibberish again.You don't "test results", you test theories against the results of observations. So, for example, we can look time and time again at the rings of Saturn, or the fossil record, or the rocks brought back from the moon. We cannot, of course, duplicate the things --- can you duplicate Saturn for me? --- but we can of course duplicate the observations as often as we please. Let's hear from my 72 Nobel prize-winners again: Could I beseech you once more to consider the possibility that they know something that you don't? Such as ... science.If you can demonstrate to the contrary, you too may win a Nobel Prize. Good luck with that. I should warn you that even if you were right, which you aren't, proving your case would at some point require studying science rather than merely bloviating about it and dogmatically asserting your own correctness.

Since you are not a scientist, and since the greatest scientists in the world disagree with you, why should we accept your word as to what science is?Answer: we shouldn't.If you, a non-scientist, disagree with 72 Nobel Laureates about what "true science" is, then I'm going to go with the proposition that they are right and you are wrong.Because they, through years of patient study, have learned how the world works, whereas you, through reading a handful of creationist pamphlets, have learned to recite pathetic creationist lies about subjects that you have never studied using words that you don't even understand. No, you don't care about what the world's greatest scientists say about science, since you are determined to ignore science.Meanwhile, the world's greatest scientists will tell me that evolution is science.And I am going to believe them rather than you. Because they are the world's greatest scientists, whereas you apparently know nothing of science.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That is your opinion. But you know nothing of science.Let us look instead at the opinion of 72 Nobel-prize winning scientists. Y'know, scientists. The people who actually study science. Now, here's a couple of questions for you which you will probaly be afraid to answer.(1) Do you really know more about science than 72 Nobel Laureates put together?(2) If that is the case, and you are the greatest scientific genius who has ever lived --- why should we take your word for it? Could you not prove your genius by doing some actual science?Go on, do something scientific. These Nobel prize winners are the people who have explained to us how the world works. You simply go about saying that they're wrong, but without actually doing any science.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Actually he hasn't yet come up with the "but God is a liar" excuse --- the "Omphalos" blasphemy, as it is technically known.So far, his falsehoods seem to rest entirely on his personal megalomaina.