Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 31 of 154 (818482)
08-29-2017 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Porkncheese
08-29-2017 5:53 AM


Why so angry, friend?
Seriously, if you've such a hair trigger then the big bad old world is going to come as a massive shock.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

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 23 by Porkncheese, posted 08-29-2017 5:53 AM Porkncheese has not replied

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


(4)
Message 32 of 154 (818484)
08-29-2017 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Porkncheese
08-29-2017 5:53 AM


Porkncheese writes:
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.
I can almost guarantee that this isn't true. It has all the markings of something you made up. I doubt that you know a single biologist who is doing scientific research.
This is the problem. You are making stuff up and expecting people to take it seriously.
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.
You were asked to discuss what was on those webpages instead of just posting bare links. This isn't a religious position. It is a position taken by those who want an informed and productive discussion. You are free to use outside sources as long as you discuss the evidence found on those pages, and show that you understand the evidence.
When Richard Dawkins, forefather in ToE makes such statements and admissions I have to question it.
Dawkins isn't even close to the forefather of evolution. I don't know why people treat him as such. People like Ernst Mayr, Douglas Futuyama, and Stephen Jay Gould are much more important figures in the development of the theory. Even then, science doesn't work through authority figures. It works through evidence.

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 33 of 154 (818486)
08-29-2017 1:14 PM


No creationist has ever made a credible attempt to explain the obvious pattern.
That's what left a sour taste in your mouth? It's a simple statement of fact.

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


(1)
Message 34 of 154 (818489)
08-29-2017 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by herebedragons
08-29-2017 8:09 AM


RAZD didn't even post in this thread.
I believe he was talking about Message 182 on the A good summary of so called human evolution. thread where at the end of a detailed thread I replied thusly:
... And this automatic assumption that I'm a preacher really makes u guys seem unbelievably bad and untrustworthy. Everyone here has labelled me a preacher. But is religion a part of my argument... Not at all. I see anyone with any religious arguments gets discriminated against, shamed and outcast. ...
Curiously, the evidence is in your words, your phrases, the heavy reliance of creationist drivel and PRATTs, rather than science and your poor, undereducated knowledge of evolution. Playing the victim of discrimination is a typical ploy.
If that is insulting then, imho, someone is looking for grounds to claim they are being insulted.
Additionally I note that we now have the classic "claim a moral victory and run away from further debate" typical of creationists.
Sad.

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 27 by herebedragons, posted 08-29-2017 8:09 AM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 35 of 154 (818490)
08-29-2017 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Porkncheese
08-29-2017 5:53 AM


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.
So both have the same traits, but you are incapable of listing them and you wouldn't even try anyway.
Interestingly is that both views involve inbreeding at the very beginning (even though ToE doesn't cover that it is still "science").
What does this even mean? Do you even know the definition of "inbreeding"? And what does it have to do with the theory of evolution?
But even though I hate religion I was never insulted for asking questions or abused for looking at things from another perspective.
And you weren't here either.
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
Good, we win! You were a push over.

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 23 by Porkncheese, posted 08-29-2017 5:53 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(6)
Message 36 of 154 (818491)
08-29-2017 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Porkncheese
08-29-2017 5:53 AM


Porkncheese writes:
Goodbye
Hello! Since you're leaving already and won't be replying I'll take a few minutes to say a few parting words classifying your comments as true, false, misleading and/or ignorant and/or confused, beginning with Message 1.
Porkncheese in Message 1 writes:
It is surprising that so many people seem to be so sure of their views and opinions when neither evolutionists or creationists have very convincing stories.
False. Evolution has evidence, creationism doesn't.
The creationists are relying on ancient texts some of which is so absurd they cannot be taken literally. These texts are not written by God but by man.
True - religious texts are written by men.
Evolutionists on the other hand seem to have just created this theory without conclusive evidence.
False and ignorant. The theory began with a mountain of evidence in Darwin's Origin of Species, and the evidence has increased enormously since then.
Their only objective seems to be to discredit religion.
False and ignorant. Read a biology textbook someday and you'll find it contains nothing discrediting religion.
I find this extremely frustrating. Religion should not factor into any scientific field.
Ignorant and confused. You must be thinking about the efforts of scientists to oppose the teaching of creationism in schools.
When you see Richard Dawkins admitting that intelligent design is possible then you have to ask yourself.
False. You've been watching Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, where an interview with Richard Dawkins is manipulated to make it seem like he endorses intelligent design. He was actually only describing how intelligent design contains an infinite regression that can only end at God. In other words, intelligent design is a failed attempt by creationists to hide God in order to make their ideas seem more scientific.
Why did you go on such a hate campaign against all religions...
False and ignorant. Those on the side of science only oppose those who are promoting the teaching of creationism in schools.
...when you cannot even explain the beginning of life...
Confused. The origin life (abiogenesis) is not part of the theory of evolution. It's about the origin of species, not the origin of life. It's about how species come from prior species, how species change over time, through the processes of descent with modification and natural selection.
...and you actually admit that intelligent design is possible.
False and confused. Intelligent design is certainly possible, but if life on Earth didn't arise here but was brought here or created here by an intelligent race, that intelligent race had to have a prior intelligent race create it. And that prior intelligent race had to have a yet even earlier intelligent race create it. Somewhere back in time there had to have been the first intelligent race. Where did that first intelligent race come from? Anyone who truly believes that life could never arise naturally will answer "God," and that's why intelligent design does not remove God from the equation.
A wise man once said "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing"
This still applies today
False, as you admit later when you say it was overstated and that you were just trying to get attention. I do think that most people here believe it helps to know the limits of your own knowledge.
Moving on to your Message 7:
Porkncheese in Message 7 writes:
Evidence is not conclusive nor is it absolute.
True, but nobody said it was. Science is tentative.
I agree but then why do people take issue with questions being raised.
False and misleading. You asked no questions in your first message. You asked accusatory questions, such as, "Why did you go on such a hate campaign..."
1. No one knows everything which some people seem to deny
Blatantly false. No one claimed there are people who know everything, and it would be absurd to do so.
2. The evidence used is inconclusive and not absolute which most people have a really hard time accepting.
Misleading at best. Science is tentative, something no one here has any trouble accepting. But the evidence for evolution is copious and persuasive.
And something being taught as fact in public schools should be absolute and conclusive like F=ma.
Ah, physics, yes, absolute and conclusive, like spooky action at a distance, wave/particle duality, and Schrdinger's cat. Schools teach the current state of knowledge, not what is "absolute and conclusive".
As for silly questions, are you saying I've asked silly questions. If so is there no tolerance for someone who admittedly is ignorant in biology and confused?
Misleading. Some may have called your questions silly, but as I said before, I think they were accusatory.
And if my questions are so outrageous than why has no one been able answer them.
False. Your questions were answered. The accusations they made were untrue.
They are questions not made up by myself. I am merely parroting the ideas and points made by many others.
True. You're parroting creationist points.
Like why don't we see thousands of intermediate fossils of humans?
Ignorant. First, let's be clear about what you're asking. Obviously you're not asking why we don't find fossils of thousands of intermediates - so many intermediates would be ridiculous. So you must be asking why we don't find thousands of fossils of intermediate human species, and the answer is that we do. This link to the Human Fossils page at the Smithsonian says:
quote:
From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals.
Let me ask you a question: Why do you ask questions without doing any homework, in this case that imply something that is actually false?
What kind of predictions have been made to support the theory?
Probably the most well known recent prediction was of Tiktaalik. From geological and fossil evidence Neil Shubin, a scientist at the University of Chicago, predicted that if he searched in a certain region of the Arctic that he would find fossil evidence of the transition of animal life from sea to land. And he did.
What are the best forms of evidence supporting the theory?
Good question, and there were a few good answers. Among the best: the nested hierarchy, the fossil record, genetics. If you ever come back from your snow trip we can dig into the evidence for evolution as deeply as you like.
Have I been rude at all?
Yes, of course. Why would you think accusatory questions are anything but?
Haven't I stuck to the subject?
I suppose you've stuck to the subject about as closely as someone ignorant of the subject could.
But my points are never addressed.
Misleading. You didn't make any points.
And no one can produce anything for me to consider.
False, though it does seem that no one can produce anything you're willing to consider.
Furthermore i keep being accused of being a heretic which makes my blood boil.
If you're going to parrot (your term) the ideas and points of creationists, what else can people conclude but that you're a creationist?
Yet I have kept my cool and stayed on track.
False. You haven't. You've run off in a huff of profanity and accusation to play in the snow.
Moving on to Message 23.
Porkncheese in Message 23 writes:
I've seen and heard enough. People are still making these religious allegations that are so fucking insulting I cannot stand it anymore.
Like I said before, if you dislike being mistaken for a creationist, then don't draw all your source material from creationists.
This is not a religion. This is a cult.
False. Unfounded and emotional assertion.
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.
False. You're confounding two different definitions of the word theory.
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.
True. That's just normal. What would be really strange is if everyone interpreted your question the same way and provided the same answer.
Interestingly is that both views involve inbreeding at the very beginning (even though ToE doesn't cover that it is still "science").
False and ignorant. Inbreeding requires sexual reproduction, and there was no sexual reproduction "at the very beginning".
And both have the same beginning of there just being nothing.
False, in any way you mean it. If you're referring to the beginning of life, evolution is not about the origin of life. And if you're referring to the origin of the universe, we don't know what came before the Big Bang.
To RAZD after taking time to objectively read your post...
You mean his post that isn't in this thread and that you don't link to? Good show!
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.
False. All motion is Einsteinian. It's just that the effects aren't noticeable at non-relativistic speeds, so Newtonian laws of motion are sufficient.
Every damn argument here has involved religion.
False.
Why has religion influenced science like this? FUCK RELIGION OK FUCK IT. Why is it always part of your explanations?
Getting back to something you claimed before, hey, way to maintain your cool!
This site was created to host the debate between evolution and creation. There have been exceptionally few members who were against evolution but were not creationists, and your objections echo creationist objections.
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.
False. And nobody here said this.
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.
If you don't want to be taken for a creationist then why are you speaking just like a creationist?
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're truly not a creationist and are actually just an innocent intelligent design advocate, don't forget that infinite regression that must end at God.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typos.

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 37 by herebedragons, posted 08-29-2017 9:19 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 37 of 154 (818503)
08-29-2017 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Percy
08-29-2017 3:29 PM


I'll take a few minutes to say a few parting words classifying your comments as true, false, misleading and/or ignorant and/or confused,
Let's take inventory then.
false: 15
ignorant: 5
confused: 3
misleading: 4
true: 4
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
The only thing missing was an obsession with logical fallacies.
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 36 by Percy, posted 08-29-2017 3:29 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 38 of 154 (818693)
09-01-2017 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by JonF
08-28-2017 8:17 AM


Re: Inconclusive not absolute
Thank you Jon F for providing those links.
Assuming from those skulls that man evolved from other primates what next?
What did the primate evolve from and when?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by JonF, posted 08-28-2017 8:17 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2017 1:56 AM Porkncheese has replied
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2017 6:53 AM Porkncheese has replied
 Message 78 by dwise1, posted 09-01-2017 8:59 PM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 39 of 154 (818694)
09-01-2017 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Porkncheese
09-01-2017 1:21 AM


Re: Inconclusive not absolute
Assuming from those skulls that man evolved from other primates what next?
What did the primate evolve from and when?
That information is all over the web, so perhaps you could look it up for yourself rather than have us waste our time spoon feeding it to you.
You are sounding more and more like a true creationist all the time.
If that's the case, you wouldn't accept anything we posted anyway.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Porkncheese, posted 09-01-2017 1:21 AM Porkncheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Porkncheese, posted 09-01-2017 4:56 AM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 40 of 154 (818697)
09-01-2017 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Coyote
09-01-2017 1:56 AM


Re: Inconclusive not absolute
The web brings up different opinions on this

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2017 1:56 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Rrhain, posted 09-01-2017 5:03 AM Porkncheese has not replied
 Message 42 by Pressie, posted 09-01-2017 6:07 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 41 of 154 (818698)
09-01-2017 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Porkncheese
09-01-2017 4:56 AM


Re: Inconclusive not absolute
Porknchees writes:
quote:
The web brings up different opinions on this
Indeed, you can find anybody to claim anything on the interwebs.
What makes you think all of those "different opinions" are equally valuable? People are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. Are you saying that foolish people's opinions are to be considered equally valid as any other opinion? When you are asking about information regarding something, you would seek out someone who has actual experience in the field of inquiry, wouldn't you?
So here's a quick question: Whose opinions did you find? Are you saying you are unable to even begin to determine which of those opinions are foolish and should be ignored? If not, if you are truly naive regarding this, of what benefit is giving you any opinion?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Porkncheese, posted 09-01-2017 4:56 AM Porkncheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by 1.61803, posted 09-01-2017 10:10 AM Rrhain has not replied

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


Message 42 of 154 (818699)
09-01-2017 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Porkncheese
09-01-2017 4:56 AM


Re: Inconclusive not absolute
Indeed. One difference, though. I personally go to a certified and experienced heart specialist instead of going to some some random quack on the interwebs to check how my heart is doing.
Opinions are like anuses. Everyone's got one.
The relevant specialists are rare.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Porkncheese, posted 09-01-2017 4:56 AM Porkncheese has not replied

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


Message 43 of 154 (818700)
09-01-2017 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Porkncheese
09-01-2017 1:21 AM


searchable database
Assuming from those skulls that man evolved from other primates what next?
What did the primate evolve from and when?
An interesting site to explore is Palaeos: Life Through Deep Time although it is undergoing massive update/restructuring of the pages, and some links don't work ... you can use google search to find pages like
Palaeos Vertebrates Primates: Primates
If the google site search is broken you can do it manually
google: site:http://palaeos.com/ "primate"
It is searchable as well through the links in the cladograms. Clicking the last line in that page gives
Palaeos Vertebrates Primates: Haplorhini
or you can go to the bottom of the pages and click the [Page Next] link
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : added info

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 38 by Porkncheese, posted 09-01-2017 1:21 AM Porkncheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Porkncheese, posted 09-01-2017 8:20 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 44 of 154 (818707)
09-01-2017 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
09-01-2017 6:53 AM


Re: searchable database
Thanks for the links.
This is on that website you provided.
"Dendrogram
The following dendrogram represents a somewhat misleadlingly linear "great chain of being" / "ascent of man" model of human evolution. Hopefully this will be corrected in future, as the various other branche son the primate evolutionary tree are fille dout."
Its says it's misleading. All the suggestions I've read on that site and elsewhere start with "probably" "perhaps" "maybe" or other words of this nature.
Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2017 6:53 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by JonF, posted 09-01-2017 9:25 AM Porkncheese has not replied
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 09-01-2017 10:05 AM Porkncheese has replied
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 09-01-2017 10:59 AM Porkncheese has not replied
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2017 7:31 AM Porkncheese has not replied

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


Message 45 of 154 (818709)
09-01-2017 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Porkncheese
09-01-2017 8:20 AM


Re: searchable database
They laid out human evolution as linear to make some points, but the "ascent of man" model is out of date. It's misleading because a real graph looks more like a tree with branches (lying on its side in the following).
Scientific conclusions are always tentative to some degree although many of them are so well established. I can't comment on the use of such words without context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Porkncheese, posted 09-01-2017 8:20 AM Porkncheese 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