Only 15% of Americans accept evolution.

[Steskaya]

Perhaps the world is created, perhaps it ain't, we will only guess.

Well, you and the mouse in your pocket are welcome to guess at whatever you want. The grown ups will be next door in lab coats drawing conclusions from observation and experimentation.

Who will say those conclusions aren't a fallacy?

Define proper.

One who doesn't post mindless twaddle.

In that case that wasn't a proper post.

Refering to yours.

[Ifreann]

Well, you and the mouse in your pocket are welcome to guess at whatever you want. The grown ups will be next door in lab coats drawing conclusions from observation and experimentation.

Who will say those conclusions aren't a fallacy?

That's what the observation and experimentation is for. There is a bit more to figuring out how the universe works than just navel-gazing about matter being made of tiny strings.

[Bottle]

Define proper.

One who doesn't post mindless twaddle.

I just don't get how anybody thinks it is a useful contribution to say "Maybe yes, maybe no, and we certainly can't do anything as effortful and challenging as trying to learn something!" If you're that lazy, or that cowardly, why don't you just go play quietly with some blocks or something?

Is it just a need for attention? When my brother was little, he used to sometimes inject himself into conversations that he couldn't follow by saying, "Can we talk about something everyone likes now?" Is that what's going on?

[Steskaya]

Who will say those conclusions aren't a fallacy?

That's what the observation and experimentation is for. There is a bit more to figuring out how the universe works than just navel-gazing about matter being made of tiny strings.

Well, the first thing is, you can build a theory on a theory on a theory, however, when one of the fundation-theories are a fallacy, then the whole system collapses.

Not saying this isn't also true for creationism, it is a law for everything.

[Czechanada]

Who will say those conclusions aren't a fallacy?

That's what the observation and experimentation is for. There is a bit more to figuring out how the universe works than just navel-gazing about matter being made of tiny strings.

Yes, people put hard work, sweat, and blood into research.

[Bottle]

That's what the observation and experimentation is for. There is a bit more to figuring out how the universe works than just navel-gazing about matter being made of tiny strings.

Yes, people put hard work, sweat, and blood into research.

I feel qualified to speak for all biologists when I say, we really really appreciate all the ignorant laypeople who rush to assure us that evolution is Just A Theory. Our lifetimes of study and work certainly didn't clue us in to such mind-shattering concepts as "We'll never know" and "Maybe God made evolution, did you think of that??" and "You weren't there so you can't be sure." Thank heavens the internet is full of people who lacked the inclination (or ability) to pursue any meaningful study on this subject, so that we'd all have such wonderful experts to listen to whenever the topic is brought up!

[Chulainan]

That's what the observation and experimentation is for. There is a bit more to figuring out how the universe works than just navel-gazing about matter being made of tiny strings.

Well, the first thing is, you can build a theory on a theory on a theory, however, when one of the fundation-theories are a fallacy, then the whole system collapses.

Not saying this isn't also true for creationism, it is a law for everything.

What is it that you actually believe is a fallacy, evolution itself or something it's built on?

Apologies but could you be more specific with what you have an issue with?

[Steskaya]

Well, the first thing is, you can build a theory on a theory on a theory, however, when one of the fundation-theories are a fallacy, then the whole system collapses.

Not saying this isn't also true for creationism, it is a law for everything.

What is it that you actually believe is a fallacy, evolution itself or something it's built on?

Apologies but could you be more specific with what you have an issue with?

I'm not having an issue with anything, I'm just trying to tell that you shouldn't rely 100% on the scientific theory. Why? Because one tiny mishape and the system collapses.

Is creationism the solution? No, you have to mix the 2 things in order to get a more safe and more secure way of building up a theory.

We were also so sure about God's existment and his law's and theories 500 years ago, fallacy? Or not?

[Ifreann]

That's what the observation and experimentation is for. There is a bit more to figuring out how the universe works than just navel-gazing about matter being made of tiny strings.

Well, the first thing is, you can build a theory on a theory on a theory, however, when one of the fundation-theories are a fallacy, then the whole system collapses.

Not saying this isn't also true for creationism, it is a law for everything.

Do...you not get what I'm saying when I say "observation and experimentation"? Facts built on facts built on facts until we have a huge fucking Everest of facts and then stick a theory flag in the peak.

---

That's what the observation and experimentation is for. There is a bit more to figuring out how the universe works than just navel-gazing about matter being made of tiny strings.

Yes, people put hard work, sweat, and blood into research.

With biology, sometimes literally.

[Azurand]

god and religion is the source of american strength. we must not let science control us and make us ignorant of the lord jesus christ

This is a joke right?

Again, how dare you question the Almighty's True Words! All His Words are true, and it's ignorant to questioning it!

Until here, my post still half-serious.

[Steskaya]

This is a joke right?

Again, how dare you question the Almighty's True Words! All His Words are true, and it's ignorant to questioning it!

Until here, my post still half-serious.

Questioning something is never wrong, actually.

[Steskaya]

Well, the first thing is, you can build a theory on a theory on a theory, however, when one of the fundation-theories are a fallacy, then the whole system collapses.

Not saying this isn't also true for creationism, it is a law for everything.

Do...you not get what I'm saying when I say "observation and experimentation"? Facts built on facts built on facts until we have a huge fucking Everest of facts and then stick a theory flag in the peak.

Of which is great, but yet, it is not a safe system. Is it 100% safe? Great!

Examples are Higgs bosons. It wasn't sure if it existed 100%, yet, it is discovered, which made the theory complete. Now, you can move on. It is not smart to build on a not yet completed theory.

[Chulainan]

What is it that you actually believe is a fallacy, evolution itself or something it's built on?

Apologies but could you be more specific with what you have an issue with?

I'm not having an issue with anything, I'm just trying to tell that you shouldn't rely 100% on the scientific theory. Why? Because one tiny mishape and the system collapses.

Is creationism the solution? No, you have to mix the 2 things in order to get a more safe and more secure way of building up a theory.

We were also so sure about God's existment and his law's and theories 500 years ago, fallacy? Or not?

Which is why peer reviewing exists, if one cannot find a fault with his work he offers it up for testing to many other individuals who are also experts in a chosen field, specifically to prevent things from being wrong and yet still accepted.

Evidence from various fields have done nothing to prove evolution wrong and indeed simply strengthen its position. Your particular god which is very possibly abrahamic is not the only god to ever be believed in, how can you propose to the world of today to combine evolution with creationism when more than one form of creation exists?

It doesn't truly seem possible, also there is no evidence to peer review in regards to gods and goddesses which tends to sour things from a scientific standpoint.

[Ifreann]

What is it that you actually believe is a fallacy, evolution itself or something it's built on?

Apologies but could you be more specific with what you have an issue with?

I'm not having an issue with anything, I'm just trying to tell that you shouldn't rely 100% on the scientific theory. Why? Because one tiny mishape and the system collapses.

Wow, what a revolutionary idea. Maybe we could work out a system for investigating things whereby we try to find these "mishapes" before we build on them. Maybe we could set things up so that the aim is to disprove hypotheses until we find one we can't disprove, no matter how hard we try. And maybe we could call this science and people could wave their hands around and spout vagaries about how it's just a set of Jenga blocks where one of them is a cylinder instead of a cuboid.

Is creationism the solution? No, you have to mix the 2 things in order to get a more safe and more secure way of building up a theory.

You're so fond of fallacies, look up the Golden Mean fallacy.

We were also so sure about God's existment and his law's and theories 500 years ago, fallacy? Or not?

And when people say things about science now, that's just like when people said things about God 500 years ago.

[Las Tierras Verdes]

La evolución es una mentira!

[Steskaya]

Wow, what a revolutionary idea. Maybe we could work out a system for investigating things whereby we try to find these "mishapes" before we build on them. Maybe we could set things up so that the aim is to disprove hypotheses until we find one we can't disprove, no matter how hard we try. And maybe we could call this science and people could wave their hands around and spout vagaries about how it's just a set of Jenga blocks where one of them is a cylinder instead of a cuboid.

That part of science is good, again, I don't criticize that part of science. Please refer to the point I literally said science is bad. I only said that some parts of science, such as some assumptions, are not 100% trustworthy and can make a whole system collapse.

You're so fond of fallacies, look up the Golden Mean fallacy.

Just bringing in an idea shall a system collapse. It could happen with science, one tiny misshape and bam.

And when people say things about science now, that's just like when people said things about God 500 years ago.

Not actually realising some people judge overreacted towards religion, ie: science is the most reasonable way of thought, which sometimes it isn't.

[Ifreann]

Do...you not get what I'm saying when I say "observation and experimentation"? Facts built on facts built on facts until we have a huge fucking Everest of facts and then stick a theory flag in the peak.

Of which is great, but yet, it is not a safe system. Is it 100% safe? Great!

Examples are Higgs bosons. It wasn't sure if it existed 100%, yet, it is discovered, which made the theory complete. Now, you can move on. It is not smart to build on a not yet completed theory.

Holy. Fucking. Shit.

Sweet, divine copulating Golgothan shit-demons from the arse of the Great Atheismo Herself.

You are using the most famous scientific discovery of our age and acting like we should be doing that instead of science. That is fucking science! That is exactly the system you're saying isn't safe! That's the system you say needs more creationist thinking!


Bloody hell, I mean, these intellectual hipsters are always ridiculous, but saying "Oh, we shouldn't do it one way or the other, we need a third way that's a bit of both" and then going on to describe that third way as actually just like the one way is just making my brain hurt.

[Chulainan]

Wow, what a revolutionary idea. Maybe we could work out a system for investigating things whereby we try to find these "mishapes" before we build on them. Maybe we could set things up so that the aim is to disprove hypotheses until we find one we can't disprove, no matter how hard we try. And maybe we could call this science and people could wave their hands around and spout vagaries about how it's just a set of Jenga blocks where one of them is a cylinder instead of a cuboid.

That part of science is good, again, I don't criticize that part of science. Please refer to the point I literally said science is bad. I only said that some parts of science, such as some assumptions, are not 100% trustworthy and can make a whole system collapse.

You're so fond of fallacies, look up the Golden Mean fallacy.

Just bringing in an idea shall a system collapse. It could happen with science, one tiny misshape and bam.

And when people say things about science now, that's just like when people said things about God 500 years ago.

Not actually realising some people judge overreacted towards religion, ie: science is the most reasonable way of thought, which sometimes it isn't.

Science attempts to prove assumption, when these assumption are proven wrong by peer review they are rejected. This is normal. Perhaps you could respond to my post.

I wish to hear how you will merge creationism and science when there is more than one creation story on this world.

[Bottle]

Bloody hell, I mean, these intellectual hipsters are always ridiculous, but saying "Oh, we shouldn't do it one way or the other, we need a third way that's a bit of both" and then going on to describe that third way as actually just like the one way is just making my brain hurt.

What level of science education do you think he's got? High school maybe? Perhaps a semester of general Biology, maybe even learned what "DNA" stands for?

Taking all bets!

[Patheon Global Security]

They vote.

And they exist in positions of power in government.

Wow, that is a real problem!

Perhaps we should appoint some political correct, law abiding, liberal families in there!

[Chulainan]

And they exist in positions of power in government.

Wow, that is a real problem!

Perhaps we should appoint some political correct, law abiding, liberal families in there!

Are you suggesting he's wrong because.......he wishes people in government to be law-abiding. That's an issue to you?

I have such a headache now.......

[Benutanairan]

What the hell does that mean?

It means he is the epitome of ignorant hipsterism....
He has no clue what a scientific theory actually is, let alone knowing anything about the theory of evolution via natural selection, and thus thinks he's somehow cool for dismissing both it and creationism.

Actually I believe viruses and bacteria specifically stomach bacteria perfectly define adaptations over a period of decades thus causing anti-bacterium to develop

Hence making my job as a vet alot harder thus I have to find a way to adapt to different anti-bacterials.

Thus finding correlations to possibly adapt human immunity could be possible if we could find a bacterial inhibitor.

[Ifreann]

Wow, what a revolutionary idea. Maybe we could work out a system for investigating things whereby we try to find these "mishapes" before we build on them. Maybe we could set things up so that the aim is to disprove hypotheses until we find one we can't disprove, no matter how hard we try. And maybe we could call this science and people could wave their hands around and spout vagaries about how it's just a set of Jenga blocks where one of them is a cylinder instead of a cuboid.

That part of science is good, again, I don't criticize that part of science. Please refer to the point I literally said science is bad. I only said that some parts of science, such as some assumptions, are not 100% trustworthy and can make a whole system collapse.

There are no other parts of science. That's it. What are these less trustworthy parts you think exist? How do you think they could collapse anything?

You're so fond of fallacies, look up the Golden Mean fallacy.

Just bringing in an idea shall a system collapse. It could happen with science, one tiny misshape and bam.

How? Fucking how?

And when people say things about science now, that's just like when people said things about God 500 years ago.

Not actually realising some people judge overreacted towards religion, ie: science is the most reasonable way of thought, which sometimes it isn't.

Like when?

[Patheon Global Security]

Wow, that is a real problem!

Perhaps we should appoint some political correct, law abiding, liberal families in there!

Are you suggesting he's wrong because.......he wishes people in government to be law-abiding. That's an issue to you?

I have such a headache now.......

I was just acting as a stereotype Republican

/sarcasmon

DEM LIBERALS!

[Dyakovo]

One who doesn't post mindless twaddle.

I just don't get how anybody thinks it is a useful contribution to say "Maybe yes, maybe no, and we certainly can't do anything as effortful and challenging as trying to learn something!" If you're that lazy, or that cowardly, why don't you just go play quietly with some blocks or something?

Is it just a need for attention? When my brother was little, he used to sometimes inject himself into conversations that he couldn't follow by saying, "Can we talk about something everyone likes now?" Is that what's going on?

It's the hipster version of that, yes.