A Reprise: Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
227
63
Originally posted by Rambam99:

Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:
And does his misuse of "fact" forgive your ignorance of "theory"?

All I have said is that he is wrong in calling the theory of evolution a "fact". That is an inaccurate and invalid statement. And it sounds like you agree with me on this point.


Oh no, that is definitely not all that you said.

To wit: Evolution is far from a "fact". It is a theory, no different from scores of other scientific, economic, etc., theories.

You heretofore have expressed a much higher degree of "argumentative integrity". Why are you slipping now?

Let me put it this way. Consider two theories:

Theory 1: Man evolved from the apes over millions of years.
Theory 2: Goverment deficits result in higher real interest rates.

Those are both theories. You can collect evidence to support both. And you can also find evidence to refute both. But neither one is a fact. And no matter how hard anyone tries to spin it, Theory 1 above will always be a theory. It will never be a "fact".
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"
I would disagree. Process of elimination is a form of testing a hypothesis. And neither is macro evolution or the Big Bang by your standard."


Actually the big bang is testable(parts of it, as well as for macro), because of cosmic background radiation and other observations made of the universe
No, that's not being testable. It's just an observation that also perfectly fits our theory.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"Second, then by your standard our theory is also a fact because it is much better to us at explaining the world around us."

That isn't the only qualifier. It also has to fit with the scientific method and it also has to explain new material. Evolution does that well in a scientific way. ID does not.
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
227
63
First, "pretty much do" is not the same as accepting something as an actual fact. Admit your error, young buck.

Bingo.

eyes86 would have more credibility in this argument if he were to admit his mistake on this point. Not even the arch-atheist NPRLover is agreeing with him on this point.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"
No, that's not being testable. It's just an observation that also perfectly fits our theory.
"

Actually, we tested the cosmic background radiation. It fits our predictions from the theory perfectly(its temp, how it is spread out, ect ect). The observations were tested by the theory and they fit.

Again, if you can't follow this simple chart, there is no hope.

img1mc4.gif

This post was edited on 3/7 1:52 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Second, then by your standard our theory is also a fact because it is much better to us at explaining the world around us."

That isn't the only qualifier. It also has to fit with the scientific method and it also has to explain new material. Evolution does that well in a scientific way. ID does not.
Your Big Bang or Macro Evolution do not then fit your definition. They are outside your definition of a scientific method. Every test your perform, every observation you make, and all data you find fits for Intelligent Design model of the universe.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:
First, "pretty much do" is not the same as accepting something as an actual fact. Admit your error, young buck.

Bingo.

eyes86 would have more credibility in this argument if he were to admit his mistake on this point. Not even the arch-atheist NPRLover is agreeing with him on this point.

I have already said there are parts of it that can be changed but that doesn't change the overall theory being correct. Thats the whole purpose of a theory, to give you a good basis for which to do science from. If the basis isn't any good, it's discarded. Within the scientific community is it is widely regarded as correct even though parts of it can be changed.
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
227
63
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"
No, that's not being testable. It's just an observation that also perfectly fits our theory.
"

Actually, we tested the cosmic background radiation. It fits our predictions from the theory perfectly(its temp, how it is spread out, ect ect). The observations were tested by the theory and they fit.

Again, if you can't follow this simple chart, there is no hope.

img1mc4.gif


This post was edited on 3/7 1:52 PM by iowahawkeyes1986
if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}

There is generally more than one theory to explain a set of phenomena. However, I think you are missing an important step in your chart above. According to you, there should be an arrow pointing up from "theory" to "fact". And the way that a "theory" is elevated to "fact" is when the proponents of that theory have decided that it is "pretty much good enough" to be called a fact.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"
No, that's not being testable. It's just an observation that also perfectly fits our theory.
"

Actually, we tested the cosmic background radiation. It fits our predictions from the theory perfectly(its temp, how it is spread out, ect ect). The observations were tested by the theory and they fit.
Fits our model perfectly also.

BTW - It's "etc." not "ect."
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Second, then by your standard our theory is also a fact because it is much better to us at explaining the world around us."

That isn't the only qualifier. It also has to fit with the scientific method and it also has to explain new material. Evolution does that well in a scientific way. ID does not.
Your Big Bang or Macro Evolution do not then fit your definition. They are outside your definition of a scientific method. Every test your perform, every observation you make, and all data you find fits for Intelligent Design model of the universe.

Yes they do, as shown by what the scientific method is. You can test the Big Bang theory and its predictions, like CBR, how long ago did it occur according to this calculations, ect. We can back all this testable evidence up with observations.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"
No, that's not being testable. It's just an observation that also perfectly fits our theory.
"

Actually, we tested the cosmic background radiation. It fits our predictions from the theory perfectly(its temp, how it is spread out, ect ect). The observations were tested by the theory and they fit.
Fits our model perfectly also.

BTW - It's "etc." not "ect."

No it doesn't because god isn't testable. Keep saying that though. I've linked a couple of pages that show how ridiculous that argument is.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
I have already said there are parts of it that can be changed but that doesn't change the overall theory being correct. Thats the whole purpose of a theory, to give you a good basis for which to do science from. If the basis isn't any good, it's discarded. Within the scientific community is it is widely regarded as correct even though parts of it can be changed.
It's still at the stage where it can be completely scrapped. One little card being pulled out in this house of cards causes it all to crumble. And that is what ID scientists point out. It's statisticaly impossible for a single cell to develop from your little theory that must allow for exhaust fumes coming out of the back of a car, mixed with a little electricity, to create reproducing life.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"There is generally more than one theory to explain a set of phenomena."

You're right. Some are more valid than others at explaining it. Which is why evolution has become so rock solid, it has taken down all other explanations.

"However, I think you are missing an important step in your chart above. According to you, there should be an arrow pointing up from "theory" to "fact"."

No there shouldn't be, it has to be tested and stand up to scrutiny. I've already said by strict definition it isn't a fact. But within the scientific community it is generally accepted as one. Can you not see this distinction?

"And the way that a "theory" is elevated to "fact" is when the proponents of that theory have decided that it is "pretty much good enough" to be called a fact.""

Not just proponets, it has to be a majority of the scientific community. The majority of the scientific community also says that global warming is real. They regard it as being true, although it is still being disputed. Again, following strict defintion it isn't a fact that gw is real, but within scientific reals, it is.
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
My main ire is reserved for the distinction between fact and theory. e.g. consider the following statement: "Man evolved from apes over millions of years." No matter how hard anyone tries to spin it, this is NOT a fact.


It's not? A serious question. The linkage from ape (or whatever non-human primate) to human is progressing (or evolving) and getting stronger over time, is it not? Now, that doesn't make it a "fact", but are you burying your head in the sand? And why, for religious reasons? Because to do otherwise conflicts with what you believe? Your wife believes?

Not to unfairly drag her into this but I have a point. You have previously mentioned that she has essentially selected a very conservative, creationist church. Iirc, you have also posited that God placed (or could have placed) fossils/bones etc. in the ground and made it appear that those items are millions of years old. In other words, about 6,000 years ago God planted various items and through His miracles made them seem to be 100's of millions of years old. That is only meant as an attempt to accurately repeat what you have written; it is not meant to be some sort of sarcastic ploy.

Now, what really interests me (and there is no hope of getting to the bottom of this well) is how have these intra-family religious dynamics reshaped and reformed (or shaped and formed, take your pick) your views on both science and religion? I would imagine that for you to hold an "evolutionist" view would create possible conflict with your spouse and cognitive dissonance within yourself.

I don't recall if you have children (nor is it any of my business) but children, especially young children, would play a quite likely very strong role here. A desire to instruct them in basic Christian principles would almost necessarily demand a more literal approach to Bible story telling because young children are simply not capable of distinguishing myth from fact from metaphor. And as psychology has shown us, we tend to believe what we say, i.e., our beliefs may stem from what we say. So if we repeat the creation myth to our children, or perhaps even reinforce what they have learned in their religious instruction classes, we adults may find ourselves believing in a more literal approach to the bible.

And then there's the whole security of fitting in with others and maybe even the family is enjoying the aura of religious sanctity that comes from all this. Hence it is quite easy to see how evolution, in this context, now becomes the antithesis of what is taught in the Bible, thus evil, and how one know chooses to focus on things like "fact" vs. "it's just a theory".

In conclusion, I find possible psychological factors playing a part in what would drive a heretofore very rational, logical poster to make some elementary arguments (mistakes?) in refuting the validity of evolution.

Thus bringing up a continually fascinating topic for me: why do people allow their religious views (be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.) to affect their acceptance of science? I can't help but think that the supreme being, wherever She may be, must be shaking Her head in wonder why some people intentionally turn away from learning about Her (and our) world and how it was made and how we got here? Somehow I don't think the answer of adherence to the accepted religious text of our time/culture is a good answer when it comes to ignoring science.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
No it doesn't because god isn't testable. Keep saying that though. I've linked a couple of pages that show how ridiculous that argument is.
God is just as testable as the Big Bang or Macro Evolution. They cannot truly be tested because they can never truly be repeated. And every piece of data you find, every fact that is discovered, completely fits within the framework of the theory that there is an Intelligent Designer.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"It's still at the stage where it can be completely scrapped. One little card being pulled out in this house of cards causes it all to crumble. And that is what ID scientists point out. It's statisticaly impossible for a single cell to develop from your little theory that must allow for exhaust fumes coming out of the back of a car, mixed with a little electricity, to create reproducing life."

Depends on where you find that card. If it isn't central to the whole theory, then you are wrong.

"It's statisticaly impossible for a single cell to develop from your little theory that must allow for exhaust fumes coming out of the back of a car, mixed with a little electricity, to create reproducing life."


Another gross misrepresentation of the process.
This post was edited on 3/7 2:08 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
No it doesn't because god isn't testable. Keep saying that though. I've linked a couple of pages that show how ridiculous that argument is.
God is just as testable as the Big Bang or Macro Evolution. They cannot truly be tested because they can never truly be repeated. And every piece of data you find, every fact that is discovered, completely fits within the framework of the theory that there is an Intelligent Designer.

LOL no god isn't testable. Its a supernatural explanation to natural things. Again, you don't understand the scientific method and ID is not anywhere close to "the big bang"(which is a terrible term for it) and macroevolution.
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
227
63
Originally posted by Rambam99:
My main ire is reserved for the distinction between fact and theory. e.g. consider the following statement: "Man evolved from apes over millions of years." No matter how hard anyone tries to spin it, this is NOT a fact.


It's not? A serious question. The linkage from ape (or whatever non-human primate) to human is progressing (or evolving) and getting stronger over time, is it not? Now, that doesn't make it a "fact", but are you burying your head in the sand? And why, for religious reasons? Because to do otherwise conflicts with what you believe? Your wife believes?

Not to unfairly drag her into this but I have a point. You have previously mentioned that she has essentially selected a very conservative, creationist church. Iirc, you have also posited that God placed (or could have placed) fossils/bones etc. in the ground and made it appear that those items are millions of years old. In other words, about 6,000 years ago God planted various items and through His miracles made them seem to be 100's of millions of years old. That is only meant as an attempt to accurately repeat what you have written; it is not meant to be some sort of sarcastic ploy.

Now, what really interests me (and there is no hope of getting to the bottom of this well) is how have these intra-family religious dynamics reshaped and reformed (or shaped and formed, take your pick) your views on both science and religion? I would imagine that for you to hold an "evolutionist" view would create possible conflict with your spouse and cognitive dissonance within yourself.

I don't recall if you have children (nor is it any of my business) but children, especially young children, would play a quite likely very strong role here. A desire to instruct them in basic Christian principles would almost necessarily demand a more literal approach to Bible story telling because young children are simply not capable of distinguishing myth from fact from metaphor. And as psychology has shown us, we tend to believe what we say, i.e., our beliefs may stem from what we say. So if we repeat the creation myth to our children, or perhaps even reinforce what they have learned in their religious instruction classes, we adults may find ourselves believing in a more literal approach to the bible.

And then there's the whole security of fitting in with others and maybe even the family is enjoying the aura of religious sanctity that comes from all this. Hence it is quite easy to see how evolution, in this context, now becomes the antithesis of what is taught in the Bible, thus evil, and how one know chooses to focus on things like "fact" vs. "it's just a theory".

In conclusion, I find possible psychological factors playing a part in what would drive a heretofore very rational, logical poster to make some elementary arguments (mistakes?) in refuting the validity of evolution.

Thus bringing up a continually fascinating topic for me: why do people allow their religious views (be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.) to affect their acceptance of science? I can't help but think that the supreme being, wherever She may be, must be shaking Her head in wonder why some people intentionally turn away from learning about Her (and our) world and how it was made and how we got here? Somehow I don't think the answer of adherence to the accepted religious text of our time/culture is a good answer when it comes to ignoring science.

Good gawd, thanks for that lengthy psychoanalysis. How much do I owe you for that Dr. Freud? LoL.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Not just proponets, it has to be a majority of the scientific community. The majority of the scientific community also says that global warming is real. They regard it as being true, although it is still being disputed. Again, following strict defintion it isn't a fact that gw is real, but within scientific reals, it is.
Then the scientific realm you're associated with is living outside of reality. A fact is a fact. There is no breathing room. It's either 100% right or not. And if it isn't 100% then it's not a fact. Again, that is pure mumbo jumbo.

If you can't even admit what a true fact is then no one should waste any time in any dialogue with you.
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Again, scientist pretty much do accept it as a fact because the theory is so solid. It is the basis for almost all of our science in that area. If it weren't so rock solid, why would we continue to use it? Must be that it is really good at explaining the the world around us.
First, "pretty much do" is not the same as accepting something as an actual fact. Admit your error, young buck.

Second, then by your standard our theory is also a fact because it is much better to us at explaining the world around us.

It's is highly unlikely that future evidence will entirely displace the current theory of evolution; more likely refine it. So his error is not as great as you make it appear.
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:

Originally posted by Rambam99:


Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:
And does his misuse of "fact" forgive your ignorance of "theory"?

All I have said is that he is wrong in calling the theory of evolution a "fact". That is an inaccurate and invalid statement. And it sounds like you agree with me on this point.


Oh no, that is definitely not all that you said.

To wit: Evolution is far from a "fact". It is a theory, no different from scores of other scientific, economic, etc., theories.

You heretofore have expressed a much higher degree of "argumentative integrity". Why are you slipping now?

Let me put it this way. Consider two theories:

Theory 1: Man evolved from the apes over millions of years.
Theory 2: Goverment deficits result in higher real interest rates.

Those are both theories. You can collect evidence to support both. And you can also find evidence to refute both. But neither one is a fact. And no matter how hard anyone tries to spin it, Theory 1 above will always be a theory. It will never be a "fact".

Economics is a social science.

You are still spouting ignorance about what a scientific theory is. Why are you doing that?
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
227
63
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Not just proponets, it has to be a majority of the scientific community. The majority of the scientific community also says that global warming is real. They regard it as being true, although it is still being disputed. Again, following strict defintion it isn't a fact that gw is real, but within scientific reals, it is.
Then the scientific realm you're associated with is living outside of reality. A fact is a fact. There is no breathing room. It's either 100% right or not. And if it isn't 100% then it's not a fact. Again, that is pure mumbo jumbo.

If you can't even admit what a true fact is then no one should waste any time in any dialogue with you.

This is just getting pathetic. Now "global warming" is a fact as well. This despite the fact that many scientists are not yet convinced. Those guys I guess are not "true scientists", so they can be dismissed. All of the true scientists are pretty much convinced that global warming is a man-made phenomena, thus we can consider that statement to be a scientific fact.

This is just inane.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Not just proponets, it has to be a majority of the scientific community. The majority of the scientific community also says that global warming is real. They regard it as being true, although it is still being disputed. Again, following strict defintion it isn't a fact that gw is real, but within scientific reals, it is.
Then the scientific realm you're associated with is living outside of reality. A fact is a fact. There is no breathing room. It's either 100% right or not. And if it isn't 100% then it's not a fact. Again, that is pure mumbo jumbo.

If you can't even admit what a true fact is then no one should waste any time in any dialogue with you.

Again, hounded displays his ignorance of the scientific community.
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:

Originally posted by Rambam99:
My main ire is reserved for the distinction between fact and theory. e.g. consider the following statement: "Man evolved from apes over millions of years." No matter how hard anyone tries to spin it, this is NOT a fact.


It's not? A serious question. The linkage from ape (or whatever non-human primate) to human is progressing (or evolving) and getting stronger over time, is it not? Now, that doesn't make it a "fact", but are you burying your head in the sand? And why, for religious reasons? Because to do otherwise conflicts with what you believe? Your wife believes?

Not to unfairly drag her into this but I have a point. You have previously mentioned that she has essentially selected a very conservative, creationist church. Iirc, you have also posited that God placed (or could have placed) fossils/bones etc. in the ground and made it appear that those items are millions of years old. In other words, about 6,000 years ago God planted various items and through His miracles made them seem to be 100's of millions of years old. That is only meant as an attempt to accurately repeat what you have written; it is not meant to be some sort of sarcastic ploy.

Now, what really interests me (and there is no hope of getting to the bottom of this well) is how have these intra-family religious dynamics reshaped and reformed (or shaped and formed, take your pick) your views on both science and religion? I would imagine that for you to hold an "evolutionist" view would create possible conflict with your spouse and cognitive dissonance within yourself.

I don't recall if you have children (nor is it any of my business) but children, especially young children, would play a quite likely very strong role here. A desire to instruct them in basic Christian principles would almost necessarily demand a more literal approach to Bible story telling because young children are simply not capable of distinguishing myth from fact from metaphor. And as psychology has shown us, we tend to believe what we say, i.e., our beliefs may stem from what we say. So if we repeat the creation myth to our children, or perhaps even reinforce what they have learned in their religious instruction classes, we adults may find ourselves believing in a more literal approach to the bible.

And then there's the whole security of fitting in with others and maybe even the family is enjoying the aura of religious sanctity that comes from all this. Hence it is quite easy to see how evolution, in this context, now becomes the antithesis of what is taught in the Bible, thus evil, and how one know chooses to focus on things like "fact" vs. "it's just a theory".

In conclusion, I find possible psychological factors playing a part in what would drive a heretofore very rational, logical poster to make some elementary arguments (mistakes?) in refuting the validity of evolution.

Thus bringing up a continually fascinating topic for me: why do people allow their religious views (be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.) to affect their acceptance of science? I can't help but think that the supreme being, wherever She may be, must be shaking Her head in wonder why some people intentionally turn away from learning about Her (and our) world and how it was made and how we got here? Somehow I don't think the answer of adherence to the accepted religious text of our time/culture is a good answer when it comes to ignoring science.

Good gawd, thanks for that lengthy psychoanalysis. How much do I owe you for that Dr. Freud? LoL. /images/smilies/roll.gif

No charge. I'm just trying to put the pieces together given the available data.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"This is just getting pathetic. Now "global warming" is a fact as well. This despite the fact that many scientists are not yet convinced. Those guys I guess are not "true scientists", so they can be dismissed. All of the true scientists are pretty much convinced that global warming is a man-made phenomena, thus we can consider that statement to be a scientific fact.

This is just inane."


Loog, quit putty words in my mouth. I never said global warming was a complete fact. I said it is view as true in the majority of the scientific community. And no, their arguments against gw are completely worth dealing with, because many actually follow scientific methods. The ones that don't are not worth looking at.


This post was edited on 3/7 2:18 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
227
63
Originally posted by Rambam99:

Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:


Originally posted by Rambam99:



Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:
And does his misuse of "fact" forgive your ignorance of "theory"?

All I have said is that he is wrong in calling the theory of evolution a "fact". That is an inaccurate and invalid statement. And it sounds like you agree with me on this point.


Oh no, that is definitely not all that you said.

To wit: Evolution is far from a "fact". It is a theory, no different from scores of other scientific, economic, etc., theories.

You heretofore have expressed a much higher degree of "argumentative integrity". Why are you slipping now?

Let me put it this way. Consider two theories:

Theory 1: Man evolved from the apes over millions of years.
Theory 2: Goverment deficits result in higher real interest rates.

Those are both theories. You can collect evidence to support both. And you can also find evidence to refute both. But neither one is a fact. And no matter how hard anyone tries to spin it, Theory 1 above will always be a theory. It will never be a "fact".

Economics is a social science.

You are still spouting ignorance about what a scientific theory is. Why are you doing that?

Of course there is a distinction between physical sciences and social sciences. However the point of my post stands. Both of the examples I gave are theories, not facts.
This post was edited on 3/7 2:18 PM by Hawk-A-Loogeyif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by Rambam99:

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:


Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Again, scientist pretty much do accept it as a fact because the theory is so solid. It is the basis for almost all of our science in that area. If it weren't so rock solid, why would we continue to use it? Must be that it is really good at explaining the the world around us.
First, "pretty much do" is not the same as accepting something as an actual fact. Admit your error, young buck.

Second, then by your standard our theory is also a fact because it is much better to us at explaining the world around us.

It's is highly unlikely that future evidence will entirely displace the current theory of evolution; more likely refine it. So his error is not as great as you make it appear.
Highly unlikely does not rule out the fact that it could be completely scrapped. It only takes ONE LINK to be proven impossible, such as the first single cell, and the theory collapses as an entire solution to the formation of life.

The greatness of his error is that he stubbornly won't admit that the theory of Macro Evolution is not an actual fact. And if it is one day proven as incorrect his error is indeed massive. It's worse for him, because as opposed to you, he won't even consider the other side.
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
Now "global warming" is a fact as well. This despite the fact that many scientists are not yet convinced.

Loog, global warming is a fact. The causes and consequences are uncertain. But it is a fact that the earth is warming. Or is it not?
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"The greatness of his error is that he stubbornly won't admit that the theory of Macro Evolution is not an actual fact. And if it is one day proven as incorrect his error is indeed massive. It's worse for him, because as opposed to you, he won't even consider the other side."

I'll consider the other side(as in your side) when it actually fits what science requires. If you actually have an explanation that fits it, it will be considered. ID doesn't fit. Quit trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.
This post was edited on 3/7 2:22 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:


Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Not just proponets, it has to be a majority of the scientific community. The majority of the scientific community also says that global warming is real. They regard it as being true, although it is still being disputed. Again, following strict defintion it isn't a fact that gw is real, but within scientific reals, it is.
Then the scientific realm you're associated with is living outside of reality. A fact is a fact. There is no breathing room. It's either 100% right or not. And if it isn't 100% then it's not a fact. Again, that is pure mumbo jumbo.

If you can't even admit what a true fact is then no one should waste any time in any dialogue with you.

Again, hounded displays his ignorance of the scientific community.
No, you display your ignorance (or self-imposed stubborness) for failing to acknowledge what a fact really is.

And, no again, Hounded only displays his disdain for a certain segment of the scientific community. I am not ignorant of it.
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
227
63
The greatness of his error is that he stubbornly won't admit that the theory of Macro Evolution is not an actual fact. And if it is one day proven as incorrect his error is indeed massive. It's worse for him, because as opposed to you, he won't even consider the other side.

Yes. I will give NPR credit for admitting that the theory of Macro Evolution is not an actual fact.
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
Of course there is a distinction between physical sciences and social sciences. However the point of my post stands. Both of the examples I gave are theories, not facts.

What has happened to you? I fear that I must relegate you to the dustbin that holds so many of HROT's idiots.

Again, check out the National Geographic definition of "scientific theory" (it was quite nice) and attempt to see the difference between economic theory and say, the theory of evolution or gravity.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"No, you display your ignorance (or self-imposed stubborness) for failing to acknowledge what a fact really is.

And, no again, Hounded only displays his disdain for a certain segment of the scientific community. I am not ignorant of it."


You are taking lay peoples interpretation of a theory and applying it to people within the scientific community. Which is ignorant.
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
227
63
Originally posted by Rambam99:
Now "global warming" is a fact as well. This despite the fact that many scientists are not yet convinced.

Loog, global warming is a fact. The causes and consequences are uncertain. But it is a fact that the earth is warming. Or is it not?


Absolutely. However, it is not a "fact" that global warming is man made. The evidence does appear to support that notion, but it is not a "fact".
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:
The greatness of his error is that he stubbornly won't admit that the theory of Macro Evolution is not an actual fact. And if it is one day proven as incorrect his error is indeed massive. It's worse for him, because as opposed to you, he won't even consider the other side.

Yes. I will give NPR credit for admitting that the theory of Macro Evolution is not an actual fact.

,
This post was edited on 3/7 2:28 PM by Rambam99if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"The greatness of his error is that he stubbornly won't admit that the theory of Macro Evolution is not an actual fact. And if it is one day proven as incorrect his error is indeed massive. It's worse for him, because as opposed to you, he won't even consider the other side."

I'll consider the other side(as in your side) when it actually fits what science requires. If you actually have an explanation that fits it, it will be considered. ID doesn't fit. Quit trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.
And I've now actually decided to only continue with you if you humble yourself and admit that the Theory of Evolution is not yet an established, actual fact. I can put the lying aside for the moment, but if you can't do this then I will have no choice but to deem you "intellectually dishonest" and not someone's whose posts are worth any further reading.

FACT
- the quality of being actual
- something that has actual existence
- an actual occurrence
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
227
63
Originally posted by Rambam99:
Of course there is a distinction between physical sciences and social sciences. However the point of my post stands. Both of the examples I gave are theories, not facts.

What has happened to you? I fear that I must relegate you to the dustbin that holds so many of HROT's idiots.

Again, check out the National Geographic definition of "scientific theory" (it was quite nice) and attempt to see the difference between economic theory and say, the theory of evolution or gravity.

pffft.

I have no time for this type of internet argumentation. To paraphrase, "you are wrong, but I am too busy to explain why you are wrong. Go find this article that I believe was published in some certain periodical at some time in the last 10 years or so (or maybe even more recently, I can't recall) and then you will know why I am right and you are wrong."

I guess if you can't explain it to me, NPR, then you really don't understand it.

Like I said, I have no doubt that there is a distinction between physical and social sciences. I also have said that the theory that man evolved from apes over millions of years is simply a THEORY not a fact.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"No, you display your ignorance (or self-imposed stubborness) for failing to acknowledge what a fact really is.

And, no again, Hounded only displays his disdain for a certain segment of the scientific community. I am not ignorant of it."


You are taking lay peoples interpretation of a theory and applying it to people within the scientific community. Which is ignorant.
No, I'm also taking the opinions of actual, hired, employed, functioning, and productive scientists.
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
I also have said that the theory that man evolved from apes over millions of years is simply a THEORY not a fact.


Yet another way to encapsulate your ignorance.

And for what it's worth, I did include a definition of scientific theory above that was quite close to that of what was in the NG.

You've become a pathetic shell of what you once were. I don't necessarily demand that you agree with my conclusions, but at least understand what a "scientific theory" is. And by comparing it to an economic theory or saying it's "just a theory" clearly shows that you don't understand that.
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
I also have said that the theory that man evolved from apes over millions of years is simply a THEORY not a fact.


A very cursory google search turned up this:

One of the most common accusations heard from creationists is that "evolution is only a theory and hasn't been proven". Such assertions are also heard from conservatives who give political support to the creationists. For instance, during the 1980 Presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan told an audience, concerning evolution, "Well, it's a theory--it is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it was once believed." (cited in Berra 1990, p. 123, Wills 1990 p. 120, and Eldredge 1982 p. 28)

This accusation demonstrates a basic ignorance of the methods and principles of science. The scientific method holds as a matter of course that all conclusions are tentative, and that nothing can ever be absolutely proven to a certainty. Every conclusion reached by any scientist must always include, even if it is only assumed, the unspoken preface that "This is true only to the best of our current knowledge". Science does not deal with absolute truths; it deals with hypotheses, theories and models. The distinction between these is important in understanding and in countering creationist arguments, since the word "theory" also has a popular usage that is quite different from its scientific meaning (the vast majority of the US population--some studies have indicated as high as 95%--are in essence scientifically illiterate, and have only the vaguest grasp of modern scientific thinking, and the creationists always make a point of appealing to this popular ignorance).


I haven't read the entire article but this bit on scientific theory was on point.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/theory.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts