A Reprise: Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth

Status
Not open for further replies.

HoundedHawk

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

This only proves to me that Loog is right. Didn't you also say this? Loog's contention is that it's not an established fact. How is he wrong? How was Reagan wrong? This additionally proves to me that when someone brings out the "fact" word they had better be careful.
This post was edited on 3/7 2:51 PM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
229
63
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.

Where was that? That cut-and-paste you did from the wayne's world (oh mama mia mama mia) website? I don't dispute that there is a DIFFERENCE between a theory in the social sciences and a theory in the physical sciences. But, could you do me a favor? Could you explain this difference for me in your own words? I doubt it. You'll just resort to the usual "trust me, I'm better than you" schtick. But if you can't explain somethun in your own words, then you really don't get it.

My MAIN point is this, as I have repeated: the notion that man evolved from apes over millions of years is a THEORY, not a FACT. That is my main point, and I don't see you disputing it.

You've become a pathetic shell of what you once were. Yes, i've heard this from many different posters over the last few weeks.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:
You've become a pathetic shell of what you once were. Yes, i've heard this from many different posters over the last few weeks.
And I don't understand it.
 

Rambam99

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

Originally posted by Rambam99:
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. . .



This only proves to me that Loog is right. Didn't you also say this? Loog's contention is that it's not an established fact. How is he wrong? How was Reagan wrong? This additionally proves to me that when someone brings out the "fact" word they had better be careful.

This post was edited on 3/7 2:51 PM by HoundedHawk
if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}

Not quite. Loog's contention, as I have discussed, rests on his characterization of evolution as being "just a theory" and his comparison of this theory to an economic theory (this differs from him saying it's not an established fact). Both suggest an ignorance of what a "scientific theory" is. I have not based any of my posts on "fact", but what is a scientific theory.
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
229
63
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).

NPR, I would hope that your frantic google search turns up something better than that. Again, could you explain for me the difference between a theory in the social sciences and a theory in the physical sciences? If you really understand it, you shouldn't have to spend ANY time doing google searches on it. I can do google searches for myself.

Also, again, could you explain why I am wrong when I say that the notion that man evolved from apes over millions of years is a THEORY and not a FACT? Is this statement wrong? Please answer. You shouldn't need to google. The clock's ticking.
 

HoundedHawk

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

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

BUMP.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"No, I'm also taking the opinions of actual, hired, employed, functioning, and productive scientists."

And just because they are scientist doesn't make their work on this "science". Intelligent design isn't science. I've posted a link(as well as the article itself) that details why it isn't, maybe you should read it.
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
My MAIN point is this, as I have repeated: the notion that man evolved from apes over millions of years is a THEORY, not a FACT. That is my main point, and I don't see you disputing it.


And again, anyone who understands science and what a scientific theory is wouldn't even begin to frame the discussion is such a way. That is why I'm not disputing this: there is no thing as a science "fact" if we are using the terms with precision.

It is a scientific theory, not "just a theory" as the layman understands (or doesn't understand) it. A scientific theory is not comparable to an economic theory, even though the word "theory" appears in both places.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

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

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

Again, you are applying laymen definitions to scientific realms. Square peg, round hole.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by Rambam99:
That is why I'm not disputing this: there is no thing as a science "fact" if we are using the terms with precision.
? - It's not a scientific fact that the Earth orbits the Sun?
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
229
63
Not quite. Loog's contention, as I have discussed, rests on his characterization of evolution as being "just a theory" and his comparison of this theory to an economic theory (this differs from him saying it's not an established fact). Both suggest an ignorance of what a "scientific theory" is. I have not based any of my posts on "fact", but what is a scientific theory.

You don't even know what you're saying. That's just a rambling mess. Yes, I did characterize macro evolution as being "just a theory". Do you disagree with that?

Also, you are arguing that a scientific theory is stronger than an economic theory. OK, I recently read an article dealing with an economic theory of the late-90's currency collapse in Asia. It listed several factors that were responsible and provided some VERY compelling evidence and statistical analysis. It was an excellent theory of this particular currency collapse. On the other hand, some biologists argue that man evolved from apes over millions of years. They also provide evidence. So tell me, in your own words, why the scientific theory is stronger than the economic theory? They're both theories. And use your own words -- you shouldn't need to be doing any google searches.
 

HoundedHawk

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

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:


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

Again, you are applying laymen definitions to scientific realms. Square peg, round hole.
Not good enough.

Make a good life, 86.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

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

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:


Originally posted by HoundedHawk:



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

Again, you are applying laymen definitions to scientific realms. Square peg, round hole.
Not good enough.

Make a good life, 86.

Yes it is.

Right back at you.
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
229
63
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by Rambam99:
That is why I'm not disputing this: there is no thing as a science "fact" if we are using the terms with precision.
? - It's not a scientific fact that the Earth orbits the Sun?

Here is another example of a scientific fact, or observation:

After REPEATED experimentation (under identical conditions), we observed that the temperature of the liquid increased by 4.81 to 4.83 degrees every time that one dose of the chemical compound XYZ was added to that liquid.

There are scientific facts and observations. But the idea that man evolved from apes over millions of years is a THEORY, not a fact.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Actually, the Earth and sun orbit each other. Each has a mutual pull on the other. It's just our mass is so insignificant compared to it, we don't really bother the sun.

And beyond that, its only proven mathematically. We have no direct observation of the 4th dimension, which is what happens when mass curves space time. But you will still see it used as a "fact" because it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
This post was edited on 3/7 3:13 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
229
63
pffft. I gotta go home for the day. But I guess that NPR is off doing his google searches.

I just leave y'all with this thought (which I may have mentioned before ;>) -- the notion that man evolved from apes over millions of years is a THEORY. It is not a FACT.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:
pffft. I gotta go home for the day. But I guess that NPR is off doing his google searches.

I just leave y'all with this thought (which I may have mentioned before ;>) -- the notion that man evolved from apes over millions of years is a THEORY. It is not a FACT.

Thanks, Loog.

Hey, did you see our "believer's baptism" made it into Legendary Threads?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts