Who is really anti-science?

[volger]

I have always hated science. Hate may be too strong a word, more of a history fan.

 

[VOLatile]

Intelligent design makes more sense than evolution. The evolution puzzle is not even close to being complete. When dealing with theories, treat them as such.

This leads me to believe that you don't really know anything about evolution. You do realize that it's pretty much accepted as fact throughout the scientific community?

 

[thagodfather]

This leads me to believe that you don't really know anything about evolution. You do realize that it's pretty much accepted as fact throughout the scientific community?

I know plenty about science. The majority of the scientific community may accept it as fact. However, many scientists do not. Evolution is still a theory and expect it to remain as that. Until the puzzle is complete, it is not fact. Those scientists that accept it as fact are making a grand mistake because of how it affect the said scientists' other research.

 

[VOLatile]

I know plenty about science. The majority of the scientific community may accept it as fact. However, many scientists do not. Evolution is still a theory and expect it to remain as that. Until the puzzle is complete, it is not fact. Those scientists that accept it as fact are making a grand mistake because of how it affect the said scientists' other research.

Again, you obviously don't know enough about science, theories, or laws. Nothing in science is ever for certain. Evolution will never be anything more than a theory because there's so much to learn about it. That's what makes science truly awesome. Nothing is ever taken at face value. There's no other explanation that is even close to being as plausible as evolution, though.

And I assume we are debating macro evolution, not micro...

 

[thagodfather]

Again, you obviously don't know enough about science, theories, or laws. Nothing in science is ever for certain. Evolution will never be anything more than a theory because there's so much to learn about it. That's what makes science truly awesome. Nothing is ever taken at face value. There's no other explanation that is even close to being as plausible as evolution, though.

And I assume we are debating macro evolution, not micro...

Yes, we are debating macro evolution. We'll agree to disagree. We are not the only ones to debate this and the results will be similiar. I have my opinions and you have yours. Science is awesome in some ways and frustrating in others. The ideas of today will be disproved and replaced by the next great discovery of tomorrow.

 

[thagodfather]

Again, you obviously don't know enough about science, theories, or laws. Nothing in science is ever for certain. Evolution will never be anything more than a theory because there's so much to learn about it. That's what makes science truly awesome. Nothing is ever taken at face value. There's no other explanation that is even close to being as plausible as evolution, though.

And I assume we are debating macro evolution, not micro...

That is my argument. There's a reason for that. We will never know everything and mostly certainly not know as much as we think that we do.

 

[MG1968]

Again, you obviously don't know enough about science, theories, or laws. Nothing in science is ever for certain. Evolution will never be anything more than a theory because there's so much to learn about it. That's what makes science truly awesome. Nothing is ever taken at face value. There's no other explanation that is even close to being as plausible as evolution, though.

And I assume we are debating macro evolution, not micro...

I'll have to remember this if you ever come up with a "man-made global climate change is settled science" argument.

 

[VOLatile]

I'll have to remember this if you ever come up with a "man-made global climate change is settled science" argument.

I've never said that.

 

[MG1968]

I've never said that.

Considering which side of the fence you're on, that's surprising. Most left-of-center (and quite a few right-of) folks will default to the Al Gore mantra of "settled science".

Perhaps you're just a dumb truck driver like me or you're in the pocket of big oil.

 

[VOLatile]

Considering which side of the fence you're on, that's surprising. Most left-of-center (and quite a few right-of) folks will default to the Al Gore mantra of "settled science".

Perhaps you're just a dumb truck driver like me or you're in the pocket of big oil.

I consider you an intelligent truck driver. I do lean heavily towards the man-made theory, but in no way am I sure of it. My take is more of a "why risk it" sort of deal.

 

[gsvol]

I know plenty about science. The majority of the scientific community may accept it as fact. However, many scientists do not. Evolution is still a theory and expect it to remain as that. Until the puzzle is complete, it is not fact. Those scientists that accept it as fact are making a grand mistake because of how it affect the said scientists' other research.

A lot of people have a very hard time differentuating between facts and theory.

AGW is a theory that has some huge non-sequiturs in it that totally ignore known laws of physics.

Therefore the answer to the original question of this thread is that those who promote AGW are anti-science.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Why are the Chinese buying our coal anyway...I thought they had plenty.... ?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Va coal economy right there, majority to china

 

[TennTradition]

Va coal economy right there, majority to china

That's very interesting. Sounds like China already has a sustainability problem with regard to their energy infrastructure. I can only imagine how crappy the air quality is as well, since I highly doubt the Chinese have adopted our clean(er) burning strategies.

 

[theFallGuy]

Again, you obviously don't know enough about science, theories, or laws. Nothing in science is ever for certain. Evolution will never be anything more than a theory because there's so much to learn about it. That's what makes science truly awesome. Nothing is ever taken at face value. There's no other explanation that is even close to being as plausible as evolution, though.

And I assume we are debating macro evolution, not micro...

"There's no other explanation that is even close to being as plausible as evolution, though."

And that my friend is why evolution just doesn't pull me in. Complex organisms, all the way down to the DNA chain of humans was created out of thousands if not millions of positive mutations from organisms that formed out of a cosmic soup? It is mathematically impossible.

Not to mention the big bang breaks the #1 rule of science, matter can neither be created nor destroyed.


"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views." - A. Einstein

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres." - A. Einstein

 

[PKT_VOL]

"There's no other explanation that is even close to being as plausible as evolution, though."

And that my friend is why evolution just doesn't pull me in. Complex organisms, all the way down to the DNA chain of humans was created out of thousands if not millions of positive mutations from organisms that formed out of a cosmic soup? It is mathematically impossible.

Not to mention the big bang breaks the #1 rule of science, matter can neither be created nor destroyed.


"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views." - A. Einstein

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres." - A. Einstein

Eh, this deserves it's own thread. Let's not let a climate debate thread get derailed into an Evolution vs Intelligent Design thread.

 

[RespectTradition]

Eh, this deserves it's own thread. Let's not let a climate debate thread get derailed into an Evolution vs Intelligent Design thread.

It actually wasnt a Global warming thread either. I was voicing discontent with people cherry picking science to support a predetermined political belief.

 

[VOLatile]

"There's no other explanation that is even close to being as plausible as evolution, though."

And that my friend is why evolution just doesn't pull me in. Complex organisms, all the way down to the DNA chain of humans was created out of thousands if not millions of positive mutations from organisms that formed out of a cosmic soup? It is mathematically impossible.

Not to mention the big bang breaks the #1 rule of science, matter can neither be created nor destroyed.


"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views." - A. Einstein

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres." - A. Einstein

Can you cite a non-biased mathematician that states that evolution is mathematically impossible? Every argument that I've seen for that has been in a book written by a blatantly biased Christian. It is my understanding that a 1-in-1 trillion chance (for example) means that the predicted event can happen anywhere between 1 and one trillion. The number does not need to run its course.

The Conservation of Mass does not support your argument. We can only enter an argument of circular logic with that being introduced.

Einstein was either a deist or a pantheist. Einstein rejected the idea of a personal god, calling it childlike.

You're free to believe what you want, no skin off my back. I know nothing I, or noted scientist, can say will change your mind.

 

[KiffinKiller]

haa.

 

[joevol320]

This leads me to believe that you don't really know anything about evolution. You do realize that it's pretty much accepted as fact throughout the scientific community?

explain to us o'brilliant one about evolution. to say that everything happened at random chance is completely laughable. all you need is amazing random odds and trillions of years and boom, you have earth and society.

what a joke.

 

[joevol320]

Can you cite a non-biased mathematician that states that evolution is mathematically impossible? Every argument that I've seen for that has been in a book written by a blatantly biased Christian. It is my understanding that a 1-in-1 trillion chance (for example) means that the predicted event can happen anywhere between 1 and one trillion. The number does not need to run its course.

The Conservation of Mass does not support your argument. We can only enter an argument of circular logic with that being introduced.

Einstein was either a deist or a pantheist. Einstein rejected the idea of a personal god, calling it childlike.

You're free to believe what you want, no skin off my back. I know nothing I, or noted scientist, can say will change your mind.

there is not one bit if evolution that is supported by fact. However, there are countless of evolution theories that have been shot down.

 

[MG1968]

there is not one bit if evolution that is supported by fact. However, there are countless of evolution theories that have been shot down.

are there any facts to support the notion that the earth is only 6000 years old and the dinosaurs are extinct because Noah's ark wasn't big enough?

 

[Gramps]

are there any facts to support the notion that the earth is only 6000 years old and the dinosaurs are extinct because Noah's ark wasn't big enough?

The Bible says that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. One cannot use the Bible to say the earth is 6000 years old.

 

[PKT_VOL]

are there any facts to support the notion that the earth is only 6000 years old and the dinosaurs are extinct because Noah's ark wasn't big enough?

Don't be silly. Didn't you know that God put dinosaur fossils in the Earth's crust to test our faith?

 

[n_huffhines]

1) The best point creationists make is that bats are the only flying mammal, where the hell did they come from? It's a good question, but it's not any sort of proof evolution is false.

2) I have met Christians who think God used evolution to perfect man in the creation process...the 6 days of creation were not literally "days", they were eons. Reconciling the Bible with evolution is not difficult when you don't believe in a literal translation. This is a theory that can explain dinosaur fossils, Cro-Magnon man, etc.

 

[joevol320]

are there any facts to support the notion that the earth is only 6000 years old and the dinosaurs are extinct because Noah's ark wasn't big enough?

absolutely there are facts. scientists that have studied this believes the earth is around 8 thousand year olds and not billions as evolutionist think.