Originally posted by googlefudge
No it can't. Especially not on the science forum.

Faith is verboten in science.

You believe evilution on faith because that's all you got.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You believe evilution on faith because that's all you got.

No, I don't.

The fact that you are intentionally ignorant of all the evidence for evolution,
and even of what evolution actually is, doesn't mean that it's a faith based
position.

You do realise that when you post stuff like that to me all it does is make me
think you are ignorant and stupid.


This is the science forum, where evolution is an established fact.

You disagree for religious reasons. Fine, we get that.

But can you for the love of whatever god you believe in please just shut up about
your religious disapproval of evolution in the science forum.


How many times do you have to be booted to take the hint?

Originally posted by RJHinds
They have been conspiring with fake evidences to try to convince people of evilution for over a hundred years now. However, most of their false science has been revealed. People with common sense are not fooled by their nonsense about billions and millions of years of past history. Yes, evilution is a religion.

It is more than a little ironic that someone like you, who places so much importance in religion, thinks that it is an insult to accuse others of a believing in a religion. You're basically arguing that the ideas of evolution are just as stupid as the ideas of creationism, which doesn't seem like a very good strategy for selling creationism.

And of course, you again show a lack of basic knowledge about definitions. Religion is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods." This definition could not possibly apply to belief in evolution.

Originally posted by Soothfast
It is improbable that the data will be "corrected" by fifty or a hundred standard deviations, which is about as likely as falling off a toilet in Kentucky and landing in the Eye of Jupiter.

It is unlikely that our basic assumptions won't be discredited? I think every generation believes that what they know is correct, but most generations have been proven wrong. Of course they died believing that they had it figured out, so I suppose ignorance is bliss.

Originally posted by Eladar
It is unlikely that our basic assumptions won't be discredited? I think every generation believes that what they know is correct, but most generations have been proven wrong. Of course they died believing that they had it figured out, so I suppose ignorance is bliss.

You mean we are wrong about it being improbable to fall off a toilet in Kentucky and landing in the Eye of Jupiter?
I take it you are saying we are currently wrong about everything and cannot rationally know anything in this current generation just because past ones have been occasionally wrong about some things?
So that means the law of gravity is wrong and the Earth is flat after all?

What total nonsense. Regardless of what past generations did or didn't believe, we CAN rationally KNOW scientific facts as facts.

Originally posted by Eladar
It is unlikely that our basic assumptions won't be discredited? I think every generation believes that what they know is correct, but most generations have been proven wrong. Of course they died believing that they had it figured out, so I suppose ignorance is bliss.

Go read "The Relativity of Wrong" By Isaac Asimov and get spanked by the master.

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm


We are currently wrong about the shape of the Earth... but not so wrong that
we can't rule out it being a cube.

Originally posted by googlefudge
...and get spanked by the master…

Oh, that's good! 😉

Originally posted by googlefudge
Go read "The Relativity of Wrong" By Isaac Asimov and get spanked by the master.

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm


We are currently wrong about the shape of the Earth... but not so wrong that
we can't rule out it being a cube.

Perhaps the best way to expose of the idiocy of this common line of reasoning by the Creationists is to refer to hypotheses that can only be right or wrong with little room for a grey area between and which where wrongly assumed to be wrong or right in the past but now we know better and then point out to the creationists that, according to THEIR stupid logic here, all those hypotheses must now be BOTH right and wrong! -which is an idiotic logical contradiction.

Take for example “are there moons orbiting Saturn”; well, most past generations would probably implicitly assumed, and arguably reasonably in this case (because of Occam's razor ) , the answer to that was “no” because they didn't have telescopes that could see them and they had no reason to believe there existed moons around other planets other than the single moon around the Earth (plus because everything was assumed to revolve around the earth ) . But now we know better. Well, according to this idiotic Creationist logic then, EVERY generation in the past has been proven wrong and that means, according to their idiotic logic, OUR generation is wrong. Therefore, that must mean that BOTH past generations where wrong in implicitly assuming NO moons around Saturn and we are wrong in believing there are moons around Saturn -even the moronic Creationists must surely see just how total idiocy such a conclusion is!

Originally posted by googlefudge
Go read "The Relativity of Wrong" By Isaac Asimov and get spanked by the master.

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm


We are currently wrong about the shape of the Earth... but not so wrong that
we can't rule out it being a cube.

I'm sure I'd get smacked by the master of any generation, at least in the eyes of those who disagree with me.

Originally posted by humy
Perhaps the best way to expose of the idiocy of this common line of reasoning by the Creationists is to refer to hypotheses that can only be right or wrong with no grey area between and which where wrongly assumed to be wrong or right in the past but now we know better and then point out to the creationists that, according to THEIR stupid logic here, all those ...[text shortened]... turn -even the moronic Creationists must surely know just how total idiocy such a conclusion is!

The basic problem is that some believe that certain unproved assumptions are more correct than others.

Does God exist? Of course the best assumptions is that God does not exist therefore we must assume that God does not exist and it really isn't an unproved assumptions anymore. It is the absolute truth because we want to believe we know absolute truth.

You guys are such shmucks.

Originally posted by Eladar
The basic problem is that some believe that certain unproved assumptions are more correct than others.

Does God exist? Of course the best assumptions is that God does not exist therefore we must assume that God does not exist and it really isn't an unproved assumptions anymore. It is the absolute truth because we want to believe we know absolute truth.

You guys are such shmucks.

The basic problem is that some believe that certain unproved assumptions are more correct than others.

You are talking about probability here, aren’t you! what else could you mean by "assumptions" being "more correct"?
So you are saying there is not such thing as probability. So how can you then rationally assume that there is, say, probably a god when there isn't such thing as 'probably'? -answer; you cannot without logically contradicting yourself.

Originally posted by Eladar
The basic problem is that some believe that certain unproved assumptions are more correct than others.

Does God exist? Of course the best assumptions is that God does not exist therefore we must assume that God does not exist and it really isn't an unproved assumptions anymore. It is the absolute truth because we want to believe we know absolute truth.

You guys are such shmucks.

Don't let the door spank you on the ass on the way out...

Originally posted by humy

The basic problem is that some believe that certain unproved [b]assumptions are more correct than others.

You are talking about probability here, aren’t you! what else could you mean by "assumptions" being "more correct"?
So you are saying there is not such thing as probability. So how can you then rationally assume that ther ...[text shortened]... re isn't such thing as 'probably'? -answer; you cannot without logically contradicting yourself.[/b]

assumption

Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assumption

See there is no probability in defining assumption, it is what it is, an assumption.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You believe evilution on faith because that's all you got.

Do you wear your dunce cap all day long, or just during visiting hours at the asylum?