• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)

David Henson said:
It doesn't matter because you can't anwer his criticism with anything other than faith. Believe as I say. Don't question.
Click to expand...

Hovind's claims have been answered, and refuted, countless of times. One problem is, especially his tirade on BBT, his straw-men arguments.
 
David Henson said:
What is supernatural? Science can't test the supernatural, can it? So from a scientific perspective, even in almost complete ignorance, you can't deny God any more than I can confirm him.
Click to expand...


I don't deny God. I just don't believe in one. There is a difference.

However, you can't deny teapots flying through space or unicorns or invisible dragons or leprechauns or Santa Claus or ghosts or psychics or anything else, as long as I can think of it and call it supernatural.

Which is why evidence is important. There is none for gods. Therefore, I don't believe in one. But I also don't deny it.
 
Shalamar said:
Science is not decided by debate. Science is determined by the evidence. You are taking it solely on blind faith. because you do not like the evidence.
Click to expand...

I'm familiar enough with the mantra. It reminds me of Deus Vult! You remember that? The first crusade?
 
David Henson said:
I'm familiar enough with the mantra. It reminds me of Deus Vult! You remember that? The first crusade?
Click to expand...

Why don't you go forth, and show us the evidence that you disagree with?

Or are you just taking it on faith that all of science is wrong?

It is a shame that you were here on the JREF, but have decided to ignore the 'E'.
 
You've quoted something completely different from my original quote and then accuse me of quote-mining?

I admire your chutzpah, I suggest you don't dig your hole any deeper.
Click to expand...
Why? You said Feyman didn't know what energy was. I read his quote on Wikipedia which showed that Feyman had perfect mastery of what you claimed he didn't. Its elementary dear Watson. Either you lied about the quote or you quoted him out of context. Given that I don't think you lied you probably quoted him out of context. Mind you I was right.:)
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and when we add it all together it gives "28" - always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If we're going to talk Big Bang theory, I want to know what Sheldon thinks.

Other than "Bazinga!".
 
David Henson said:
In my own words, How am I wrong?

ETA: This is what I originally said.

"A theory means, you have told me, just guessing what might have happened by observing the evidence."
Click to expand...

A theory is not a guess.

I think you are confusing a theory with a hypothesis.
 
David Henson said:
In my own words, How am I wrong?

ETA: This is what I originally said.

"A theory means, you have told me, just guessing what might have happened by observing the evidence."
Click to expand...


That's a hypothesis, not a theory.

If the hypothesis passes tests that try to discredit it, it becomes a working hypothesis and is incorporated into a theory.
 
Fixed That For You.
Really a bit of a stupid abbreviation since it's not used more, and thus many people don't know what it means. Suppose spelling it out is better.
 
excaza said:
Remind me to begin my masters thesis with an autobiography :rolleyes:

I didn't make it out of the first paragraph without laughing.
Click to expand...

I cannot believe he was awarded a "doctorate" for a thesis that begins "Hello!". :-O
 
I'm trying to clarify something. It seems to me that in the category of Stuff That's Wrong with Science, we have these two criticisms:

1. Science keeps changing. First, scientists said X was true. Ten years later, they changed their minds and said Y was true. How can we trust science when it keeps changing?

2. Science is dogmatic. When someone comes along and says, "Hey, Y isn't true after all: Q is true," scientists just point and laugh. If you go against the "religion" of science by proclaiming Q, you'll be ridiculed and denied tenure.

To summarize, science keeps changing and it is resistant to change. Have I got that right? There's something niggling at the back of my brain; something seems wrong, but I can't quite put my finger on what...
 
sphenisc said:
I did realise it. I'm glad you realised your mistake.
Click to expand...
Nope. You were the one claiming that Feyman didn't know what energy was. He did and unless you are a psychic you really couldn't read anything more in my first post.
 
Last edited:
SOdhner said:
You just did exactly what the person you were criticizing did. I'll take that to mean you don't understand the quote you used, then?
Click to expand...

No - I asked a question - he made an unevidenced claim. There's a difference.

Your free to take I don't understand the quote used. I'm free to take it I do. It's not a long quote or a difficult one, most of the words are pretty short and commonplace - so I'll stick with my conclusion until shown otherwise.
 
technoextreme said:
Nope. You were the one claiming that Feyman didn't know what energy was. He did and unless you are a psychic you really couldn't read anything more in first post.
Click to expand...

You claim he did, Feynman claims he didn't. So far your opinion counts for diddlysquat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom