How to control the people : Keep them stupid and uninformed

[Paratus]

Science isn't "evolution".

Evolution is a scientific theory and therefore well supported by evidence and makes useful and testable predictions.

 

[buckshot24]

Evolution is a scientific theory and therefore well supported by evidence and makes useful and testable predictions.

It isn't science itself. Arguing against a theory isn't arguing against science.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm not buckshot24 in my day to day life. I'd probably get along swimmingly with most of the people who hate me here or are annoyed with me if we ever met in real life.

challenge accepted

 

[Paratus]

It isn't science itself. Arguing against a theory isn't arguing against science.

There's a scientific process for arguing against a theory. If you don't want to follow it when arguing against a theory you are arguing against science.

 

[buckshot24]

There's a scientific process for arguing against a theory. If you don't want to follow it when arguing against a theory you are arguing against science.

So when adherents to the theory argue for it in a forum they are arguing against science?

 

[Paratus]

So when adherents to the theory argue for it in a forum they are arguing against science?

Who said forums have anything to do with it?

And no, when adherents to proven theories argue that a theory is proven that's simply stating a fact. Nothing unscientific about stating facts.

 

[buckshot24]

Who said forums have anything to do with it?

And no, when adherents to proven theories argue that a theory is proven that's simply stating a fact. Nothing unscientific about stating facts.

I didn't say simply saying something is proven (as if you can prove a theory) I said arguing for a theory. Please answer the actual question given instead of a strawman version of it. If one is arguing against science by not following some rules while arguing against a theory, then it follows that if you do not follow those same rules while arguing for it then you are arguing against science. What's fair is fair. You can't have it both ways.

 

[zzyzxroad]

I didn't say simply saying something is proven (as if you can prove a theory) I said arguing for a theory. Please answer the actual question given instead of a strawman version of it. If one is arguing against science by not following some rules while arguing against a theory, then it follows that if you do not follow those same rules while arguing for it then you are arguing against science. What's fair is fair. You can't have it both ways.

I just counted and you have used the term strawman 265 times in the past month.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

And he's committed at least twice that many.

 

[brycejones]

So when adherents to the theory argue for it in a forum they are arguing against science?

buckshat, poster child for the topic of the thread.

 

[agent00f]

buckshat, poster child for the topic of the thread.

That's beyond doubt, but the problem is degenerates take pride in it and too many liberals believe they can be reasoned out of it.

 

[Paratus]

I didn't say simply saying something is proven (as if you can prove a theory) I said arguing for a theory. Please answer the actual question given instead of a strawman version of it. If one is arguing against science by not following some rules while arguing against a theory, then it follows that if you do not follow those same rules while arguing for it then you are arguing against science. What's fair is fair. You can't have it both ways.

Sure I can. A theory is a tool that's already been proven to be to useful, has already gone through the scientific method, and is already supported by evidence. I can link you peer reviewed papers on it and factual accounts of the history of the theory being investigated through the scientific method.

My homework has been done.
Yours has not.

The Scientific Method is not a debate. It's not fair to two opposing viewpoints. It separates hypotheses that are likely true from those that are likely false.

If you are concerned about what's fair, then what's fair is for you to show other hypotheses that modify or change current evolutionary theory, the evidence behind them and the experiments that support them.

Until you can do that you are bringing a turd to a tank fight.

 

[soulcougher73]

Buckshit. Please go take a high school science class for fucks sake. It's hard for me to believe someone is as stupid as you put yourself out to be here.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Buckshit. Please go take a high school science class for fucks sake. It's hard for me to believe someone is as stupid as you put yourself out to be here.

Being raised Protestant, I used to argue the same points as he (although he doesn't come out and say everything he believes due to fear)

 

[soulcougher73]

Being raised Protestant, I used to argue the same points as he (although he doesn't come out and say everything he believes due to fear)

It's not even so much the points he tries to argue. Its the way he goes about arguing about the most stupid parts of things that are not even relevant. Its like watching a decent debate but the opponent is a brick wall. I really need to stay out of thread he buckshits on cause they are really frustrating to read lol. That is my bad though. Glutton for punishment i guess.

 

[ch33zw1z]

It's like watching Bill Nye debate Ken Ham. Your palm ends up stuck to your forehead.

 

[IronWing]

It's not even so much the points he tries to argue. Its the way he goes about arguing about the most stupid parts of things that are not even relevant. Its like watching a decent debate but the opponent is a brick wall. I really need to stay out of thread he buckshits on cause they are really frustrating to read lol. That is my bad though. Glutton for punishment i guess.

Did you ever read Neal Stephenson's Anathem? If not, go read it and then come back and read the spoiler.

Spoiler

A common punishment is to have the avout memorize chapters in "The Book" - "crafted and refined over many centuries to be nonsensical, maddening, and pointless ... The punishment lay in knowing that you were putting all that effort into letting a kind of intellectual poison infiltrate your brain".

Buckshot is The Book.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Sure I can. A theory is a tool that's already been proven to be to useful, has already gone through the scientific method, and is already supported by evidence. I can link you peer reviewed papers on it and factual accounts of the history of the theory being investigated through the scientific method.

My homework has been done.
Yours has not.

The Scientific Method is not a debate. It's not fair to two opposing viewpoints. It separates hypotheses that are likely true from those that are likely false.

If you are concerned about what's fair, then what's fair is for you to show other hypotheses that modify or change current evolutionary theory, the evidence behind them and the experiments that support them.

Until you can do that you are bringing a turd to a tank fight.

This

I didn't say simply saying something is proven (as if you can prove a theory) I said arguing for a theory. Please answer the actual question given instead of a strawman version of it. If one is arguing against science by not following some rules while arguing against a theory, then it follows that if you do not follow those same rules while arguing for it then you are arguing against science. What's fair is fair. You can't have it both ways.

Also, you should investigate the meaning of the term theory. It doesn't mean what you think it means in this context.

 

[buckshot24]

Sure I can. A theory is a tool that's already been proven to be to useful, has already gone through the scientific method, and is already supported by evidence. I can link you peer reviewed papers on it and factual accounts of the history of the theory being investigated through the scientific method.

My homework has been done.
Yours has not.

The Scientific Method is not a debate. It's not fair to two opposing viewpoints. It separates hypotheses that are likely true from those that are likely false.

If you are concerned about what's fair, then what's fair is for you to show other hypotheses that modify or change current evolutionary theory, the evidence behind them and the experiments that support them.

Until you can do that you are bringing a turd to a tank fight.

"Proven" becomes "proven useful" without blinking your eye. Then you act like that is what you said all along. Words matter. I wouldn't have said anything if you said that originally. One could argue against that it is proven useful as well. The theory is making wrong predictions left and right.

You can't demonstrate using scientific journals that mutation and selection is an adequate mechanism that to cause a self replicating molecule to turn into people, pine trees, and blue whales. It simply doesn't exist. It an article of blind faith, your bluster notwithstanding.

 

[buckshot24]

It's like watching Bill Nye debate Ken Ham. Your palm ends up stuck to your forehead.

That wasn't a good debate, on either side.

 

[piasabird]

Learning about the theory of evolution serves no real purpose. It does not make animals smarter or more beautiful or stronger or healthier. A pile of bones does not prove evolution, but it might prove extinction.

Where did Camels Come From? Now that is an interesting question. They were not native to Israel. This one question may appear to prove evolution or it may just prove something else.

They found whale fossils in the Sahara desert. Does that prove Africans evolved from whales?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Step away from the keyboard man. Lol....

 

[J.Wilkins]

"Proven" becomes "proven useful" without blinking your eye. Then you act like that is what you said all along. Words matter. I wouldn't have said anything if you said that originally. One could argue against that it is proven useful as well. The theory is making wrong predictions left and right.

Citations needed where it makes wrong predictions. The truth is that the scientific theory of evolution is one of the VERY few theories that are regarded as a scientific fact in it's premises. In fact, I think it's the only one there is.

You can't demonstrate using scientific journals that mutation and selection is an adequate mechanism that to cause a self replicating molecule to turn into people, pine trees, and blue whales. It simply doesn't exist. It an article of blind faith, your bluster notwithstanding.

Remember the bolded part from earlier in your reply? I don't know if it applies here or if you are really at a stage where you don't understand what evolution *is* or what the theory states because no one who knows the theory ever argued that a species turns into another species. Speciation is so gradual that the offspring is always the same species as the parents.

To understand how this works, look at ring species.

Or something perhaps more suited for you since you don't seem to understand the topic at hand at all; small changes over great time equals large changes.

 

[trenchfoot]

What's simply amazing to me is that we humans have overcome the laws of nature and Darwin's theory to such a point that guys like Trump are not only able to survive in an environment that is exclusionary toward "defects" that would prove existentially fatal, he, an apparent aberrant of nature, have become an apex predator of all things.

E-U.

 

[piasabird]

I find the subject of where Camels come from to be quite interesting. Almost as interesting as horse fossils in North America.