In Louisana The Government Teaches Your Kid Religion

[Strk]

Thankfully, majorities don't determine truth.

Thankfully, modern science is based on a vote

 

[IronWing]

Thankfully, modern science is based on a vote

<tapping sarcasm meter>

 

[BxgJ]

Hey buckshot, prove the FSM doesn't exist.



Hey buckshot, the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution.



lol.

Lol. I wonder if he'll get it.

 

[buckshot24]

Thankfully, modern science is based on a vote

Science is based on a fallacy then?

 

[buckshot24]

Lol. I wonder if he'll get it.

I got it. There is lots of blind faith in the power of mutation in this thread and apparently in "modern science".

 

[JD50]

Google's main page must have Buck absolutely raging today. Maybe that explains his mood change.

 

[mikeymikec]

What I believe doesn't matter. There is supposed to be mountains of evidence for this theory. A theory where a microbe turns to people, blue whales, and pine trees via random genetic copying errors and selection. Yet, we get gene duplications, fairy tales about eyes, and cells sticking together in support of this preposterous idea. And I have faith?

I have to ask you a question.

Why are you posting on this thread? I would normally use the word "contribute", but I don't think that denying anything that anyone says that runs contrary to your opinion counts as a contribution as it is generally defined.

Your first post on this thread was this:

I wonder how teaching kids that a microbe(s) turned into elephants, jelly fish, and people via random genetic copying mistakes makes kids smarter. To me this creates the exact opposite result.

You've admitted along the way that the theory of evolution must have some "limited" merit and that you don't actually believe that the theory of evolution involves a a microbe turning into a whale.

Yet one of your most recent posts was this:

What I believe doesn't matter. There is supposed to be mountains of evidence for this theory. A theory where a microbe turns to people, blue whales, and pine trees via random genetic copying errors and selection. Yet, we get gene duplications, fairy tales about eyes, and cells sticking together in support of this preposterous idea. And I have faith?

I think it's probably a reasonable assumption that you don't have some kind of short-memory problem that might explain why your memory seems to have been wound back nearly three weeks.

Considering that you have admitted that certain aspects of evolution are valid yet you are unconvinced that for example life evolved from much more basic organisms into various, vastly more complex forms visible today such as humanity, and the evidence that people have posted to attempt to educate you on this point is still unconvincing, and that this sub-thread evidently reached a point of no further development at least twenty pages ago, wouldn't the following two courses of actions be far more logical than continuing to post here?:

1) You seek out as much information as you can on the topic of evolution elsewhere because you have an honest interest in the topic and you are simply seeking knowledge.

2) You have no intention of learning anything about evolution, you have your opinion together with a very low bar of supporting evidence, so why keep asking, and find something better to do?

I very much doubt that anyone here has studied the topic of evolution to such a degree that they can claim to know the sum of human knowledge on this topic (even if that knowledge only relates to the development of mammals such as humans, rather than knowing all that is known regarding every branch of life's evolution), so what do you hope to achieve here? Do you suppose that if you keep parroting the same line long enough that people will say "you know what, you're absolutely right, it's all nonsense!" and that the theory of evolution will be discredited? Or perhaps you suppose that there may be a point somewhere that you hope to seize on (because your knowledge on this topic was exhausted long ago), logically argue a counter-point and "win"?

Likewise I think anyone that has contributed to this thread has long since given up any ideas that they might be able to convince you.

That's just aside from the fact that most people would consider it an absolutely preposterous argument position to claim that a long-standing scientific theory is fundamentally invalid yet a) one cannot offer any evidence to support their argument that stands up to even minimal scrutiny and b) has no alternative to offer.

 

[Darwin333]

You can't make an exact replica of a glass, you can't put an exact amount of anything into the glass, you can't push the glass off the table with the exact same amount of force, you can't measure the distance of your drop exactly. You can't measure anything as precisely as needed to verify or falsify Rob's claim.

The hell you can't. Do you have any idea the absurdly more complicated variables that we have been controlling for a rather long time? Can't get the precise amount of liquid into it?? Seriously? How do you think pharmaceuticals are made, to very exacting doses and delivered in very exacting doses? Hell I can personally with the equipment in my house measure out 250ML with a very small degree of error. Real scientific equipment (more expensive than what I have) would remove that degree of error. I can also build something to drop it the exact same way every single time. Frankly the hardest variables to control would be atmospheric (wind, pressure, temp), everything else is easy as hell.

 

[buckshot24]

The hell you can't. Do you have any idea the absurdly more complicated variables that we have been controlling for a rather long time? Can't get the precise amount of liquid into it?? Seriously? How do you think pharmaceuticals are made, to very exacting doses and delivered in very exacting doses? Hell I can personally with the equipment in my house measure out 250ML with a very small degree of error. Real scientific equipment (more expensive than what I have) would remove that degree of error. I can also build something to drop it the exact same way every single time. Frankly the hardest variables to control would be atmospheric (wind, pressure, temp), everything else is easy as hell.

Tripling down on stupid?

It is amazing how incompetent you are proving yourself to be. You can't remove the degree of error for any measurement. The best you can do is make that degree smaller. This is first week of any chemistry course type stuff you're messing up.

 

[buckshot24]

-TLDR-

Can you demonstrate that mutation and selection is adequate to perform the miracles Darwinism requires of it? If you can I will believe you. I am completely underwhelmed by the supporting evidence (especially presented here) that it can. It seems blind faith is all any of you have.

 

[realibrad]

Tripling down on stupid?

It is amazing how incompetent you are proving yourself to be. You can't remove the degree of error for any measurement. The best you can do is make that degree smaller. This is first week of any chemistry course type stuff you're messing up.

Which is why we cant build anything right? Fuck all those particle accelerators, or cpus with pathways that are only a few atoms wide. Our measurements are so inaccurate that they become useless when testing. If you cant get ever atom in the same exact place, then you can never test.

Quad Stupid!!!!

Someone got a combo breaker?

 

[fskimospy]

I got it. There is lots of blind faith in the power of mutation in this thread and apparently in "modern science".

lol, you didn't get it.

Not so bright, are we.

 

[buckshot24]

Which is why we cant build anything right? Fuck all those particle accelerators, or cpus with pathways that are only a few atoms wide. Our measurements are so inaccurate that they become useless when testing. If you cant get ever atom in the same exact place, then you can never test.

Quad Stupid!!!!

Someone got a combo breaker?

I see you'll be on the list soon. I have never said any of this nonsense. Why are you lying continuously?

Never said our measurements aren't accurate, that would be stupid. There are limits to any measurement. These are simply facts. You would know this if you've ever taken a basic chemistry or physics course. An experiment where you get an exact replica of a glass and the exact amount of milk in the glass can't be achieved.

You're getting pathetic now.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Can you demonstrate that mutation and selection is adequate to perform the miracles Darwinism requires of it?

What else could it be? Whether or not you accept the overwhelming evidence already provided to you, the fact is that the theory of evolution WORKS. If a scientific idea does not get falsified, it endures until something falsifies it. If you cannot falsify the idea, then it is justifiably scientific and true.

If you can I will believe you.

But that's a lie.

I am completely underwhelmed by the supporting evidence (especially presented here) that it can. It seems blind faith is all any of you have.

That's what you have to tell yourself to maintain your self-imposed delusions. Why don't you step out here into the real world with the rest of us, you coward?

 

[realibrad]

I see you'll be on the list soon. I have never said any of this nonsense. Why are you lying continuously?

Never said our measurements aren't accurate, that would be stupid. There are limits to any measurement. These are simply facts. You would know this if you've ever taken a basic chemistry or physics course. An experiment where you get an exact replica of a glass and the exact amount of milk in the glass can't be achieved.

You're getting pathetic now.

Please, chem is not the only subject you need to have taken to understand the limitations of measurement. Its a property of quantum mechanics that if you get small enough, you actually change the thing you observe. Hell, right now we observe electrons in 2 different places which would seem impossible.

But, as it turns out, none of this matters as to the original point that design cannot be logically extrapolated by simply saying we see it therefore it was.

But, you really want to stick on this lab thing. So, here is a fun trick. A glass that has no milk can get the exact same amount of milk each time, if you never put in milk. Science!

 

[mikeymikec]

- when I don't like certain questions, I ignore them -

Hey wow, I can do this too! It doesn't really achieve much though. My previous question still stands. You could try using the gifts (whatever method) has bestowed upon you and actually answer it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Nobody has ever recreated the orbit of the earth in a lab, so the earth doesn't orbit the sun.

Nobody has ever created a comet in a lab, so comets don't exist.

Nobody has ever reproduced Egyptian history in a lab, so ancient Egyptians didn't exist.

Nobody has ever gotten the ocean floor into a lab, so there is no floor to the ocean.

Who wants to bet bucko can't demonstrate to me that he is a real human being? I'll give him $500 if he can, but if he can't he has to confess that he's dishonestly holding evolution to unreasonable standards.

 

[BxgJ]

Can you demonstrate that mutation and selection is adequate to perform the miracles Darwinism requires of it? If you can I will believe you. I am completely underwhelmed by the supporting evidence (especially presented here) that it can. It seems blind faith is all any of you have.

Interesting choice of words. If you believe it is a 'miracle', any evidence we give, which has been good enough for almost all scientists, will not be adequate. You decided on an answer before asking the question. The only goal you can possibly have I stated earlier.

 

[buckshot24]

Hey wow, I can do this too! It doesn't really achieve much though. My previous question still stands. You could try using the gifts (whatever method) has bestowed upon you and actually answer it.

So you can't demonstrate it? I'll quit asking you.

 

[buckshot24]

Please, chem is not the only subject you need to have taken to understand the limitations of measurement. Its a property of quantum mechanics that if you get small enough, you actually change the thing you observe. Hell, right now we observe electrons in 2 different places which would seem impossible.

Who said chemistry is the only subject you learn this in? Not me. You seem to have an aversion to representing what I've said while quoting it.

But, as it turns out, none of this matters as to the original point that design cannot be logically extrapolated by simply saying we see it therefore it was.

You can't verify or refute via lab experiment which was the point I was addressing. I'm not sure why you can't just admit I'm right instead of going 5 pages with nonsense. This is as basic as it can get.

But, you really want to stick on this lab thing. So, here is a fun trick. A glass that has no milk can get the exact same amount of milk each time, if you never put in milk. Science!

Thank you for that irrelevancy.

 

[realibrad]

You can't verify or refute via lab experiment which was the point I was addressing.

You cant refute lab experiments. You sir should win the Nobel prize. Who knew that lab experiments cannot be verified?

Where pray tell shall we do experiments if not in a lab? Giveth unto us thy knowledge so that we may partake in your scientific glory!

 

[buckshot24]

You cant refute lab experiments. You sir should win the Nobel prize. Who knew that lab experiments cannot be verified?

Where pray tell shall we do experiments if not in a lab? Giveth unto us thy knowledge so that we may partake in your scientific glory!

I think your brain isn't working. Maybe its time for a nap? Any person with a working brain knows what I said and it wasn't anything close to your gibberish.

 

[MongGrel]

This seems to be turning into the buckshot denial thread, more or less.

 

[buckshot24]

Brad, is English not your first language?

 

[JD50]

You cant refute lab experiments. You sir should win the Nobel prize. Who knew that lab experiments cannot be verified?

Where pray tell shall we do experiments if not in a lab? Giveth unto us thy knowledge so that we may partake in your scientific glory!

He's saying that you can't verify or refute the results of dropping a glass of milk via lab experiments. How he thinks this helps his point is beyond me. If you truly can't verify that a glass of milk would drop exactly the same way every time, then you can't make the statement that gravity designed the pattern. Also, you can't actually see gravity, and as we all know if Buck can't see something with his own two eyes then it doesn't exist. Except for God of course, but that's a special case.

Edit - I'm not saying that you can or can't repeat that experiment in a lab. I don't really care either way, it's just a diversion tactic by Wendy I mean Buck.