45% of Americans are Morons

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
If you think you know something and 91% of the people have the same information that you do and they doubt it that means you are stupid.

1) They don't have the same information I do. That's the frigging point of education.

2) That's wrong anyway.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
1) They don't have the same information I do. That's the frigging point of education.

I thought you were just taking high school Biology?

[Az]

Let's go back to this claim: Not believing in the Theory of Evolution and having all the facts is not blind faith. What do you say to that?

I say this is wrong, because it grasps at straws.

Everyone who has graduated from high school has the information. What information do they not teach you in high school that would make the difference?

Not all people are tought that, and not all people who are tought that, are tought at a sufficiently good level.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Az

Let's go back to this claim: Not believing in the Theory of Evolution and having all the facts is not blind faith. What do you say to that?

I say this is wrong, because it grasps at straws.

Saying they are "grasping at straws" is the same thing as saying they are relying on "blind faith." You are just claiming that they are ignoring the facts. Can't you just tell me what facts you think they are ignoring?

Everyone who has graduated from high school has the information. What information do they not teach you in high school that would make the difference?

Not all people are tought that, and not all people who are tought that, are tought at a sufficiently good level.

That's funny, much more than 9% of them have learned a lot else. Why do you think they didn't learn the Theory of Evolution? It's taught by people who are certified teachers in science for the most part.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The Theory of Evolution hasn't stood up to any scrutiny because there was never any evidence of it. No one has ever offered any proof that man evolved from another species.

Apart, of course, from all the fossil and genetic evidence.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sandman
Apart, of course, from all the fossil and genetic evidence.

You can call it evidence if you want. It really doesn't matter unless you prove something.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Bull****. I understand it. There is no proof there. Tell me the proof, and skip the one word explanations. There is no proof, nothing of the sort.

Com'on. Repeating the same thing three times in a short post doesn't make it true.

First, let me point out again that you don't "prove" anything in science. Full stop.

Now, there are observed instances of speciations. This, plus a mountain of evidence from many other branches of science makes evolution one of the best supported theory in science.

Evolution has predictive power, and it can explain all sorts of observations and facts.

As I said, if you are seriously interested, go to the website I linked previously, instead of just repeating vague handwaving assertions.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
There is no evidence that the universe was not created, so it's possible to believe that it was without blind faith. Many people do.

Making up an assertion and ask the other side to prove a negative is a surefire way to raise a red flag about you.

If you want to play it that way, I can just easy assert that there is no evidence that evolutiion is not the case. Disprove it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If you want to play it that way, I can just easy assert that there is no evidence that evolutiion is not the case. Disprove it.

I could care less. My interest here is not to argue for or against either side. My interest here is that people say that religious people think that their beliefs are facts when they aren't, but the people here do the same thing.

This mountain of evidence that human beings have evolved from another species is nothing. You can call it evidence or a mountain of evidence, it's just words coming out of your mouth. You aren't going to convince anyone unless you make an argument and stop calling people morons.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious

You guys call people names and make people feel uncomfortable when they question your beliefs on things that you can't prove.

What a bunch of hypocrates.

Hmmm... Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle .


The difference between disagreements between scientists and believers is that scientific disputes tend not to end in burnings at the stake, wholesale censorship, wars, et cetera.

Science is about method, not about belief in the religious sense.

If mediaeval monks 'believed' certain things about the physical body of Jesus or Mary or how many wills Jesus had- one divine, one human, both simultaneously, both separately, neither- then what methods could they be expected to use to prove their suppositions ?


If, on the other hand, al Biruni wants to show the Caliph in Baghdad that the earth is a sphere, what methods would he use, and what is the difference between the two examples ?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Hmmm... Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle .

I'm not claiming that any of my beliefs are indisputable.

The difference between disagreements between scientists and believers is that scientific disputes tend not to end in burnings at the stake, wholesale censorship, wars, et cetera.

Science is about method, not about belief in the religious sense.

The question is whether or not this is a scientific dispute or not. I see it as religious and political on both sides. Since the scientific method doesn't prove anything in this case, discussion on it is irrelevent.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious



The question is whether or not this is a scientific dispute or not. I see it as religious and political on both sides. Since the scientific method doesn't prove anything in this case, discussion on it is irrelevent.

No, the question is ' Which method is better suited for explaining observable physical phenomena and extrapolating based on inductive reasoning? '

The answer is example two.

You could believe, in the religious sense, for example, that the earth stood on the back of a tortoise, or was flat, or there were crystal spheres in space, but it would be hard proving the existence of any of this via the scientific method

Al Biruni (and the European philosopher-theologians who dismissed the Averroist determinist view of Aristotelian science) relied on measurement, experimentation, observation- not leaps of faith or predetermined dogma.

Galileo observed wryly that he did not consider Aristotle had ever performed an experiment in order to test his hypotheses.

No surprises for guessing which philosopher-scientist was the favourite of the Catholic Church.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom
No, the question is ' Which method is better suited for explaining observable physical phenomena and extrapolating based on inductive reasoning? '

How do you know which method is better if you don't know which theory is correct and no method can tell you beyond a reasonable doubt? The scientific method works great for explaining things like gravity, but where it can't prove something it can't prove that a theory is better or worse. When it can't prove a theory it's just a political tool.

[Sikander]

Gravity is an amusing example to use of something science has a complete grasp of.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious

How do you know which method is better if you don't know which theory is correct and no method can tell you beyond a reasonable doubt? The scientific method works great for explaining things like gravity, but where it can't prove something it can't prove that a theory is better or worse. When it can't prove a theory it's just a political tool.

You haven't explained or adequately represented which method the Creationists or believers or whatever you want to call them, are using to support their 'belief'.

The scientific method is open to investigation, and more importantly, if a scientist states that she or he has discovered something, then it should be possible to reproduce the result using the same or similar methods.

By what methods did the monks decide that Mary was free of sin, or that the sun revolved around the Earth or that transsubstantiation was a fact ?

Reasonable doubt does not even enter into this.

Has anyone seen the elephants or the turtle upon which the earth is alleged to stand ? Encountered teh crystal spheres ?

What could make one reasonably infer from reproducible experiments and observations that the earth is an oblate spheroid and not flat, or connected to a heavenly plane by a mythical world tree ?

And what observations make you 'believe' in the existence of Yggdrasil and Bifrost the Rainbow Bridge ?


You're simply using the head in the sand or fingers in the ear approach to scientific evidence and methods that disagree with what you hold 'might' be true.


If your faith in science is in truth so shallow, then I suggest that the next time you are seriously ill, ignore the hospital or clinic, and ask for divine intervention.

Similarly, when engaging in long-distance travel, do not opt for any method which has relied on scientific advances, but go for for the saintly bilocation route.

And let us know the results of your experiments.