Quantum theory and theory of gravitation are based on empirical science, evolution is not an emporical science so should not be compared to those theories.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
@Netofuschini That is exactly what science is. Our scientific understanding of the world grows because we use working models to refine our theories on an ongoing basis. Science questions itself because we know how much more there is to learn. It doesn't purport to explain everything once and for all. Further, evolution makes no claims at all about molecules to man or the origins of life. It only explains how life has evolved. You're saying religion does call things fact for lack of somet
@netofuschini care to elaborate? If you are calling a Oxford professor "stupid" then I think you've got some explaining to do. Especially when everything he says is true.
@juuonse there isnt one single evidence that supports evolution as in molecules to man. we should find trillions of these beneficial mutations with an increase on the information in the genome but not even one is found. evolution is not even a theory... its a model... richard is a very clever man but fails when it comes to this subject. he say in this video that the theory can be called a fact until something better comes up.. what ??? thats not science.. thats a religion for crying out loud....
@netofuschini: The theory of evolution does not describe molecules to man. You clearly don't understand what you are talking about. It is about speciation that is, how new species come about from already existing ones. As far as the origins of life are concerned, it is still being debated but molecules to man is a strong possibility, yet it is NOT what the theory of evolution is about.
@netofuschini: There is A LOT of evidence in support of evolution. In fact, we see it in action as micro organisms evolve in front of us. To see human evolution in action is very difficult because of the much larger timescales of our life cycle PLUS being eukaryotes we have enzyme systems which produce high fidelity copies of our DNA reducing the incidence of mutations and thus prolonging the timescales requiured for our own evolution, yet there is evidence for human evolution.
@netofuschini: There aren't even trillions of genes to find trillions which could have changed. However, there are SEVERAL genes which are highly conserved PRECISELY because their modifications would be incompatible with survival of organisms and so mutations on those genes do not survive. Patterns of inheritence of Dominant and recessive genes are compatible with evolution. High incidence of Thalessaemia, Sickle cell disease in areas endemic to malaria supports evolution.
@netofuschini: Besides, evolution is only incompatible with the abrahamic belief system NOT with other belief systems. You don't have to be an atheist to see that evolution is a fact.
@drhtum I'm just dodging in here. Dude, nice going. You started & ended your argumentation with "you're stupid, wrong, uneducated & don't know anything about this world. I on the other hand am the elite." You think anyone will listen to you if you talk like that?
@GaolisVideoLog: Actually, that's how you are (mis)interpreting what I said. I started by saying that the commentator does not know much about EVOLUTION. I did not say that I am elite, but I do have an education in the life-sciences (college and above) and I do recognize that the commentator's comments regarding evolution reveals that he has misunderstood what the theory of evolution really states.
Nice attitude buddy: take offence when it is demonstrated that you are wrong.
@GaolisVideoLog: Besides, the commentator is also clearly misinformed given that he states with such confidence that there is not a single piece of evidence in support of evolution. The space here is too small to list, but there is in fact a lot of evidence in favour of evolution. And I notice that only Muslims and Christians seem to get uncomfortable with the idea of evolution (Islam, Christianity and Judaism are Abrahamic religions). The culture that I come from finds it
@GaolisVideoLog: The culture that I come from finds it perfectly feasible.
Yet again it seems to offend you when you are pointed out when you are wrong.
Besides, I have not even used the word "stupid" to describe the commentator who has used that very word to describe Dr. Dawkins. Do I sense a stink of hypocrisy here? You don't like to be pointed out that he is wrong but you have no problems when he resorts to name calling. Nice going!!
@GaolisVideoLog: One more thing - you feel that someone who seems to be knowledgeable about a particular considers himself elite. Well, no one has stopped you or anybody from gathering knowledge. Dr. Dawkins or anybody who has even been to college or grad school and made the effort has worked really hard to understand the subject and has subjected their knowledge to a lot of scrutiny before reaching that position. No one got there without breaking a sweat.
@drhtum I have my college degree also & do not have a problem with evolution either. I did not say that you used the word stupid, it was, if you allow "reductio ad absurdum" to unarbitrarily demonstrate to you how you're sounding to others. And you're doing it again. What I tried to get into your head was that if you try to speak to others who are clearly not as educated in the fields of evolution as you are, you should try to explain the matter from their POV to make it comprehensible. Get it?
@GaolisVideoLog: "Reductio ad absurdum" is, after all, a logical fallacy in any argument, and so it is too, in yours. If you are more concerned than the 'tone' of my argument, rather than the 'facts' or the 'logic' in my argument, then you are being ridiculous. Whom you are defending has explicitly called the gentleman in question, "stupid". So your response rather demonstrates your own hypocrisy rather than my (non-existent) "elitism".
@GaolisVideoLog; I'm not trying to educate the commentator about evolution. Dr. Richard Dawkins and others are doing enough, already. I was countering the, rather arrogantly made, false claim that "there is no evidence in favour of evolution". It would be more appropriate for you to direct your objections at the commentator, for I am merely addressing him in the same manner as he has been addressing Dr. Richard Dawkins. Funny how you sympathize with him for the same 'tone' but condemn me for it.
@GaolisVideoLog: You are entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine and the commentator is to his. But NO ONE is entitled to their own "FACTS". Facts are facts, and if you are going to make claims without checking the facts, you should be prepared for the criticism. Maybe your friend should have verified the pertinent facts before making claims and calling a distinguished professor in the concerned field, "stupid", explicitly.
@GaolisVideoLog; I don't know which subject you have a degree in, but for argument's sake, I'm supposing that you have a degree in economics. I have a degree in a field very closely related to biology. If you were making a comment on the dynamics of the global economic slowdown, I would not venture an assertion (much less call you stupid) on the subject because I know that my knowledge on the subject would be limited as compared to yours. One should assert where one has the knowledge to do so.
@GaolisVideoLog: It's easy to dismiss someone by calling them stupid without even taking the time to understand what it is that he is saying but it is much more difficult to sweat it out for years to reach the level of knowledge that Dr. Dawkins has. Those of you who are not prepared to sweat it out would rather just call him elite and dismiss him. Also, the gentleman (or anybody at his level) can back their claims with evidence. Can you? I don't think so..
@netofuschini May I? I understand your grudge. But please understand his background. You probably noticed that specific jobs use specific vocabulary & that sometimes the meaning of 1 word changes depending on profession. This is called "English for special purposes". The 2nd thing to keep in mind is "empirical evidence" & stochastic from maths class as well as philosophical paradigms. Meaning that, no matter how sure, there's a chance, even if only >0.0000001%, of being wrong.
@netofuschini Some observations (or facts, to use that word) were already known in Darwin's time. Although he contributed by finding more examples.
There have been other theories (theory in the meaning Explanation, not "Hunch") by other people to explain what had been observed. For example Lamarck had a different theory. But compared to Darwin's theory which is based on natural selection (and in modern times: genes), the other theories lost. Today, Darwin's theory is very robust.
@clawedification I'm not sure what your point is? The word "theory" has suffered an inflation in colloquial language. As in "hey, I've got a theory about X..." instead of "the theory gravitation". That is a fact. What is also true is that creationists (maybe not all but many) are trying to undermine the power of the word "theory". Perhaps we should distinguish the two by evolution (e.g) the "scientific theory of evolution instead the average joe theory".
Quantum theory and theory of gravitation are based on empirical science, evolution is not an emporical science so should not be compared to those theories.
csakegyvid 1 month ago
Comment removed
RuinSonic 1 week ago
If a guy with a New York accent said that we share a common ancestry with starfish, sea squirts and bacteria, you would say he is an idiot...
imax1971 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
@netofuschini. Watch the first fundamental falsehood of creation and the series. And grow up.
beautyinbreakdowns2 7 months ago
@Netofuschini That is exactly what science is. Our scientific understanding of the world grows because we use working models to refine our theories on an ongoing basis. Science questions itself because we know how much more there is to learn. It doesn't purport to explain everything once and for all. Further, evolution makes no claims at all about molecules to man or the origins of life. It only explains how life has evolved. You're saying religion does call things fact for lack of somet
beautyinbreakdowns2 7 months ago
you need help to be this stupid really... this guy has certainly got mental problems...
netofuschini 8 months ago
@netofuschini care to elaborate? If you are calling a Oxford professor "stupid" then I think you've got some explaining to do. Especially when everything he says is true.
juuonse 7 months ago
@juuonse there isnt one single evidence that supports evolution as in molecules to man. we should find trillions of these beneficial mutations with an increase on the information in the genome but not even one is found. evolution is not even a theory... its a model... richard is a very clever man but fails when it comes to this subject. he say in this video that the theory can be called a fact until something better comes up.. what ??? thats not science.. thats a religion for crying out loud....
netofuschini 7 months ago
@netofuschini: The theory of evolution does not describe molecules to man. You clearly don't understand what you are talking about. It is about speciation that is, how new species come about from already existing ones. As far as the origins of life are concerned, it is still being debated but molecules to man is a strong possibility, yet it is NOT what the theory of evolution is about.
drhtum 5 months ago
@netofuschini: There is A LOT of evidence in support of evolution. In fact, we see it in action as micro organisms evolve in front of us. To see human evolution in action is very difficult because of the much larger timescales of our life cycle PLUS being eukaryotes we have enzyme systems which produce high fidelity copies of our DNA reducing the incidence of mutations and thus prolonging the timescales requiured for our own evolution, yet there is evidence for human evolution.
drhtum 5 months ago
@netofuschini: There aren't even trillions of genes to find trillions which could have changed. However, there are SEVERAL genes which are highly conserved PRECISELY because their modifications would be incompatible with survival of organisms and so mutations on those genes do not survive. Patterns of inheritence of Dominant and recessive genes are compatible with evolution. High incidence of Thalessaemia, Sickle cell disease in areas endemic to malaria supports evolution.
drhtum 5 months ago
@netofuschini: Besides, evolution is only incompatible with the abrahamic belief system NOT with other belief systems. You don't have to be an atheist to see that evolution is a fact.
drhtum 5 months ago
@drhtum I'm just dodging in here. Dude, nice going. You started & ended your argumentation with "you're stupid, wrong, uneducated & don't know anything about this world. I on the other hand am the elite." You think anyone will listen to you if you talk like that?
GaolisVideoLog 2 months ago
@GaolisVideoLog u hypocrate u said same things for me:)
thcci 2 months ago
@GaolisVideoLog: Actually, that's how you are (mis)interpreting what I said. I started by saying that the commentator does not know much about EVOLUTION. I did not say that I am elite, but I do have an education in the life-sciences (college and above) and I do recognize that the commentator's comments regarding evolution reveals that he has misunderstood what the theory of evolution really states.
Nice attitude buddy: take offence when it is demonstrated that you are wrong.
drhtum 2 months ago
@GaolisVideoLog: Besides, the commentator is also clearly misinformed given that he states with such confidence that there is not a single piece of evidence in support of evolution. The space here is too small to list, but there is in fact a lot of evidence in favour of evolution. And I notice that only Muslims and Christians seem to get uncomfortable with the idea of evolution (Islam, Christianity and Judaism are Abrahamic religions). The culture that I come from finds it
drhtum 2 months ago
@GaolisVideoLog: The culture that I come from finds it perfectly feasible.
Yet again it seems to offend you when you are pointed out when you are wrong.
Besides, I have not even used the word "stupid" to describe the commentator who has used that very word to describe Dr. Dawkins. Do I sense a stink of hypocrisy here? You don't like to be pointed out that he is wrong but you have no problems when he resorts to name calling. Nice going!!
drhtum 2 months ago
@GaolisVideoLog: One more thing - you feel that someone who seems to be knowledgeable about a particular considers himself elite. Well, no one has stopped you or anybody from gathering knowledge. Dr. Dawkins or anybody who has even been to college or grad school and made the effort has worked really hard to understand the subject and has subjected their knowledge to a lot of scrutiny before reaching that position. No one got there without breaking a sweat.
drhtum 2 months ago
@drhtum I have my college degree also & do not have a problem with evolution either. I did not say that you used the word stupid, it was, if you allow "reductio ad absurdum" to unarbitrarily demonstrate to you how you're sounding to others. And you're doing it again. What I tried to get into your head was that if you try to speak to others who are clearly not as educated in the fields of evolution as you are, you should try to explain the matter from their POV to make it comprehensible. Get it?
GaolisVideoLog 1 month ago
@GaolisVideoLog: "Reductio ad absurdum" is, after all, a logical fallacy in any argument, and so it is too, in yours. If you are more concerned than the 'tone' of my argument, rather than the 'facts' or the 'logic' in my argument, then you are being ridiculous. Whom you are defending has explicitly called the gentleman in question, "stupid". So your response rather demonstrates your own hypocrisy rather than my (non-existent) "elitism".
drhtum 1 month ago
@GaolisVideoLog; I'm not trying to educate the commentator about evolution. Dr. Richard Dawkins and others are doing enough, already. I was countering the, rather arrogantly made, false claim that "there is no evidence in favour of evolution". It would be more appropriate for you to direct your objections at the commentator, for I am merely addressing him in the same manner as he has been addressing Dr. Richard Dawkins. Funny how you sympathize with him for the same 'tone' but condemn me for it.
drhtum 1 month ago
@GaolisVideoLog: You are entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine and the commentator is to his. But NO ONE is entitled to their own "FACTS". Facts are facts, and if you are going to make claims without checking the facts, you should be prepared for the criticism. Maybe your friend should have verified the pertinent facts before making claims and calling a distinguished professor in the concerned field, "stupid", explicitly.
drhtum 1 month ago
@GaolisVideoLog; I don't know which subject you have a degree in, but for argument's sake, I'm supposing that you have a degree in economics. I have a degree in a field very closely related to biology. If you were making a comment on the dynamics of the global economic slowdown, I would not venture an assertion (much less call you stupid) on the subject because I know that my knowledge on the subject would be limited as compared to yours. One should assert where one has the knowledge to do so.
drhtum 1 month ago
@GaolisVideoLog: It's easy to dismiss someone by calling them stupid without even taking the time to understand what it is that he is saying but it is much more difficult to sweat it out for years to reach the level of knowledge that Dr. Dawkins has. Those of you who are not prepared to sweat it out would rather just call him elite and dismiss him. Also, the gentleman (or anybody at his level) can back their claims with evidence. Can you? I don't think so..
*particular subject
drhtum 2 months ago
@netofuschini May I? I understand your grudge. But please understand his background. You probably noticed that specific jobs use specific vocabulary & that sometimes the meaning of 1 word changes depending on profession. This is called "English for special purposes". The 2nd thing to keep in mind is "empirical evidence" & stochastic from maths class as well as philosophical paradigms. Meaning that, no matter how sure, there's a chance, even if only >0.0000001%, of being wrong.
GaolisVideoLog 2 months ago
@netofuschini Some observations (or facts, to use that word) were already known in Darwin's time. Although he contributed by finding more examples.
There have been other theories (theory in the meaning Explanation, not "Hunch") by other people to explain what had been observed. For example Lamarck had a different theory. But compared to Darwin's theory which is based on natural selection (and in modern times: genes), the other theories lost. Today, Darwin's theory is very robust.
0debug 2 months ago
i like when physicist sayin -yea exactly yea:))
thcci 8 months ago
Manipulating definitions is not to be taken as fact.Dawkins is admitting there are two definitions.
clawedification 9 months ago
@clawedification, Two definitions as per English language. In science however theory only has one meaning.
theonewayroad01 8 months ago
@clawedification I'm not sure what your point is? The word "theory" has suffered an inflation in colloquial language. As in "hey, I've got a theory about X..." instead of "the theory gravitation". That is a fact. What is also true is that creationists (maybe not all but many) are trying to undermine the power of the word "theory". Perhaps we should distinguish the two by evolution (e.g) the "scientific theory of evolution instead the average joe theory".
juuonse 7 months ago