|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:07 pm
Baron von Turkeypants Things will not calm down, Daniel Jackson. Please stop avoiding the question. All you have to do is show me how it isn't perfect. Instead, you resort to ad hominem attacks. They will, in fact, calm up. Not to avoid the question again, but why are you going at me? For claiming your theory isn't perfect? At any rate, I say that because it is still a developing field of science. Whether or not we're on the right track isn't the point; it's still far from being perfect. The very fact that we're still making discoveries proves that.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:13 pm
Things will not calm down, Daniel Jackson. I'm choosing to attack you because you say the theory of evolution isn't perfect and haven't backed it up with any specific piece of data that shows it isn't. When you said it isn't perfect, it made me think the only reason you say that is to be different from the creationists, who think their version is perfect. Just because we use science, does not mean that science can't present a perfect theory. Now while the specifics about biological evolution might be disputed, I think it's foolish to claim the general idea of descent with modification isn't a perfect explanation for what we see in organisms. They will, in fact, calm up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:19 pm
Not to be disrespectful, but perhaps it's best not to claim anything, given by science OR faith, to be perfect. If we claim the intellectual to be perfect, then we lose the desire to further it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:31 pm
Things will not calm down, Daniel Jackson. So by your reasoning, if hypothetically there was a theory that described the universe perfectly, a good scientist should disregard it as perfect, and thus that it is false, and so lose the best contribution to science ever invented. I can't accept that. They will, in fact, calm up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:48 pm
Baron von Turkeypants Things will not calm down, Daniel Jackson. So by your reasoning, if hypothetically there was a theory that described the universe perfectly, a good scientist should disregard it as perfect, and thus that it is false, and so lose the best contribution to science ever invented. I can't accept that. They will, in fact, calm up. That's pushing it to a pointless extreme. I know you aren't fool enough to claim what you believe is perfect, simply because it happens to be the best explanation. How do you think "creation science" got its start? Or religious science as a whole, for that matter? Simply because, out of faith in their belief, someone proclaimed their world view as perfect, and taught it as fact. If everyone were to take that attitude, we would be no better than the radicals who still claim the world is flat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:25 pm
YOU WANNA PLAY ROUGH? OK! I very much doubt creation science got started because some fool said his theory was perfect. Likewise, your absolute refusal to brand any theory as perfect is pushing things to a pointless extreme. SAY HELLO TO MY LITTLE FRIEND
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:33 pm
Baron von Turkeypants YOU WANNA PLAY ROUGH? OK! I very much doubt creation science got started because some fool said his theory was perfect. Likewise, your absolute refusal to brand any theory as perfect is pushing things to a pointless extreme. SAY HELLO TO MY LITTLE FRIEND Alright. Do you claim that everything that there is to be discovered in regards to the development of life on earth has been discovered? That there is nothing we do not know which could even slightly alter our current description of our origins?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:53 pm
YOU WANNA PLAY ROUGH? OK! No, I claim
Quote: Now while the specifics about biological evolution might be disputed, I think it's foolish to claim the general idea of descent with modification isn't a perfect explanation for what we see in organisms. Now you're claiming it isn't perfect on principle. I won't accept that until you present a specific piece of evidence.
SAY HELLO TO MY LITTLE FRIEND
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:05 am
I don't think he means it that way. I think he is tring to say that the concept behind it is perfect. That organisms adapt to there surronding ecosystem to better survive in there ecosystem.
Or I'm talking out my ***
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:17 am
YOU WANNA PLAY ROUGH? OK! Well, that's what I'm saying. SAY HELLO TO MY LITTLE FRIEND
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:10 am
Baron von Turkeypants YOU WANNA PLAY ROUGH? OK! Well, that's what I'm saying. SAY HELLO TO MY LITTLE FRIEND Then I apologize for my brashness. Nevertheless, I return to my point that it's best never to claim what one believes as perfect. While it's a wonderful comfort, it is, as I said, the reason we have Creation zealots. You should always be open to the possibility that, no matter how beneficial and undeniable a prospect seems, there is still likely something we don't know. (And I promise you, I could just as likely have this same discussion with the brilliant men of old Egypt who developed astronomy, the calendar, and the idea that the sun and stars orbit a giant dome.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:33 am
Stupid people like to laugh too...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:41 am
YOU WANNA PLAY ROUGH? OK! You say "you should always be open" but your attitude suggests "you should take is as a rule that should never be broken." That's why I don't accept what you're saying; you're staying away from absolutes by using an absolute to stay away from them. SAY HELLO TO MY LITTLE FRIEND
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:50 am
Baron von Turkeypants YOU WANNA PLAY ROUGH? OK! You say "you should always be open" but your attitude suggests "you should take is as a rule that should never be broken." That's why I don't accept what you're saying; you're staying away from absolutes by using an absolute to stay away from them. SAY HELLO TO MY LITTLE FRIEND If you insist. I don't see the point of this argument, to be honest. I claim it's unwise to declare something discovered by science as perfect, for to do so would defeat the drive for further study, and thus subscribing to the scientific method in the first place. If you disagree, then far be it from me to stop you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:10 pm
YOU WANNA PLAY ROUGH? OK! Yea, you already pointed that out, and I pointed out why I think that isn't the goal of science. SAY HELLO TO MY LITTLE FRIEND
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
