Christians are anti-science.

[gfm7175]

Ah, that explains it.

Explains what?

 

[domer76]

This is the cry of the scientifically illiterate warmizombie, i.e. "physics doesn't apply to earth."


I'll repeat, warmizombies frequently skirt the laws of thermodynamics in attempts to rationalize their Global Warming faith.

Pseudo-science. Those claims are debunked every time.


I'm the one that claims that no dictionary owns the English language. Which dictionary do you claim owns English?

Blackbodies, ignorant cunt. Earth isn’t one.

I said nothing about any ownership, prick licker. No wonder you’re so fucking stupid. You can’t read.

 

[IBDaMann]

The fact you have not heard of Darwin's theory of pangenesis indicates to me you have never had a class on Darwin or evolutionary biology.

You would be correct that I have never had a class on evolutionary biology, but you would be mistaken to believe that I have never heard of Darwin's pangenesis theory. It's just that you are guilty of shifting goalposts, quite dramatically in fact.

The topic is Origin of Species and Darwin's theory of evolution and I had provided a link. Darwin made no mention of "pangenesis" until almost a decade later.

So, getting back to Origin of Species, what part of Darwin's theory do you believe has been falsified, or have you not read it?

I am not a biologist myself,

I am aware of that. Science is not your strong suit.

But the broad outlines of the theory of evolution by natural selection had stood the test of time, and is arguably the most tested and confirmed theory in modern science - though IMO quantum mechanics gives it a run for the money on that account.

So you are apparently going to insist that an unfalsifiable theory is somehow "confirmed." At this point, just go ahead and ... you know ... babble gibberish.

Quantum mechanics is not science; it is math, specifically statistical and probability mathematics.

 

[IBDaMann]

Blackbodies, ignorant cunt. Earth isn’t one.

Were you trying to establish some sort of point or do you normally prattle while you rave?

I said nothing about any ownership,

You said nothing of any consequence. You continue to be a waste of bandwidth. Starving children in Venezuela could have used those bits.

 

[Into the Night]

That's creationists that seem to be anti-science, not Christians as a whole.

The Theory of Creation is not incompatible with any theory of science.

Neither the Theory of Creation nor the Theory of Abiogenesis no the Theory of Evolution no the Theory of the the Big Bang nor the Theory of the Continuum is any part of science.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. They cannot be tested. Science does not use any supporting evidence. Only religions do that.

 

[Cypress]

You would be correct that I have never had a class on evolutionary biology, but you would be mistaken to believe that I have never heard of Darwin's pangenesis theory. It's just that you are guilty of shifting goalposts, quite dramatically in fact.

The topic is Origin of Species and Darwin's theory of evolution and I had provided a link. Darwin made no mention of "pangenesis" until almost a decade later.

So, getting back to Origin of Species, what part of Darwin's theory do you believe has been falsified, or have you not read it?


I am aware of that. Science is not your strong suit.


So you are apparently going to insist that an unfalsifiable theory is somehow "confirmed." At this point, just go ahead and ... you know ... babble gibberish.

Quantum mechanics is not science; it is math, specifically statistical and probability mathematics.

Good work on frantically googling pangenesis. I am 100 percent certain you had not heard of it two nanoseconds before you read my post. Pangenesis was Darwins attempt to plug holes and weaknesses in his theory of evolution by natural selection. Accordingly pangenesis was part and parcel of Darwin's evolutionary scheme.

The result was that Mendel and the early geneticists showed that some elements of Darwin's work could be falsified.

To my mind, the fossil record, genetics, DNA all provide ample opportunities to employ Karl Popper's tenets of scientific falsification concerning Darwin.

As for quantumm mechanics, it is a field of physics. Almost all scientific disciplines employ statistics and probability. You claim that quantumm mechanics is a field of statistics is utterly laughable. At any University on the planet where one desires to study quantum mechanics, one would apply to work in the physics department, not that statistics department.

 

[Into the Night]

I am a Christian and I believe God gave us science to understand our world. American far right wing conservobots are the problem.

They don't deny science.

 

[Into the Night]

How many were evangelical, fundamentalist and/or creationists?

How many believed in the horseshit you offer on this forum? You know, red heifers and the other laughable children’s stories.

The Theory of Creation is not incompatible with any theory of science.

 

[Into the Night]

It might help if he had a source. We don't accept clumps of claimed knowledge, pulled from anyone's ass.

Sure you do. You use it all the time.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. You made the claim; you supply the data to back it up.

BTW, most Xtians have no problems at all with science. As pointed out above, it's only the fervent fundies (Xtian, Islamic, etc.) who prefer to remain in the Dark Ages.

He already did. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

I Googled it and found it. What he fails to point out is the time period and nationality. Many, many Europeans, especially Germans, who were raised from birth as Christians. It also indicates that Christianity was their “religion of preference”. It says nothing about their depth of belief. Certainly, few would be off the charts like this idiot, Grugore.

Define 'depth of belief'.

 

[Into the Night]

The fact you have not heard of Darwin's theory of pangenesis

Darwin never made any such theory.

indicates to me you have never had a class on Darwin or evolutionary biology.

Darwinism isn't biology.

Time for you to start frantically googling. While your at it, Google Gregor Mendel, genetics, pea plants. Seemingly you have not thread of that either.

A pea plant is simply a pea plant. No one knows where a pea plant came from.

I am not a biologist myself,

Obviously.

but I took two classes on the Darwinian Revolution,

Did you enjoy Church?

and I remember enough to know that elements of Darwin's evolutionary scheme was debunked and falsified by genetics.

Nope. But it was falsified.

But the broad outlines of the theory of evolution by natural selection had stood the test of time,

Nope. It's been falsified.

and is arguably the most tested and confirmed theory in modern science

Nope. Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that.

- though IMO quantum mechanics gives it a run for the money on that account.

You have no idea what that is either.

 

[Into the Night]

Ah, that explains it.

Explains what?

 

[Into the Night]

Blackbodies, ignorant cunt. Earth isn’t one.

I said nothing about any ownership, prick licker. No wonder you’re so fucking stupid. You can’t read.

Earth emits blackbody radiance just like any body above absolute zero.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Well, isn't this so sad? Not.

This message is hidden because Into the Night is on your ignore list.

 

[Into the Night]

Good work on frantically googling pangenesis. I am 100 percent certain you had not heard of it two nanoseconds before you read my post.

Irrelevant.

Pangenesis was Darwins attempt to plug holes and weaknesses in his theory of evolution by natural selection.

That theory has been falsified.

Accordingly pangenesis was part and parcel of Darwin's evolutionary scheme.

Irrelevant.

The result was that Mendel and the early geneticists showed that some elements of Darwin's work could be falsified.

Nope. They didn't falsify that theory.

To my mind, the fossil record, genetics, DNA all provide ample opportunities to employ Karl Popper's tenets of scientific falsification concerning Darwin.

While it has been falsified, none of these were any factor.

As for quantumm mechanics, it is a field of physics.

There is no such thing as quantumm physics.

Almost all scientific disciplines employ statistics and probability.

None. Science isn't a casino.

You claim that quantumm mechanics is a field of statistics is utterly laughable.

There is no such thing as quantumm mechanics.

At any University on the planet where one desires to study quantum mechanics, one would apply to work in the physics department, not that statistics department.

There is no 'statistics' department at a university. Quantum mechanics is typically taught as part of science, but it is actually math. The reason, you see, is that you cannot see an atom. You can only see the effect of it.

 

[Cypress]

The fact you have not heard of Darwin's theory of pangenesis.

Darwin never made any such theory!

"Charles Darwin's Theory of Pangenesis"

Source: Arizona State University
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/charles-darwins-theory-pangenesis

There is no point me even wasting my time on the rest of what you wrote. You have a habit of blurting out monosyllabic grunts which happen to be 100 percent ass-backwards wrong.

 

[Into the Night]

There is no point me even wasting my time on the rest of what you wrote. You have a habit of blurting out monosyllabic grunts which happen to be 100 percent ass-backwards wrong.

False authority fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

 

[IBDaMann]

Good work on frantically googling pangenesis. I am 100 percent certain you had not heard of it two nanoseconds [blah, blah, blah]

So you are tipping your king. You can't think of any part of The Origen of Species that has been falsified and you acknowledge that Darwin's pangenesis is not part of that volume.

Shall we move on?

To my mind, the fossil record, genetics, DNA all provide ample opportunities to employ Karl Popper's tenets of scientific falsification concerning Darwin.

... and your mind is mistaken. Now, let's turn the tables a bit. You rushed to absorb the misinformation Wikipedia offers about "falsifiability" without checking any authoritative sources and thus didn't learn anything about "falsifiability." You give yourself away by referencing Karl Popper. He is dead and is not relevant to the topic. Karl popper initiated the idea of falsification but others took over and now the concept is embedded throughout industry. Nobody is going to spend big dollars on any development project that is not based on falsifiable specifications. No test plans can be generated for the unfalsifiable. No test plans means no project plan which means no funding.

So, going back to your speculation about the past. I don't care how much evidence you have that convinces you of whatever, nothing you believe can be verified without a time machine. None of your beliefs about the past are falsifiable. None.

As for quantumm mechanics, it is a field of physics.

Au contraire, mon frère, it is a branch of mathematics word problems and nothing more. Quantum mechanics is standard statistical and probability mathematics word problems. Find me a mathematician who is an expert in statistical and probability mathematics and I'll show you an expert solver of quantum mechanics word problems.

Are you under the impression that if a math word problem involves "photons" instead of "dice" that it magically transforms from math to physics?

Almost all scientific disciplines employ statistics and probability.

Au contraire, mon frère, physics predicts nature ... it does not provide probabilities. Math is needed for probabilities.

This is the Stefan-Boltzmann law: Radiance = Temperature^4 * SB_Const * Emissivity

Where are the statistics? Where are the probabilities?

You claim that quantumm mechanics is a field of statistics is utterly laughable.

Of course, while you are laughing you are going to provide examples of quantum mechanics problems whose solutions are not statistical mathematics, yes? I'm standing by ... and I assure you, I am laughing with you, not at you.

 

[IBDaMann]

The Theory of Creation is not incompatible with any theory of science. Neither the Theory of Creation nor the Theory of Abiogenesis no the Theory of Evolution no the Theory of the the Big Bang nor the Theory of the Continuum is any part of science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. They cannot be tested. Science does not use any supporting evidence. Only religions do that.

Absolutely correct on all counts.