You're a breathe of fresh air...critical thinking appears to be a lost art.
1. The woman in the interview said the car doors were open, Chopper footage reveals the doors were closed.
2. 3 MSM outlets said that all the weapons were registered to Nancy. AR 15 is already illegal in the State of CT... how can she register an illegal weapon?
3. When & Pics of the 600 kids evacuated along with 600 parents coming to pick them up.
4. Church of Satan East Coast Hub = you guessed it Newtown CT!!
I don't know if enoch is still reading this thread and I know that nobody is even replying to his nonsensical, rambling, delusional bullshit, but I don't want him to think he got the last end on me.
And you think this post helped your cause? It's like giving you a hammer to put out a c4 fire.
Quote:
the point is that you cannot test einstein's theories on gravity
If you CANNOT TEST IT...then How is it a Scientific "Theory" in the first place?
A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html
So, let me guess: It's still Science ENOCH!!!! right? geez
Quote:
You know, the same way natural selection has been replicated
They "Replicated" Natural Selection, eh? is it "Natural Selection" squared? Can you post the Chemical Structure of Natural Selection....? Where exactly is it located?
Natural Selection is a "Concept" it's Immaterial and a Tautology. To postulate "Natural Selection" is responsible is tantamount to:
The "Race for Space" constructed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module.
"Freedom" developed the battle plans for the Revolutionary War.
The "Transition between Classical and Romantic Era's" Wrote Beethoven's 9th.
All "Concepts"!
William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....
"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200
Quote:
there isn't really a delineation between micro vs macro evolution).
uh huh... besides this, and a Stamp on the Forehead Equivocation (Fallacy):
Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Conference on 'Macroevolution'....
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Roger Lewin PhD, Science (Vol. 210(4472):883–887, 1980.)
I have serious doubts you know the difference between just the words "Micro" and "Macro".
Quote:
you're the only idiot who thinks astronomy isn't science.
So if I show you a Peanut and put a sign over it that says, "Turtle"...the Peanut is a Turtle?
And I don't "Think" I KNOW and I've PROVEN it Step by Step over 30 times on this thread.
Quote:
yes, you are hanging on semantics.
So the Peanut is still a Turtle? Your little "semantic" argument is in the dustbin along with the other 100 or so feebly contrived conjectures you spewed here.
Quote:
how about this for a novel thought: I don't give a fuck if you call evolution science or not, it's clearly the way life has evolved on this planet, regardless of whatever the fuck your deluded brain wants to call it.
I have a novel thought, stick to "Political" science or Cake Decorating Threads where ill conceived conjured Baseless Assertions and "guesses" are not only tolerated but solicited.
Quote:
you really believe the ark story? what a moron.
ahhh sir, coming from someone who believes....
1. Ink Molecules can Author Books.
2. The Universe Created Itself From Nothing
3. Stars and Planets coalesced "Naturally".
4. Bacteria can turn into Giraffes (given enough TIME)
Which Directly Violates:
1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Jeans Mass
3. Boyle's Gas Law
4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
5. Law of Biogenesis
6. Laws of Information
7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry
8. Functional Sequence Complexity
9. Irreducible Complexity
10. Quantum Mechanics
11. Laws of Logic
12. Common Sense
What's Stupefying.... your Platform is "Science". It's like cutting off your Legs to Prevent Athlete's Foot!
Quote:
that concept of a flood is an archetype
Yes, I wonder where the Literally BILLIONS of fossils came from.
Can you explain the fossilization process, stepwise please...?
Quote:
stop using a stupid analogy like "code" and "program". these are imperfect analogies
Still grasping eh? Tell ya what, go ahead and email Dr. Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics) and lecture him on his "Stupid Analogies"...
"Life is a DNA Software System"
Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)
"We are SOFTWARE Driven Machines like every other Biological Species on this Planet".
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
"Life is basically the result of an Information Process, a SOFTWARE process, our GENETIC CODE is our Software".
Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)
Or Schedule a Podcast so you can educate him and we can listen in.
Quote:
7) how do you get a nun pregnant?
8) why can't you ask jesus for directions?
9) did you hear about the time jesus played hockey?
Jokes, eh? Can you imagine kneeling before The CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE giving account for this?
Quote:
damn, that post was cathartic.
It was feebly contrived with the effort no more than that of a clumsy child.
Which is "Cherry On Topped" with the refined scholarly playground barrage of name calling, cursing, and jokes.
You're a breathe of fresh air...critical thinking appears to be a lost art.
1. The woman in the interview said the car doors were open, Chopper footage reveals the doors were closed.
2. 3 MSM outlets said that all the weapons were registered to Nancy. AR 15 is already illegal in the State of CT... how can she register an illegal weapon?
3. When & Pics of the 600 kids evacuated along with 600 parents coming to pick them up.
4. Church of Satan East Coast Hub = you guessed it Newtown CT!!
Jokes, eh? Can you imagine kneeling before The CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE giving account for this?
I can't, because even if there is such a thing, I doubt a being capable of creating billions of advanced creatures really cares about one of them making a few jokes.
That's the difference between those of us with critical thinking skills and people who think there's someone up in the sky who gives a flying fuck what we're doing every second of the day.
And this is how he spends his time. Why not just buy a gun and blow your brains out if this is the rest of your life - being a colossally ignorant douche.
One more time, as you seem to never address your very basic mistake regarding science and the scientific method (other than more creepypasta and putting your finger in your ears):
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
"NY Jews" on BBI isn't necessarily racist. One can simply use it as a description. It is true. I suspect there more than likely is a higher population of posters on a NY Giants fan site that are both from NY and Jewish.
That said, when you consider the history and beliefs of the source and the context in which it was posted- He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt (that it was used purely as a description and innocent).
The reason I bring it up is because a few days ago I described an Asian guy as, "Asian" and was told it was racist. The exact quote was, "The Asian guy that works up front on C-Shift, I forget his name."
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making awesome racist jokes at work. It just really irks me when someone says I'm being racist when I'm not even trying.
Knowing you and how you think, that Asian comment was racist...REPENT, YOU RACIST PRICK!!!
Love you?...;)
Shouldn't that be, "Lepent, you lacist plick!"?
I love how this thread is approaching 1500 posts Â
or hoping that something very very very bad happens to people who post? I mean like for example I wrote that I'd laugh if Peter in Atl suffered a massive coronary on his next key stroke? I'd never write that if it crosses a line. Please advise
or hoping that something very very very bad happens to people who post? I mean like for example I wrote that I'd laugh if Peter in Atl suffered a massive coronary on his next key stroke? I'd never write that if it crosses a line. Please advise
Are you saying that what you said about Peter didn't cross a line?
One more time, as you seem to never address your very basic mistake regarding science and the scientific method (other than more creepypasta and putting your finger in your ears):
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Berkeley, eh? lol They say that so the can stupidly push there little UN-TESTABLE "Just So" Story fairytale evolution to the willfully ignorant masses
This ends it...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
What do you suppose he would say to a "Postulate" with ZERO EXPERIMENTS!!!!
And by the mere fact I would even have to post this "ONCE" is testimony to your 13th Century Alchemy education and adherence to Incoherent Fairytales.
Science without Experiments is like Water without Hydrogen. Preposterous Absurdity is insulting to Preposterous Absurdity.
Sir I can safely say that you (and the vast majority of people on this thread), and Berkeley..... wouldn't know what "Science" was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.
or hoping that something very very very bad happens to people who post? I mean like for example I wrote that I'd laugh if Peter in Atl suffered a massive coronary on his next key stroke? I'd never write that if it crosses a line. Please advise
Are you saying that what you said about Peter didn't cross a line?
I don't know if enoch is still reading this thread and I know that nobody is even replying to his nonsensical, rambling, delusional bullshit, but I don't want him to think he got the last end on me.
And you think this post helped your cause? It's like giving you a hammer to put out a c4 fire.
Quote:
the point is that you cannot test einstein's theories on gravity
If you CANNOT TEST IT...then How is it a Scientific "Theory" in the first place?
A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html
So, let me guess: It's still Science ENOCH!!!! right? geez
Quote:
You know, the same way natural selection has been replicated
They "Replicated" Natural Selection, eh? is it "Natural Selection" squared? Can you post the Chemical Structure of Natural Selection....? Where exactly is it located?
Natural Selection is a "Concept" it's Immaterial and a Tautology. To postulate "Natural Selection" is responsible is tantamount to:
The "Race for Space" constructed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module.
"Freedom" developed the battle plans for the Revolutionary War.
The "Transition between Classical and Romantic Era's" Wrote Beethoven's 9th.
All "Concepts"!
William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....
"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200
Quote:
there isn't really a delineation between micro vs macro evolution).
uh huh... besides this, and a Stamp on the Forehead Equivocation (Fallacy):
Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Conference on 'Macroevolution'....
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Roger Lewin PhD, Science (Vol. 210(4472):883–887, 1980.)
I have serious doubts you know the difference between just the words "Micro" and "Macro".
Quote:
you're the only idiot who thinks astronomy isn't science.
So if I show you a Peanut and put a sign over it that says, "Turtle"...the Peanut is a Turtle?
And I don't "Think" I KNOW and I've PROVEN it Step by Step over 30 times on this thread.
Quote:
yes, you are hanging on semantics.
So the Peanut is still a Turtle? Your little "semantic" argument is in the dustbin along with the other 100 or so feebly contrived conjectures you spewed here.
Quote:
how about this for a novel thought: I don't give a fuck if you call evolution science or not, it's clearly the way life has evolved on this planet, regardless of whatever the fuck your deluded brain wants to call it.
I have a novel thought, stick to "Political" science or Cake Decorating Threads where ill conceived conjured Baseless Assertions and "guesses" are not only tolerated but solicited.
Quote:
you really believe the ark story? what a moron.
ahhh sir, coming from someone who believes....
1. Ink Molecules can Author Books.
2. The Universe Created Itself From Nothing
3. Stars and Planets coalesced "Naturally".
4. Bacteria can turn into Giraffes (given enough TIME)
Which Directly Violates:
1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Jeans Mass
3. Boyle's Gas Law
4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
5. Law of Biogenesis
6. Laws of Information
7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry
8. Functional Sequence Complexity
9. Irreducible Complexity
10. Quantum Mechanics
11. Laws of Logic
12. Common Sense
What's Stupefying.... your Platform is "Science". It's like cutting off your Legs to Prevent Athlete's Foot!
Quote:
that concept of a flood is an archetype
Yes, I wonder where the Literally BILLIONS of fossils came from.
Can you explain the fossilization process, stepwise please...?
Quote:
stop using a stupid analogy like "code" and "program". these are imperfect analogies
Still grasping eh? Tell ya what, go ahead and email Dr. Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics) and lecture him on his "Stupid Analogies"...
"Life is a DNA Software System"
Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)
"We are SOFTWARE Driven Machines like every other Biological Species on this Planet".
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
"Life is basically the result of an Information Process, a SOFTWARE process, our GENETIC CODE is our Software".
Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)
Or Schedule a Podcast so you can educate him and we can listen in.
Quote:
7) how do you get a nun pregnant?
8) why can't you ask jesus for directions?
9) did you hear about the time jesus played hockey?
Jokes, eh? Can you imagine kneeling before The CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE giving account for this?
Quote:
damn, that post was cathartic.
It was feebly contrived with the effort no more than that of a clumsy child.
Which is "Cherry On Topped" with the refined scholarly playground barrage of name calling, cursing, and jokes.
One more time, as you seem to never address your very basic mistake regarding science and the scientific method (other than more creepypasta and putting your finger in your ears):
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Berkeley, eh? lol They say that so the can stupidly push there little UN-TESTABLE "Just So" Story fairytale evolution to the willfully ignorant masses
This ends it...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
What do you suppose he would say to a "Postulate" with ZERO EXPERIMENTS!!!!
And by the mere fact I would even have to post this "ONCE" is testimony to your 13th Century Alchemy education and adherence to Incoherent Fairytales.
Science without Experiments is like Water without Hydrogen. Preposterous Absurdity is insulting to Preposterous Absurdity.
Sir I can safely say that you (and the vast majority of people on this thread), and Berkeley..... wouldn't know what "Science" was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.
regards
If Feynman agreed with your extrapolation of his statement, he would have said so, but he did not.
Do you have a coherent argument to support what you believe sir?
Or
More name calling, jokes, cursing, and pseudo-science??
regards
Hi. I will tell you what degrees I have and from where if you do the same. I will admit that I am not a scientist.
I don't care from where or what "degrees" you have sir, it's Painfully Irrelevant. I've known PhD's that couldn't tie their shoes and Infantry Grunts who could outwit Napoleon.
It boils down to: can you SUPPORT what you say either Scientifically or Logically or both. It's what separates critical thinkers from village idiots.
One more time, as you seem to never address your very basic mistake regarding science and the scientific method (other than more creepypasta and putting your finger in your ears):
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Berkeley, eh? lol They say that so the can stupidly push there little UN-TESTABLE "Just So" Story fairytale evolution to the willfully ignorant masses
This ends it...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
What do you suppose he would say to a "Postulate" with ZERO EXPERIMENTS!!!!
And by the mere fact I would even have to post this "ONCE" is testimony to your 13th Century Alchemy education and adherence to Incoherent Fairytales.
Science without Experiments is like Water without Hydrogen. Preposterous Absurdity is insulting to Preposterous Absurdity.
Sir I can safely say that you (and the vast majority of people on this thread), and Berkeley..... wouldn't know what "Science" was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.
regards
If Feynman agreed with your extrapolation of his statement, he would have said so, but he did not.
or hoping that something very very very bad happens to people who post? I mean like for example I wrote that I'd laugh if Peter in Atl suffered a massive coronary on his next key stroke? I'd never write that if it crosses a line. Please advise
Are you saying that what you said about Peter didn't cross a line?
Peter probably deserved it anyways.
Let's be honest, if he said that about almost anyone else on here, you'd probably say it crossed a line. Which is kinda my only point, to point out HH's shittiness.
Peter can be a dick to some people but he's hardly the worst offender on BBI. Being a dick is like a prerequisite to sticking around on BBI.
Wishing death on people? Maybe crossing a line a little bit?
Do you have a coherent argument to support what you believe sir?
Or
More name calling, jokes, cursing, and pseudo-science??
regards
Hi. I will tell you what degrees I have and from where if you do the same. I will admit that I am not a scientist.
I don't care from where or what "degrees" you have sir, it's Painfully Irrelevant. I've known PhD's that couldn't tie their shoes and Infantry Grunts who could outwit Napoleon.
It boils down to: can you SUPPORT what you say either Scientifically or Logically or both. It's what separates critical thinkers from village idiots.
Do you have a coherent argument to support what you believe sir?
Or
More name calling, jokes, cursing, and pseudo-science??
regards
Hi. I will tell you what degrees I have and from where if you do the same. I will admit that I am not a scientist.
I don't care from where or what "degrees" you have sir, it's Painfully Irrelevant. I've known PhD's that couldn't tie their shoes and Infantry Grunts who could outwit Napoleon.
It boils down to: can you SUPPORT what you say either Scientifically or Logically or both. It's what separates critical thinkers from village idiots.
regards
Then why was it made known by Spock that you had
science degrees and this validated what you said. I would not have asked except you guys provided some information but not all. You appear to be hiding something.
RE: Do us a favor and go back to your enlightened Â
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
Obviously it has confused you. His statement is true. All he is talking about is a theory that is disproved by an experiment.
He is not saying anything about whether or not an experiment is a necessary part of a valid scientific theory.
Good try, though. Although I think my 9yr old would have needed less help understanding these things.
Sandy Hook Questions Still Haunting Us Part 7
You're a breathe of fresh air...critical thinking appears to be a lost art.
1. The woman in the interview said the car doors were open, Chopper footage reveals the doors were closed.
2. 3 MSM outlets said that all the weapons were registered to Nancy. AR 15 is already illegal in the State of CT... how can she register an illegal weapon?
3. When & Pics of the 600 kids evacuated along with 600 parents coming to pick them up.
4. Church of Satan East Coast Hub = you guessed it Newtown CT!!
LINK - ( New Window )
And you think this post helped your cause? It's like giving you a hammer to put out a c4 fire.
If you CANNOT TEST IT...then How is it a Scientific "Theory" in the first place?
A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html
So, let me guess: It's still Science ENOCH!!!! right? geez
They "Replicated" Natural Selection, eh? is it "Natural Selection" squared? Can you post the Chemical Structure of Natural Selection....? Where exactly is it located?
Natural Selection is a "Concept" it's Immaterial and a Tautology. To postulate "Natural Selection" is responsible is tantamount to:
The "Race for Space" constructed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module.
"Freedom" developed the battle plans for the Revolutionary War.
The "Transition between Classical and Romantic Era's" Wrote Beethoven's 9th.
All "Concepts"!
William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....
"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200
uh huh... besides this, and a Stamp on the Forehead Equivocation (Fallacy):
Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Conference on 'Macroevolution'....
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Roger Lewin PhD, Science (Vol. 210(4472):883–887, 1980.)
I have serious doubts you know the difference between just the words "Micro" and "Macro".
So if I show you a Peanut and put a sign over it that says, "Turtle"...the Peanut is a Turtle?
And I don't "Think" I KNOW and I've PROVEN it Step by Step over 30 times on this thread.
So the Peanut is still a Turtle? Your little "semantic" argument is in the dustbin along with the other 100 or so feebly contrived conjectures you spewed here.
I have a novel thought, stick to "Political" science or Cake Decorating Threads where ill conceived conjured Baseless Assertions and "guesses" are not only tolerated but solicited.
ahhh sir, coming from someone who believes....
1. Ink Molecules can Author Books.
2. The Universe Created Itself From Nothing
3. Stars and Planets coalesced "Naturally".
4. Bacteria can turn into Giraffes (given enough TIME)
Which Directly Violates:
1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Jeans Mass
3. Boyle's Gas Law
4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
5. Law of Biogenesis
6. Laws of Information
7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry
8. Functional Sequence Complexity
9. Irreducible Complexity
10. Quantum Mechanics
11. Laws of Logic
12. Common Sense
What's Stupefying.... your Platform is "Science". It's like cutting off your Legs to Prevent Athlete's Foot!
Yes, I wonder where the Literally BILLIONS of fossils came from.
Can you explain the fossilization process, stepwise please...?
Still grasping eh? Tell ya what, go ahead and email Dr. Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics) and lecture him on his "Stupid Analogies"...
"Life is a DNA Software System"
Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)
"We are SOFTWARE Driven Machines like every other Biological Species on this Planet".
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
"Life is basically the result of an Information Process, a SOFTWARE process, our GENETIC CODE is our Software".
Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)
Or Schedule a Podcast so you can educate him and we can listen in.
8) why can't you ask jesus for directions?
9) did you hear about the time jesus played hockey?
Jokes, eh? Can you imagine kneeling before The CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE giving account for this?
It was feebly contrived with the effort no more than that of a clumsy child.
Which is "Cherry On Topped" with the refined scholarly playground barrage of name calling, cursing, and jokes.
Riveting.
regards
Sandy Hook Questions Still Haunting Us Part 7
You're a breathe of fresh air...critical thinking appears to be a lost art.
1. The woman in the interview said the car doors were open, Chopper footage reveals the doors were closed.
2. 3 MSM outlets said that all the weapons were registered to Nancy. AR 15 is already illegal in the State of CT... how can she register an illegal weapon?
3. When & Pics of the 600 kids evacuated along with 600 parents coming to pick them up.
4. Church of Satan East Coast Hub = you guessed it Newtown CT!!
regards
You figured this all by yourself? Just kidding.
Do you have a coherent argument to support what you believe sir?
Or
More name calling, jokes, cursing, and pseudo-science??
regards
"Hello, Sandy."
Jokes, eh? Can you imagine kneeling before The CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE giving account for this?
I can't, because even if there is such a thing, I doubt a being capable of creating billions of advanced creatures really cares about one of them making a few jokes.
That's the difference between those of us with critical thinking skills and people who think there's someone up in the sky who gives a flying fuck what we're doing every second of the day.
But CODE - PROGRAMMER!
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Cheers!
lonk - ( New Window )
Quote:
"NY Jews" on BBI isn't necessarily racist. One can simply use it as a description. It is true. I suspect there more than likely is a higher population of posters on a NY Giants fan site that are both from NY and Jewish.
That said, when you consider the history and beliefs of the source and the context in which it was posted- He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt (that it was used purely as a description and innocent).
The reason I bring it up is because a few days ago I described an Asian guy as, "Asian" and was told it was racist. The exact quote was, "The Asian guy that works up front on C-Shift, I forget his name."
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making awesome racist jokes at work. It just really irks me when someone says I'm being racist when I'm not even trying.
Knowing you and how you think, that Asian comment was racist...REPENT, YOU RACIST PRICK!!!
Love you?...;)
Shouldn't that be, "Lepent, you lacist plick!"?
My buddy Spock reviewed it, and he's a peer.
Therefore, god.
Alternative tests have been formulated.
He's a dimwitted truther twat.
Quote:
I see that you are checking up on this thread.
You figured this all by yourself? Just kidding.
Do you have a coherent argument to support what you believe sir?
Or
More name calling, jokes, cursing, and pseudo-science??
regards
Step 2) Join BBI
Step 3) post stuff
Step 4) make friends and/or make enemies
Step 5) repeat steps 3 & 4 for 20 years
Step 6) See a doctor get check for fossilization
Are you saying that what you said about Peter didn't cross a line?
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Berkeley, eh? lol They say that so the can stupidly push there little UN-TESTABLE "Just So" Story fairytale evolution to the willfully ignorant masses
This ends it...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
What do you suppose he would say to a "Postulate" with ZERO EXPERIMENTS!!!!
And by the mere fact I would even have to post this "ONCE" is testimony to your 13th Century Alchemy education and adherence to Incoherent Fairytales.
Science without Experiments is like Water without Hydrogen. Preposterous Absurdity is insulting to Preposterous Absurdity.
Sir I can safely say that you (and the vast majority of people on this thread), and Berkeley..... wouldn't know what "Science" was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.
regards
Quote:
or hoping that something very very very bad happens to people who post? I mean like for example I wrote that I'd laugh if Peter in Atl suffered a massive coronary on his next key stroke? I'd never write that if it crosses a line. Please advise
Are you saying that what you said about Peter didn't cross a line?
Peter probably deserved it anyways.
Quote:
I don't know if enoch is still reading this thread and I know that nobody is even replying to his nonsensical, rambling, delusional bullshit, but I don't want him to think he got the last end on me.
And you think this post helped your cause? It's like giving you a hammer to put out a c4 fire.
Quote:
the point is that you cannot test einstein's theories on gravity
If you CANNOT TEST IT...then How is it a Scientific "Theory" in the first place?
A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html
So, let me guess: It's still Science ENOCH!!!! right? geez
Quote:
You know, the same way natural selection has been replicated
They "Replicated" Natural Selection, eh? is it "Natural Selection" squared? Can you post the Chemical Structure of Natural Selection....? Where exactly is it located?
Natural Selection is a "Concept" it's Immaterial and a Tautology. To postulate "Natural Selection" is responsible is tantamount to:
The "Race for Space" constructed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module.
"Freedom" developed the battle plans for the Revolutionary War.
The "Transition between Classical and Romantic Era's" Wrote Beethoven's 9th.
All "Concepts"!
William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....
"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200
Quote:
there isn't really a delineation between micro vs macro evolution).
uh huh... besides this, and a Stamp on the Forehead Equivocation (Fallacy):
Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Conference on 'Macroevolution'....
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Roger Lewin PhD, Science (Vol. 210(4472):883–887, 1980.)
I have serious doubts you know the difference between just the words "Micro" and "Macro".
Quote:
you're the only idiot who thinks astronomy isn't science.
So if I show you a Peanut and put a sign over it that says, "Turtle"...the Peanut is a Turtle?
And I don't "Think" I KNOW and I've PROVEN it Step by Step over 30 times on this thread.
Quote:
yes, you are hanging on semantics.
So the Peanut is still a Turtle? Your little "semantic" argument is in the dustbin along with the other 100 or so feebly contrived conjectures you spewed here.
Quote:
how about this for a novel thought: I don't give a fuck if you call evolution science or not, it's clearly the way life has evolved on this planet, regardless of whatever the fuck your deluded brain wants to call it.
I have a novel thought, stick to "Political" science or Cake Decorating Threads where ill conceived conjured Baseless Assertions and "guesses" are not only tolerated but solicited.
Quote:
you really believe the ark story? what a moron.
ahhh sir, coming from someone who believes....
1. Ink Molecules can Author Books.
2. The Universe Created Itself From Nothing
3. Stars and Planets coalesced "Naturally".
4. Bacteria can turn into Giraffes (given enough TIME)
Which Directly Violates:
1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Jeans Mass
3. Boyle's Gas Law
4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
5. Law of Biogenesis
6. Laws of Information
7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry
8. Functional Sequence Complexity
9. Irreducible Complexity
10. Quantum Mechanics
11. Laws of Logic
12. Common Sense
What's Stupefying.... your Platform is "Science". It's like cutting off your Legs to Prevent Athlete's Foot!
Quote:
that concept of a flood is an archetype
Yes, I wonder where the Literally BILLIONS of fossils came from.
Can you explain the fossilization process, stepwise please...?
Quote:
stop using a stupid analogy like "code" and "program". these are imperfect analogies
Still grasping eh? Tell ya what, go ahead and email Dr. Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics) and lecture him on his "Stupid Analogies"...
"Life is a DNA Software System"
Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)
"We are SOFTWARE Driven Machines like every other Biological Species on this Planet".
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
"Life is basically the result of an Information Process, a SOFTWARE process, our GENETIC CODE is our Software".
Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)
Or Schedule a Podcast so you can educate him and we can listen in.
Quote:
7) how do you get a nun pregnant?
8) why can't you ask jesus for directions?
9) did you hear about the time jesus played hockey?
Jokes, eh? Can you imagine kneeling before The CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE giving account for this?
Quote:
damn, that post was cathartic.
It was feebly contrived with the effort no more than that of a clumsy child.
Which is "Cherry On Topped" with the refined scholarly playground barrage of name calling, cursing, and jokes.
Riveting.
regards
How does that not cross a line? That's pretty obviously a shitty thing to write.
And I seriously hope spock never returns either.
Quote:
write that if it was considered crossing a line
How does that not cross a line? That's pretty obviously a shitty thing to write.
It's HeadHunter. Do you need anything else explained?
Quote:
One more time, as you seem to never address your very basic mistake regarding science and the scientific method (other than more creepypasta and putting your finger in your ears):
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Berkeley, eh? lol They say that so the can stupidly push there little UN-TESTABLE "Just So" Story fairytale evolution to the willfully ignorant masses
This ends it...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
What do you suppose he would say to a "Postulate" with ZERO EXPERIMENTS!!!!
And by the mere fact I would even have to post this "ONCE" is testimony to your 13th Century Alchemy education and adherence to Incoherent Fairytales.
Science without Experiments is like Water without Hydrogen. Preposterous Absurdity is insulting to Preposterous Absurdity.
Sir I can safely say that you (and the vast majority of people on this thread), and Berkeley..... wouldn't know what "Science" was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.
regards
Quote:
In comment 12143447 Headhunter said:
Quote:
write that if it was considered crossing a line
How does that not cross a line? That's pretty obviously a shitty thing to write.
It's HeadHunter. Do you need anything else explained?
I need a lot explained...
Not on this subject, just generally.
Quote:
In comment 12143129 Big Al said:
Quote:
I see that you are checking up on this thread.
You figured this all by yourself? Just kidding.
Do you have a coherent argument to support what you believe sir?
Or
More name calling, jokes, cursing, and pseudo-science??
regards
Hi. I will tell you what degrees I have and from where if you do the same. I will admit that I am not a scientist.
I don't care from where or what "degrees" you have sir, it's Painfully Irrelevant. I've known PhD's that couldn't tie their shoes and Infantry Grunts who could outwit Napoleon.
It boils down to: can you SUPPORT what you say either Scientifically or Logically or both. It's what separates critical thinkers from village idiots.
regards
lol!
We are all glad that you are retired, largely for the fact that you can't influence anyone, though it's not the only reason.
Quote:
In comment 12143386 Cam in MO said:
Quote:
One more time, as you seem to never address your very basic mistake regarding science and the scientific method (other than more creepypasta and putting your finger in your ears):
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Berkeley, eh? lol They say that so the can stupidly push there little UN-TESTABLE "Just So" Story fairytale evolution to the willfully ignorant masses
This ends it...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
What do you suppose he would say to a "Postulate" with ZERO EXPERIMENTS!!!!
And by the mere fact I would even have to post this "ONCE" is testimony to your 13th Century Alchemy education and adherence to Incoherent Fairytales.
Science without Experiments is like Water without Hydrogen. Preposterous Absurdity is insulting to Preposterous Absurdity.
Sir I can safely say that you (and the vast majority of people on this thread), and Berkeley..... wouldn't know what "Science" was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.
regards
If Feynman agreed with your extrapolation of his statement, he would have said so, but he did not.
What extrapolation might that be, pray tell...?
Quote:
In comment 12143414 Headhunter said:
Quote:
or hoping that something very very very bad happens to people who post? I mean like for example I wrote that I'd laugh if Peter in Atl suffered a massive coronary on his next key stroke? I'd never write that if it crosses a line. Please advise
Are you saying that what you said about Peter didn't cross a line?
Peter probably deserved it anyways.
Let's be honest, if he said that about almost anyone else on here, you'd probably say it crossed a line. Which is kinda my only point, to point out HH's shittiness.
Peter can be a dick to some people but he's hardly the worst offender on BBI. Being a dick is like a prerequisite to sticking around on BBI.
Wishing death on people? Maybe crossing a line a little bit?
Quote:
In comment 12143366 Enoch2021 said:
Quote:
In comment 12143129 Big Al said:
Quote:
I see that you are checking up on this thread.
You figured this all by yourself? Just kidding.
Do you have a coherent argument to support what you believe sir?
Or
More name calling, jokes, cursing, and pseudo-science??
regards
Hi. I will tell you what degrees I have and from where if you do the same. I will admit that I am not a scientist.
I don't care from where or what "degrees" you have sir, it's Painfully Irrelevant. I've known PhD's that couldn't tie their shoes and Infantry Grunts who could outwit Napoleon.
It boils down to: can you SUPPORT what you say either Scientifically or Logically or both. It's what separates critical thinkers from village idiots.
regards
Another happy graduate of Oral Gargle University.
Quote:
In comment 12143366 Enoch2021 said:
Quote:
In comment 12143129 Big Al said:
Quote:
I see that you are checking up on this thread.
You figured this all by yourself? Just kidding.
Do you have a coherent argument to support what you believe sir?
Or
More name calling, jokes, cursing, and pseudo-science??
regards
Hi. I will tell you what degrees I have and from where if you do the same. I will admit that I am not a scientist.
I don't care from where or what "degrees" you have sir, it's Painfully Irrelevant. I've known PhD's that couldn't tie their shoes and Infantry Grunts who could outwit Napoleon.
It boils down to: can you SUPPORT what you say either Scientifically or Logically or both. It's what separates critical thinkers from village idiots.
regards
science degrees and this validated what you said. I would not have asked except you guys provided some information but not all. You appear to be hiding something.
Thanks for the No True Scotsman (Fallacy).
Do you have anymore logical fallacies to support your arguments?
Thanks for you Baseless "Opinion" (Fallacy)
PROTIP: Fallacies....are Fallacious.
regards
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
Obviously it has confused you. His statement is true. All he is talking about is a theory that is disproved by an experiment.
He is not saying anything about whether or not an experiment is a necessary part of a valid scientific theory.
Good try, though. Although I think my 9yr old would have needed less help understanding these things.