Science 101: the Hypothesis of Evolution, not “Theory”
To put this in layman’s terms, a hypothesis is a guess. Scientists guess what an outcome of an experiment may be and design an experiment to prove the guess or hypothesis was correct.
Scientists must have scientific observations and reproducible experimentation to prove to other scientists the guess was correct. If the observations and reproducible experiments match the guess or hypothesis, then other scientists can get the same observations
and results. Only then does the guess become get elevated to a theory. Since there are no scientific observations nor any reproducible experiments “evolving” a man in the laboratory, then
“evolution” is just a guess and not valid theory. Don’t fall forthe deceivers who promote the “theory” of evolution!
Ah unless you have proof that God does not exist. . .then you had better keep you unsubstantiated opinions to yourself. . .and besides you are the “monkeys” who claim to have all the “facts”. . .when the “facts” are mere guesses. . .so in fact you have a faith in the belief of “evolution”. . which makes it a religion not science. . .go figure. . .
"[Agnostics say] you can’t prove a negative (so far so good). Science has no way to disprove the existence of a supreme being (this is strictly true) . . "
Cathcart, Thomas & Klein, Aristotle and the Aardvark Go To Washington: Understanding Political Doublespeak Through Philosophy and Jokes. (New York: 2007) Page 28.
I have no proof of evolution, you have no proof of god.
so why dont you keep your unsubstantiated opinions to yourself.
If you call evolution a guess then i will call Christianity a guess. It’s simple
What do you gain by comparing me to you?
If evolution and Christianity are my 2 options to choose from (which they aren’t), and they are equally un proven, how is it not completely up to me to decide which option seems more probable?
it also strictly true that you cannot prove a supreme being exists scientifically or otherwise.
Shamgar, do you find any similarities between evolutionary theory and a murder case that goes to court?
In many murder cases, nobody actually witnessed the murder. Despite this, a theory can be formed using DNA evidence, forensic evidence, etc., and if the evidence is convincing enough, justice is served.
While there’s always a slight chance that somebody is wrongfully tried and convicted (although with DNA evidence, this has become much less likely), the more likely scenario is that the actual murderer is caught and brought to justice.
So something doesn’t have to be seen for a workable theory to arise, and a correct conclusion to be reached.
You mean a new thread or just a post? (However, I am sure you will find that I will do the same thing in that situation: use facts. … or the lack of scientific facts. . . on the Big Bang Guess)
Propaganda by its very nature is an enterprise for perverting the significance of events and of insinuating false intentions. There are two salient aspects of this fact. First of all, the propagandist must insist on the purity of his own intentions and, at the same time, hurl accusations at his enemy. But the accusation is never made haphazardly or groundlessly (9). The propagandist will not accuse the enemy of just any misdeed; he will accuse him of the very intention that he himself has and of trying to commit the very crime that he himself is about to commit. He who wants to provoke war not only proclaims his own peaceful intentions but also accuses the other party of provocation. He who uses concentration camps accuses his neighbor of doing so. He who intends to establish a dictatorship always insists that his adversaries are bent on dictatorship. The accusation aimed at the other’s intentions clearly reveals the intentions of the accuser. But the public cannot see this because the revelation is interwoven with facts. The mechanism used here is to slip from the facts, which would demand factual judgment, to moral terrain and to ethical judgment.
(9)Because political problems are difficult and often confusing, and their significance and their import not obvious, the propagandist can easily present them in moral language – and here we leave the realm of fact, to enter into that of passion. Facts, then, come to be discussed in the language of indignation, a tone which is almost always the mark of propaganda.
Jaques Ellul, “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes” (New York: 1973) Page 58.
Oh no confusion. You are confused. My response directly addresses your post point by point. . . I know science and I know evidence. . . you know neither. You were not able to discern (judge) that from my response.
This thread (trolling thread!) is a perfect illustration of the saying; “Debating evolution with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon; it knocks over the pieces, poops on the board and returns to the flock claiming victory!”
Yeah you are the troll acting like the pigeon (your projection tactic). Full of waste and that is all you can contribute. Congrats on the “victory”. . .
Sometimes a false accusation can be more brazen and direct. Some recent research we conducted with Derek Rucker looked at what we called the projection tactic - accusing someone else of the misdeed you yourself are committing. (9)
Pratkanis, Anthony and Aronson, Elliot.“Age of Propaganda": The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion” (New York: 2001) Page 109.
There are at least four ways in which the members of an audience can reduce their discomfort: (1) They can change their opinion; (2) they can induce the communicator to change his or her opinion; (3) they can seek support for their original opinion by finding other people who share their views, in spite of what the communicator says; or b they can derogate the communication – convince themselves the communicator is stupid or immoral – and thereby invalidate the person’s opinion.[/b]
Pratkanis, Anthony and Aronson, Elliot.“Age of Propaganda": The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion” (New York: 2001) Page 192.
The rest was deleted as the nonsense of pathological symptoms displayed by in infection of the ‘belief virus’; attack (such as you have attempted), change the goal posts, distract, deny, straw men (such as you have attempted), ultimately, run.
It was easy to predict that a ‘believer’ would come lumbering out with their panties all in a wad… One typical of a ‘belief infection’ is a distinct inability to laugh at the subject of the ‘belief’ or himself as ‘host’. A ‘fundy’ with a sense of humor is as rare as lips on a chicken!
Cluck!
Ironic, the fundy who has a faith in a belief called “evolution,” which is not support by facts is rebuking me. . .sad when a “true believer” is crushed when the truth came out he was deceived by propaganda. . . .
What do you mean nameless, you know fundamentalist religious folk are reasonable, rational, and logical people who just want a thorough and deep conversation filled with the exchange of well thought-out ideas, facts, and theories, who’s minds are always open to change with the introduction of evidence to the contrary of their current beliefs.
Yeah more of the fundamentalist religious folk who worship the hunch of “evolution”. . . hardly rational, logical or even coherent. . just random howling from the pack when their false god they worship is exposed. . . tragically pathetic. . .such closed minds when they are crystallized to their propaganda. . .
When he recites his propaganda lesson and says he is thinking for himself, when his eyes see nothing and his mouth only produces sound previously stenciled into his brain, when he says that he is indeed expressing his judgment - then he really demonstrates that he does not exist as a person. When the propagandee tries to assert himself as a living reality, he demonstrates his total alienation most clearly; for he shows that he can no longer distinguish between himself and society. He is then perfectly integrated, he is the social group, there is nothing in him not of the group, there is no opinion in him that is not the group’s opinion. He is nothing except what propaganda has taught him. He is merely a channel that ingests the truths of propaganda and dispenses them with the convictions that is the result of his absence as a person. He cannot take a single step back to look at events under such condition; there can be no distance of any kind between him and propaganda. Jacques Ellul, “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes” (New York: 1973) Page 171.
At this same time, this crystallization closes his mind to all new ideas. The individual now has a set of prejudices and beliefs, as well as objective justifications. His entire personality now revolves around those elements. Every new idea will therefore be troublesome to his entire being. He will defend himself against it because it threatens to destroy his certainties. He thus actually come to hate everything opposed to what propaganda has made him acquire. (7) Propaganda has created in him a system of opinions and tendencies which may not be subjected to criticism. That system leaves no room for ambiguity or mitigation of feelings; the individual has received irrational certainties from propaganda, and precisely because they are irrational, they seem to him part of his personality. He feels personally attacked when these certainties are attacked. There is a feeling here akin to that of something sacred. And this genuine taboo prevents the individual from entertaining any new ideas that might create ambiguity withing him.
(7) What Sauvy calls the “reaction of defense the destroyer” (of security, of the myth)
