Topic: The Bitcoin Show on OnlyOneTV.com - page 2. (Read 53427 times)

Seriously? Are we REALLY going down this debate road? This is way too hillbilly territory for me...  
Though by the age of the poster, could be a troll. -.-

There is no accepted theory of gravity, only mathmatical models that describe and predict it, generally.  We actually know that those models are wrong at the galaxy scale, because galaxies don't rotate at a rate that is consistant with our models.  There is, in fact, no generally accepted theory as to what gravity actually is yet that doesn't detract from our acceptance that such a force of nature exists, because we can all easily observe it's effects as well as predict it's results.

I know that you guys might consider that semantics, but I bet you all have heard a general explaination of how evolutionary theory works; but if you had any credible explaination of what gravity is (as opposed to how it acts) then I'd be very impressed.  The truth is, that even Darwin stated that his theory of evolution was based upon several assumptions that couldn't be demonstrated in his day, one in particular that has been proven incorrect.  That premise was that natural selection (which is a process that can be proven to exist) is the only process by which new species are created.  This has never been demostrated, and likely cannot, even though natural selection is undoubtedly the dominate process of species change.  The proof is in the details of "irreducible complexity".  Said simply, if there is any species with any features that couldn't be developed by natural selection (within any reasonable probability of mutations occuring in the same individual organism) then Evolutionary theory is disproven.  There exist hundreds of such examples, a couple dozen of which are bluntly obvious.  But first, a link that smacks of a quote here....

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/natural-selection-defies-the-odds/



Natural selection is, of course, a real force of nature, as demonstrated by the development of drug resistance by the malaria microbe through purely Darwinian processes. But, as Michael Behe​ has convincingly demonstrated, the power of natural selection is limited. Natural selection can provide a selective advantage by degrading a genome, as it does in the malaria example. But its power to BUILD a complex genome has never been demonstrated in the laboratory. In fact, the laboratory has shown as that over countless trillions of reproductive events, natural selection has NOT created complex new additions to the genome.

When Darwin observed the beaks of Galapagos finches, he was observing small changes in an organism’s phenotype (i.e., the organism’s body plan) that gave the organism a selective advantage and thereby increased its predominance in the population. From this observation Darwin made an inference that has literally changed the world. He inferred that the same process was responsible for creating finches in the first place. Obviously, Darwin did not observe this process create finches. He reasoned, however, that a process that could create one small change in a population of organisms could create other small changes, and over time, those changes would accumulate, and when sufficient changes had accumulated over a long enough time, an entirely new species would emerge. This entirely natural process, Darwin reasoned, was responsible for the creation of all life, from the first single-celled organism on though to human beings themselves.

The important thing always to keep in mind is this: “Darwin inferred . . .” Again, Darwin did not observe one species morphing into another through the process of natural selection. The finches remained finches. They did not change into another kind of bird, much less another kind of species altogether. Nor has anyone since Darwin observed a species morph into another.

The main point is that the power of natural selection to create large, as opposed to small, changes in the genotype and the phenotype of organisms remains, to this day, an inference from the data, not the data itself. If any NDE proponent commenting on this post disputes this assertion, I invite him or her to cite a single example of one species being observed changing into another since Origin of Species​ was published in 1859.

This gets me back to our discussion of probability. As I said, NDE proponents assume that natural selection has the power to beat the odds and create, for example, highly complex and specified strands of DNA, the creation of which is beyond the power of mere chance. But since no one has ever observed natural selection create complex changes in a strand of DNA (much less create the strand of DNA from scratch in the first place), how can NDE proponents be so dead certain of the staggering, almost God-like powers of creation they attribute to natural selection? One would think they would be more modest in their claims for a process that has never actually been observed. Instead, they bombastically assert that their theory has the same epistemological standing as the theory of gravity.



The Theory of Evolution, despite teh provable existance of a process of natural selection, is not equatable with theories of physics that describe gravity.

Dr. Jobe Martin is a former devotee to Evolutionary Theory, who was challenged by his students to prove that it was correct, and by attempting to do so and failing, began to be convinced of the alternative.  He has produced a number of videos that document species that have irreduciblely complex features that could not have arisen by natural selction (that is, could not have aided the organism in surviving to reproduce) unless those features could have arisen simultaniously, an event that is roughly comparable to an address collision in bitcoin.  (not impossible, but astronomicly unlikely given the time frame).  His most famous subject is the cuddlefish, whose active camo is so advanced that it uses it to put it's prey, literally, into a trance.  Yet, if it's camo wasn't almost as advanced as it is, then it's prey wouldn't have been dazzeled.  Since the cuddlefish is neither fast enough to catch it's prey, nor it's prey being defenseless otherwise, the cuddlefish would have starved to death or pursued easier prey.  Neither path leads to the present condition under natural selcetion alone, thus evolutionary theory is either incomplete or completely inaccurate.  Other such examples include the girraffe, a mussle that requires the intervention of a particular species of minnow to reproduce, and a species of cave insect that only exists in the Mammoth Cave system with no apparent relatives anywhere else.  Now this doesnt' p[rove anything either, and Dr. Martin has chosen ID as his alternative theory, which certainly can be wrong.  But to assume that the current state of science is correct, in the face of history, is simply assurting another ideology.

I always remind those who claim that evolution is "only a theory" that gravity is, too.

Let's all stop using and developing more technology because much of it relies on quantum theory and that's not proven.

 


'Theory', 'hypothesis'  are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena. e.g. the theory of evolution.  A hypothesis  is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth. e.g. "This idea is only a hypothesis".



 

"There's nothing better."

Yup, that'll teach em. Evolution must be true.

hahahahahahaha
Awesome.

I propose Un-Intelligent Design. It's got graphs so it must be true!

What do you propose? 

I don't agree with schools teaching evolution as fact, when it is only theory. The evolution theory is based on assumptions which can't be proven.

World view? If you really think whether the world is 6,000 years old is a matter of personal view, then you and I have very little to discuss... And you are an idiot.

Parents are also not free to withhold medical treatment from their children because it is their view that Jesus will swoop down from the sky and cure little Bobby's leukemia. Yet I guess you would call me totalitarian and murderous for wanting to provide health care for Bobby, in spite of his idiotic parents' wishes.

Again, it is the rights of the CHILD that I am speaking of here, a concept that seems quite alien to you.

And, even though I thought I had articulated it quite clearly in my original post, the idea is to have a standard of education that, through a process of free inquiry and openness, provides children with a minimum ability to discern fact firm baloney... A process you quite clearly seem not to have been exposed to.

Beyond that minimum standard, if the parents want to send their children to Madrassas, Sunday Schools, Hebrew camp or whatever they choose, they are clearly free to do so. When faced with proper education, however, those other "world views" tend to succumb to their own narrow-mindedness. This has been the case in places like Sweden, Norway, Finland... It is where the education system fails abysmally that the religious world views have a chance at gaining a stronghold, places like Pakistan and the US.

You probably didn't know that there's a country which is commonly referred to as simply "America," even though that's not its official name.  Now you do.

North America
South America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incan_agriculture

Um... wait, what? I don't even...

LOL what is 250 years old?  America is two continents, fool.  Is china 50 years old? 
The most advanced agricultural engineers of all history lived in America thousands of years ago.   The education system is really good at what it was designed for..  keeping people dumb.  you can read about the philosophy of the people that set it up they are pretty explicit.  Sadly that kind of populace isn't as productive as it was when it was set up.   

I think it's more important to teach kids the value of the scientific method rather than dictate a bunch of "facts" to them.

People enjoy living in a world of white and black.  Things are FACT or they are NOT FACT.  However we really never know anything 100%.  We call things fact for the convenience factor, if something is likely enough to be true that it's not remotely constructive to question it then we consider it a fact.  Nothing would get done if everything was always questioned, so we have to make some assumptions and more vigorously question things that seem less likely to be true.  The best we can do is find theories that best fit our data.  Our data comes from our tools and environment and will always be partially flawed.

One fallacy some fall into is thinking in absolute terms.  Teaching children the method will let them come closest to the truth than anything else.

Lol! Yeah, when you summarize it like that 

God damn, I think you just wrote the next verse to the Star Spangled Banner.

Its all about the $$$, the free market at work. First, the 'new' ideas are not intended to work....as Piper67 knows. They are simply part of the sales pitch. If you actually do something, then your long-term business falls apart...you gotz to keep them coming back.

You give the sales pitch, and the school district buys into it. They do so because when they retire, they work for the sales company.  BTW, if other countries ideas actually help sell learning products here, they would be sold. But parents who want to feel like they are being parents(and in denial how they neglect their kids) prefer this hypnosis. They also prefer feeding to be overweight(such as pizza), looking at the sandbox(aka TV), or anything else that results in quick parenting....I understand it, dont get me wrong. Who has the time to actually act responsible for their kids? Heck, who has the time to act responsible for themselves?

The one thing that has always frustrated and confused me about Americans is how they simply refuse to learn from others, and keep trying to figure out and fix things themselves. We have countries with thousands of years worth of trials, errors, and fixed mistakes to learn from, but America, being only 250 years old, thinks it knows better and can figure things out better on its own. We have tons of other education systems to examine, from places that are kicking our ass when it comes to math, science, and culture. Why are we so arrogant that we forcefully put on blinders and just keep throwing shit ideas at the wall to see what sticks, or trying to throw money at the problem to make it go away, instead of picking the best ideas from all parts of the world to be the best period?