Intelligent Design proponent who works at JPL says he experienc...

the pet whisperer wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow that's a great job Ronald! Now we know why fully formed man and woman had to come before a child could enter the world. That is just like, which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Egg, dummy.

That's theoretical proof for ya, just because someone says so, while they call a other people dummies.

Ah yes the mind of today's science.

It seems that you beg people to call you a f****** idiot, because that's all you know.

the pet whisperer wrote:

It seems that you beg people to call you a f****** idiot, because that's all you know.

I think you have pretty well laid claim to that title.

My apologies it seems I let those people that act like children and idiots upset me, when in fact I shouldn't.

Theory is not proof and it never will be. It seems science and many in science,would rather not have proof. That way it doesn't matter what they say, cuz any idea they put forth would have what they believe it is merit.

In all of science there must be a man and a woman to produce a child, yet according to science and a lot of its defenders of darwinism, they pretend the egg came first, without proof, while everything around them proves it is the opposite.

Science has turned into a farce and this is what science os teaching the children of today.

It seems the idiots and children have taking over the teaching.

the pet whisperer wrote:

Theory is not proof and it never will be.

The word "proof" is not used in science because the word "proof" implies that it can never be demonstrated to be wrong (as in a mathematical or logical proof).

Instead, science uses *evidence* to *support* its theories. But theories, unlike mathematical or logical proofs, can be refuted by using new evidence, or by demonstrating how previous evidence has been in error or has been misinterpreted.

the pet whisperer wrote:

In all of science there must be a man and a woman to produce a child, yet according to science and a lot of its defenders of darwinism, they pretend the egg came first

Human eggs come from human parents. Science does not say otherwise.

However, the point you seem to be missing is that biological species boundaries are not absolute. As the population of modern humans evolved from the population of individuals which also led to the population of modern chimpanzees, there reached some point during that process where we would have difficulty in deciding whether any particular individual was "human" or not.

If you still don't understand that (and based upon your typical postings, I doubt that you do), then answer this question: Who was the first person to speak French? Who did they learn it from? Who did they use it with?

the pet whisperer wrote:

like automobiles can have accidents, so can airplanes. They were both proven to be viable modes of transportation.
Without proof nobody's gonna buy a theoretical car or a theoretical airplane.
Theory is a child unfinished homework.

It's YOUR unfinished homework...

the pet whisperer wrote:

My apologies it seems I let those people that act like children and idiots upset me, when in fact I shouldn't.
Theory is not proof and it never will be. It seems science and many in science,would rather not have proof. That way it doesn't matter what they say, cuz any idea they put forth would have what they believe it is merit.
In all of science there must be a man and a woman to produce a child, yet according to science and a lot of its defenders of darwinism, they pretend the egg came first, without proof, while everything around them proves it is the opposite.
Science has turned into a farce and this is what science os teaching the children of today.
It seems the idiots and children have taking over the teaching.

All the years you've been here and you still haven't grasped the concept of falsifiability. Not that you're even ashamed of not being able to learn the basics.

the pet whisperer wrote:

My apologies it seems I let those people that act like children and idiots upset me, when in fact I shouldn't.
Theory is not proof and it never will be. It seems science and many in science,would rather not have proof. That way it doesn't matter what they say, cuz any idea they put forth would have what they believe it is merit.
In all of science there must be a man and a woman to produce a child, yet according to science and a lot of its defenders of darwinism, they pretend the egg came first, without proof, while everything around them proves it is the opposite.
Science has turned into a farce and this is what science os teaching the children of today.
It seems the idiots and children have taking over the teaching.

Looney.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
All the years you've been here and you still haven't grasped the concept of falsifiability. Not that you're even ashamed of not being able to learn the basics.

little Jimmy doesn't want to learn. He's right and the world is wrong. No wonder he never got past the 10th grade.

the pet whisperer wrote:

<quoted text>
without proof no 1 would have ever flown in an airplane.

CW it seems quite likely that you either lack the aptitude or willingness to learn the meaning of the term theory in a scientific context - so lets take your assertion above to a natural conclusion

A) can you PROVE you are NOT currently dreaming this whole forum, the posts, the outside world, your family and so on

B) you can't PROVE A) as any evidence you present can be countered as part of your subconious

C) given that we would have to accept the possibility of you dreaming the world around you and isn't based on fact - are you still happy to get on that plane knowing there is a possibility that it could turn into a large Aubergine mid-flight ?

See nothing is totally proven as the thought experiment illustrates, however You still get on planes, drive cars etc (without 100% proof that they aren't going to transform into large purple vegetables) because this is the best explaination of the world around us

Now consider this and try to act maturely and rationally when you respond

>>>Ronald
Thank you for your support. That is just what I have been trying to explain to our "angry" friend, MikeF.

>>>Gillette
Actually, I wasn't supporting you, as you well know, but rather pointing out that you don't appear to know the first thing about how science works.

>>>petwhisperer
Let's see I think somebody had to prove that an airplane would fly before other people decided there was proof, so we can fly.

>>>Gillette
No, there was the simple observation that birds can fly using wings, so a hypothesis was put together that is men fabricated similar wings, they could rise up off the ground.

Trial were held and gradually evidence was gathered that the hypothesis was correct in certain circumstances.

>>>petwhisperer
Yeah theory is much better than proof huh. Lol

>>>Gillette
Let us know when you've gotten an education and actually know how science works.

Scientific theories are never "proven," but only attempted to be DISproven. If they cannot be disproven, the scientific theory stands as mankind's current understanding of whatever it is they are studying.

>>>petwhisperer
Yeah theory is much better than proof huh. Lol

>>>Gillette
In science, a "theory" is NOT an unproven guess.

It's a grand unifying explanation of large number of facts and observations -- an explanation that supports all further findings and which can be used to make accurate predictions.

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
little Jimmy doesn't want to learn. He's right and the world is wrong. No wonder he never got past the 10th grade.

Luckily he could get carpets laid.

And pets.

JANUARY 23RD, LOOK OUT WORLD!!!

the pet whisperer wrote:

like automobiles can have accidents, so can airplanes. They were both proven to be viable modes of transportation.
Without proof nobody's gonna buy a theoretical car or a theoretical airplane.
Theory is a child unfinished homework.

No proof, only evidence.

Psalm 59: 7-8
Behold, they belch out with their mouth: swords are in their lips: for who, say they, doth hear? But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision. Because of his strength will I wait upon thee: for God is my defence.

Stan wrote:

Psalm 59: 7-8
Behold, they belch out with their mouth: swords are in their lips: for who, say they, doth hear? But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision. Because of his strength will I wait upon thee: for God is my defence.

"What does God need with a starship?

James Tiberius Kirk

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
"What does God need with a starship?
James Tiberius Kirk

He likes the holodeck.

"So, you reject proof as a standard. Would you be willing to accept the conjuring up of fantastic schizophrenic associated visions as the high priests and wizards of the evolutionary faith do?
My little classmates often tell me they have been unable to replicate evolution in the laboratory so as to verify the theory as fact. They ask me if that doesn't "prove" believers in the ridiculous "ever evolving" *(so to speak)* evolutionary religion are shifty-eyed cultists? What sayest thou?"

So the point is you don't like religion?