In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 Full story: Spiked 47,724

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Full Story

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27185 Jul 18, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
Behe: "Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences."
National Academy of Science "Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations."
National Academy of Science "Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
But that wasn't the issue. His definition of a scientific theory was.
Hedonist wrote: "National Academy of Science "Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

National Academy of Science, from "Science, Evolution, and Creationism"

"A theory is "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."

These are two different definitions of theory from your source, the NAS.

Here are some other different definitions of theory used in scientific research today:

Ken Miller's 2007 edition of the textbook "Biology"

"In science, the word theory applies to a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations."

In the April, 2008 issue of the journal Medical Hypotheses, editor-in-chief Bruce G. Charlton uses the phrase "new theory" multiple times. In this case, scientific theory means: "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."

Archives of Suicide Research:

"Although the study has offered some support for the new theory, future research with more rigorous quantitative data needs to be conducted to further test the *theory* on a more comprehensive level." (J. Zhang, D. Lester, "Psychological Tensions Found in Suicide Notes: A Test for the Strain Theory of Suicide," Archives of Suicide Research, Vol. 12(1):67-73 (2008).) Clearly this study uses the word "theory" to describe a new idea that has not yet been fully verified nor accepted.

Current Biology Journal; "Social Evolution: The Decline and Fall of Genetic Kin Recognition," by Andy Gardner and Stuart A. West of the Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh, contains a subheading which asserts:

"New theory confirms that genetic kin recognition is inherently unstable, explaining its rarity."

How could it be a "new theory", if a theory has to be "well-substantiated and tested"?

Medical Hypotheses, editor-in-chief Bruce G. Charlton:

"Theory for scientists is like water for fish: the invisible medium in which they swim."

Therefore, Michael Behe's contention, that the NAS definition of theory, and the one used by the plaintiffs at Kitzmiller, IS NOT HOW SCEINTISTS USE THE TERM IN THE OPERATION OF SCIENCE.

Behe's definition is superior:

"A proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences."

Why do you think scientists in modern research are not obligated to conform to a rigid definition of theory, that the NAS can change their mind on what a theory is, but Behe cannot use a broader definition?

Of course, you cannot answer. I can. It is because zealous Darwinists like you want to exclude ID as science semantically, and not on the merits.

I am glad I was finally able to clear this up with you.

I am sure Dr. Behe would not be interested in your apology, since he has encountered stumbling fools like you before.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#27186 Jul 18, 2012
HugeKielbasa wrote:
Pretty much the only supportive evidence of the Big Bang theory is red shift supporting a spread apart.
Incorrect. Yet again, you do a nice impression of a fundie.

From http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.ht...
Tests of Big Bang Cosmology

The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate pages:

[1] The expansion of the universe - Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ex...

[2] The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li - The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_el...

[3] The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation - The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cm...

These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big Bang model predicts.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27187 Jul 18, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Here's a recent one where you stated this.
Page 1311 of this thread :)
http://www.topix.com/forum/who/mitt-romney/TE...
See that wasn't so hard jailbird and we all had a huge laugh at your expense. You are like this guy on here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =cyrHxeb_eTIXX
<quoted text>
There is no such statement there.

The only post from me on page 1311 is concerning Stephen Meyer.

Again, post where I said that reincarnation is a scientifically proven fact.

Or admit you lied.

(I already know you lied)

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#27188 Jul 18, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Hedonist wrote: "National Academy of Science "Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
National Academy of Science, from "Science, Evolution, and Creationism"
"A theory is "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."
These are two different definitions of theory from your source, the NAS.
The words changed, but the meaning stayed pretty much the same
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are some other different definitions of theory used in scientific research today:
Ken Miller's 2007 edition of the textbook "Biology"
"In science, the word theory applies to a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations."
Comes down to the same thing
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
In the April, 2008 issue of the journal Medical Hypotheses, editor-in-chief Bruce G. Charlton uses the phrase "new theory" multiple times. In this case, scientific theory means: "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."
Woop de doo. Good for him. Wake me up the day we base our scientific definitons on the say-so of some editor
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Archives of Suicide Research:
*Crap about suicide*
Yawn
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly this study uses the word "theory" to describe a new idea that has not yet been fully verified nor accepted.
Then it does not meet the requirements of a scientific theory.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Current Biology Journal; "Social Evolution: The Decline and Fall of Genetic Kin Recognition," by Andy Gardner and Stuart A. West of the Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh, contains a subheading which asserts:
"New theory confirms that genetic kin recognition is inherently unstable, explaining its rarity."
How could it be a "new theory", if a theory has to be "well-substantiated and tested"?
'Theory' has many applications. We are interested in the scientific one.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Medical Hypotheses, editor-in-chief Bruce G. Charlton:
"Theory for scientists is like water for fish: the invisible medium in which they swim."
Good for him. Wake me up the day we base our scientific definitons on the say-so of some editor
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Therefore, Michael Behe's contention, that the NAS definition of theory, and the one used by the plaintiffs at Kitzmiller, IS NOT HOW SCEINTISTS USE THE TERM IN THE OPERATION OF SCIENCE.
Wow, the quote from the editor certainly proves that, huh?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Behe's definition is superior:
"A proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences."
Oh yeah. Like Astrology, right.?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think scientists in modern research are not obligated to conform to a rigid definition of theory, that the NAS can change their mind on what a theory is, but Behe cannot use a broader definition?
The defintions all come down to the same thing. Behe does not subject his definition to be 'tested' or 'comprehensive'
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, you cannot answer. I can. It is because zealous Darwinists like you want to exclude ID as science semantically, and not on the merits.
The only merit ID has is that it is as valid a field of study as Astrology is.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad I was finally able to clear this up with you.
Likewise
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sure Dr. Behe would not be interested in your apology, since he has encountered stumbling fools like you before.
Yawn

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27189 Jul 18, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect. Yet again, you do a nice impression of a fundie.
From http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.ht...
Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate pages:
[1] The expansion of the universe - Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ex...
[2] The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li - The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_el...
[3] The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation - The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cm...
These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big Bang model predicts.
The trouble with the Big Bang is that it implies a creator.

So we know it cannot be real science.

Big Bang Theory is religion.

Haven't you read your own posts?

Can you only read Mexican now?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#27190 Jul 18, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't make you idiots understand basic biology.
I'm certainly not going to try to enlighten you on the evidence for reincarnation.
Wait.

I have to respond to this:

Bwahahahahahahaha!

OMG.

What's next? Evidence of the Easter bunny? Or finding out GWD was a reptile? Jellyfish trying to take over the world?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#27191 Jul 18, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Here's a recent one where you stated this.
Page 1311 of this thread :)
http://www.topix.com/forum/who/mitt-romney/TE...
See that wasn't so hard jailbird and we all had a huge laugh at your expense. You are like this guy on here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =cyrHxeb_eTIXX
<quoted text>
LOL!

Just responded to it, thanks!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27192 Jul 18, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
And you have a prior committment to god.
The Abrahamic god.
The one in the bible.
It's good you can make statements without the need for evidence.

Did you learn that from Imam IAnus?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27193 Jul 18, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait.
I have to respond to this:
Bwahahahahahahaha!
OMG.
What's next? Evidence of the Easter bunny? Or finding out GWD was a reptile? Jellyfish trying to take over the world?
You want to stick with this post, or is it another of your mistakes like the one you denied when I called you on it?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#27194 Jul 18, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such statement there.
The only post from me on page 1311 is concerning Stephen Meyer.
Again, post where I said that reincarnation is a scientifically proven fact.
Or admit you lied.
(I already know you lied)
Wow, maybe it is some sort of mass delusion, because I am pretty sure you claim that there is 'scientific evidence for reincarnation'.

Of course, that is a stupid statement, hey Buckster?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#27195 Jul 18, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The trouble with the Big Bang is that it implies a creator.
So we know it cannot be real science.
Big Bang Theory is religion.
Haven't you read your own posts?
Can you only read Mexican now?
Wow.

'Evolution has no theoretical framework'

'Astrology is a valid scientific theory'

'Big Bang implies a creator'

Dammit Buck.

I am pretty aware of the low intellectual standards you set. I am pretty aware of how little you know of the topics you discuss. But damn... You stepped it up a notch.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#27196 Jul 18, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It's good you can make statements without the need for evidence.
Did you learn that from Imam IAnus?
Your creationist underbelly has been shown. Get over it.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#27197 Jul 18, 2012
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think Brick and HK ever made it to 4th grade.........?
Much less outta it...

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#27198 Jul 18, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It's good you can make statements without the need for evidence.
Did you learn that from Imam IAnus?
I have evidence.

You provided it.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#27199 Jul 18, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Hehehe.
The most important fossil find in the entire evolutionary theory, methinks.
Having read up on it, I ain't arguing.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27200 Jul 18, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>

'Theory' has many applications. We are interested in the scientific one.
That was from a biology research journal.

Your ass is handed to you.

You are reduced to wisecracks.

It's an interesting study - what Darwinists do when I prove them wrong. Imam IAnus responds by saying he lost interest. Hiding responds by changing her statements and denying she made the original one. You respond with wisecracks which you think are funny, but are not at all.

Another psychological observation. You guys on here cannot compete with the likes of Michael Behe or myself, either intellectually or scientifically. So you have to resort to non-substantive ridicule. I might read up on the science of psychology to determine what pathology makes you do that. I might be able to help you.

I am open to a substantive, relevant response to the demonstration of Behe being correct on all points at Kitzmiller.

Be aware, if it is a lie or a wisecrack, as is your habit, I will likely not respond, since I have owned you in these exchanges.

And you never thanked me for providing a valid falsification for whale lineage, which you obviously could not do.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27201 Jul 18, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I have evidence.
You provided it.
If so, you keep it close to the vest.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#27202 Jul 18, 2012
Very happy Birthday to Nelson Mandela!

In SA, we celebrate his birthday/legacy by donating 67 minutes to public service, be it working at a soup kitchen for the homeless, visiting cancer patients, or simply picking up garbage in the neighbourhood.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/ilive/2012/07/18/m...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27203 Jul 18, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Your creationist underbelly has been shown. Get over it.
See what I mean?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27204 Jul 18, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow.
'Evolution has no theoretical framework'
'Astrology is a valid scientific theory'
'Big Bang implies a creator'
Dammit Buck.
I am pretty aware of the low intellectual standards you set. I am pretty aware of how little you know of the topics you discuss. But damn... You stepped it up a notch.
See what I mean?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Spanish, Catalonia leaders meet on secession push 4 min James 5
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min flack 1,154,065
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 4 min barry 2,847
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Dogen 132,568
Will the Supreme Court End Gay Marriage as an E... 7 min WasteWater 438
Ben Carson: Race Relations Have 'Gotten Worse' ... 7 min mjjcpa 669
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 8 min woodtick57 293,401
Cheney again defends interrogation techniques 22 min Retired SOF 339
US and Cuba move to normalize ties, open embassy 59 min barefoot2626 104
More from around the web