Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact

[josephpalazzo]

Germ theory states that specific microscopic organisms are the cause of specific diseases.
http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/germtheory.html

SO?? Does the mere fact that a source has a viable Scientific Theory for one subject, Ipso Facto mean that every other "Theory" posted there is viable?

Weird that Harvard also carry  a whole bunch of articles/books on the theory of evolution...LOL.

http://hollis.harvard.edu/primo_library/libweb/action/dlSearch.do?institution=HVD&vid=HVD&tab=everything&search_scope=everything&mode=Basic&onCampus=false&displayMode=full&highlight=true&query=any%2Ccontains%2Ctheory+of+evolution&displayField=all&pcAvailabiltyMode=true&bulkSize=30




Keep digging yourself in a bigger hole...

[Daniel2021]

When you start pulling in random crap like Jeane Dixon that isn't to the point or making a point, now you are just blithering.

It's not random and it has a clear delineated purpose in the juxtaposition, it's quite germane to the point.


regards 

[stromboli]

You got my vote for a ban. This guy knows more than thousands of scientists and 150 years of evolutionary theory testing and reevaluating. No point in dealing with it further.

[josephpalazzo]

You got my vote for a ban. This guy knows more than thousands of scientists and 150 years of evolutionary theory testing and reevaluating. No point in dealing with it further.

Don't you know by now that the theory evolution is a hoax, the theory of gravity is a hoax, global warming is a hoax, and only the bible is true... dumb atheists...

[Daniel2021]

Weird that Harvard also carry  a whole bunch of articles/books on the theory of evolution...LOL.

Here we go again.  SO??

Post their "Scientific Theory" of evolution....?

I'm not following your logic here, you're saying... since Harvard has Viable Authentic Information on some "Theories" that Ipso Facto renders ALL of them Viable ??  Can you tell us why?

Keep digging yourself in a bigger hole...

Yes like the World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers dug their hole deeper and deeper in Super Bowl IX.

[josephpalazzo]

Here we go again.  SO??

Post their "Scientific Theory" of evolution....?

I'm not following your logic here, you're saying... since Harvard has Viable Authentic Information on some "Theories" that Ipso Facto renders ALL of them Viable ??  Can you tell us why?


Yes like the World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers dug their hole deeper and deeper in Super Bowl IX.

You're just a troll, and we're having fun with you. It's a matter of time before you are banned. You are what many call a "chewtoy".

[Daniel2021]

You got my vote for a ban.

Why??  I didn't violate any of the forum rules.  I have however, had numerous ad hominems (name calling ect) directed towards my AO.

This guy knows more than thousands of scientists

I never said that, and who said they were Scientists?  Don't you have to follow/adhere to The Scientific Method to be a "Scientist" ?

and 150 years of evolutionary theory

Appeal to Age (Fallacy)

No point in dealing with it further.

So a hand-wave dismissal, eh?  Never seen that before.

[aitm]

Oh, I'm not leaving.

No, no your not.

[josephpalazzo]

Hypothesis:  Daniel2021 will be banned (post #80)

Observation:  Daniel2021 is banned (post#82)

Therefore the theory has been confirmed...

:051bye:

[PickelledEggs]

Hypothesis:  Daniel2021 will be banned (post #80)

Observation:  Daniel2021 is banned (post#82)

Therefore the theory has been confirmed...

:051bye:

Wrong.

[josephpalazzo]

Wrong.

What happened? He was banned at the time I posted. Was he unbanned??

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Ahhh, Scientific Theories are either validated by their Hypotheses or they're NOT. They don't get "UPDATED"

Thank you for confirming that you don't understand the words you are speaking. Now I don't have to waste my breath on you.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Daniel, how much science have you learned at the university level? Not much, because what you've been spouting does not indicate that you have not had any university level science.

For instance, you say:

Again: "Similarities", "Resemblances", "Correlations"...aren't Science.

Well, actually... yeah, they are. They're not 100% solid, but similarities, resemblances, and correlations are all indicative and point towards some kind of unifying principle. Even the mathematical law of Newton's second law of motion, F=ma, isn't quite correct. Not only because F=dp/dt (force is time-rate-change of momentum), but also because you can't account for every piddly little force on any real object, so there's no way to confirm the law to 100% confidence.

The real world is messy and noisy, so the kinds of proofs you find in mathematics are impossible. Instead, you look for evidence that confirms or undermines your hypotheses and theories. Evolution predicts that there will be a strong correlation between the phylogenetic trees constructed by the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and genetic analysis, a prediction that is confirmed â€" they do mostly match up, and where they don't, it's because the phylogeny is not clear. Evolution predicts that there will be a succession of forms within the geological column, distributed in a particular way in both space and time, and with specified intermediaries, and again this is what we find. In particular for us, evolution predicts that Africa, the ancestral home of humanity, will contain the most genetic diversity in humans, and once again this is confirmed â€" when you do a cladistic analysis of human populations, there are twenty someodd clades of African tribes, and one clade containing everyone else (including some Africans).

These are slam-dunks for evolution. Regardless of mechanisms or whatnot, there's something in the theory that has great explanatory power. It keeps its title as a scientific theory only because it has that great explanatory power. That's not religion.

Special creation, on the other hand, gets just about everything wrong. The flood geology predicts a particular sedimentation type to be present worldwide â€" a sedimentation type that we do not see. Catastrophic floods simply do not produce the strata we see in most of the geological column. Only slow sedimentation can produce the striated forms we actually see most everywhere. Furthermore, there would be many more creatures of each type that lived before the flood than at the time of the flood; there would be fossil bunnies in the Precambrian stratum, which we don't find. This is to say nothing of other problems with where the water came from and went, Kent Hovind's "theories" notwithstanding. Moving from YEC, special creation has no explanation for the Linnaean taxonomy, with its strict hierarchy of traits. Special creation has no explanation of why organisms organize themselves into groups of groups of groups. Special creation has no explanation for why the genetic phylogenetic tree matches the fossil record's phylogenetic tree, which in turn matches the taxonomic phylogenetic tree. Special creation has no explanation for the intermediate forms. And it has no accounting of why Africans are the most genetically diverse group of humans bar none.

These are epic failures for creationism of all stripes. It absolutely and positively fails to explain anything. Yet, proponents of these claims refuse to give them up despite the evidence to the contrary. That is religion.

Mechanisms, proofs, and other things you bleat about are besides the point in science. The point of a theory is its explanatory power, and the theory of evolution does have explanatory power, even if to you it just seems like a black box with a crank on the side. And the fact that you refuse to learn about the content of the box is clear from the very fact that you are demanding an explanation of us, rather than visiting your nearest university and asking your friendly neighborhood biologist what's going on. It's so you can maintain your pleasant little delusion that there really is nothing in the box and it's all just religion, rather than daring to find out the truth. Coward.

Why??  I didn't violate any of the forum rules.  I have however, had numerous ad hominems (name calling ect) directed towards my AO.

Rules lawyering will avail you nothing. If you prove yourself to be an annoying pest, pointing out that it isn't against the rules will not save you; we'll just update the rules and use them on the boot we implant knee-deep into your kiester on your way out the door.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

And before you try to accuse us of ganging up on you, Daniel, understand this:

We have repeatedly told you where to look for the information you desire. We are not professors, and we are not obligated to give you a crash course in biology. I will be the first to welcome a contrary opinion that has a lot of thought behind it; but if you can't be bothered to have basic knowledge about the subject you are debating, then fuck off.

We have a saying on the internet: "Not sure if he's stupid, or just trolling." You're riding that line, Daniel. You're riding it reeeeeeeally hard.

[mauricio]

That isn't a Scientific Theory. 

1. Begging The Question:  "other pre-existing types";  What was the FIRST organism and mechanism for Life from Non-Life...?

2.  What's the mechanism after you already have life for the "distinguishable differences?? ("modifications" is not a mechanism). 
Also a complete nincompoop @ the beginning of time could have come to roughly the same conclusion by observing successive generations of his family and a family of squirrels.

ps. thanks for @ least trying

regards

DNA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA