Scott Walker On Evolution: 'I Am Going To Punt On That One'

[Lakhota]

Observed or proved through math = doesn't fucking make me wrong!

The reason I support infrastructure is we do have to maintain things and we keep our edge by investing in science and r&d..

Yes and if you want infrastructure never vote far left..

What about President Obama's American Jobs Act?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I must admit that I don't believe in Evolution. It's a fantastic theory of course and is a very powerful way of understanding natural processes but when one asks most people about Evolution they usually talk about humans being apes. Shows a lack of understanding of both Evolution as a theory and the nature of Science in general. May as well ask "Do you believe in Newtonian Physics. Science is NOT a religion!!

Greg

Human beings are, in fact, classified as anthropoid apes. Of this there is no ambiguity, no doubt. That you question this shows your lack of understanding of the facts.

Actually there is little doubt, but not "no doubt". All the current evidence seems incontrovertible. It's hard not to be totally certain. But a truly skeptical mind will always have reason to doubt because belief is just a step away from dogma.

99.999% is not 1 but it certainly is close enough to close the books on the issue. Humans are anthropoid apes. End of story.

Except we don't know what we don't know. And how do we know that we weren't created this instant with all our memories implanted? Yeah, it seems ridiculous, and it very probably is. But it is possible, is it not?

Doubt is what keeps us as a species always striving for knowledge. Well, that and curiosity.

 

[orogenicman]

How is he wrong? Only a law can be proven without "doubt".

The same way you're wrong. Because you're a damned fool who doesn't know what he's talking about. Scientific laws are not proven, they are observed.

Oh, and by putting "doubt" in quotation marks, you contradict yourself anyway.

Actually, the scientific laws, or physical laws or the laws of nature, are theoretical.

Laws of Nature Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Physical law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Actually, scientific laws are laws. You have a hypothesis. If it can be verified with enough supporting data, it becomes a theory. If everyone agrees that the theory holds true (within a very tiny standard of deviation) with every experiment conducted over a significant amount of time, it becomes a scientific law. Hence we have the laws of thermodynamics, laws of motion, the ideal gas law, etc.

 

[SwimExpert]

Except we don't know what we don't know. And how do we know that we weren't created this instant with all our memories implanted? Yeah, it seems ridiculous, and it very probably is. But it is possible, is it not?

Doubt is what keeps us as a species always striving for knowledge. Well, that and curiosity.

You are arguing solipsism, which is a proof positive sign of a weak and desperate mind.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

How is he wrong? Only a law can be proven without "doubt".

The same way you're wrong. Because you're a damned fool who doesn't know what he's talking about. Scientific laws are not proven, they are observed.

Oh, and by putting "doubt" in quotation marks, you contradict yourself anyway.

Actually, the scientific laws, or physical laws or the laws of nature, are theoretical.

Laws of Nature Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Physical law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So laws are just theories. They just have a fancy name. That about right?

You really should just stop. You are biting off way more than you can chew. Stay on the shallow side and keep your floaties on.

I'm sorry. Did I miss the links you posted detracting the claims I made? I included the links supporting the proposition, but I don't see yousr anywhere...

Hmmm. Now why is that?

 

[ScienceRocks]

So letting important bridges fall into rivers = bridges to no where? How in the flying fuck can you think this way!

 

[Kosh]

Observed or proved through math = doesn't fucking make me wrong!

The reason I support infrastructure is we do have to maintain things and we keep our edge by investing in science and r&d..

Yes and if you want infrastructure never vote far left..

What about President Obama's American Jobs Act?

And the far left continues to show that they do not care about the detail in the actual bill, just the cliff note of propaganda to go with their programed narrative..

 

[orogenicman]

I must admit that I don't believe in Evolution. It's a fantastic theory of course and is a very powerful way of understanding natural processes but when one asks most people about Evolution they usually talk about humans being apes. Shows a lack of understanding of both Evolution as a theory and the nature of Science in general. May as well ask "Do you believe in Newtonian Physics. Science is NOT a religion!!

Greg

Human beings are, in fact, classified as anthropoid apes. Of this there is no ambiguity, no doubt. That you question this shows your lack of understanding of the facts.

Actually there is little doubt, but not "no doubt". All the current evidence seems incontrovertible. It's hard not to be totally certain. But a truly skeptical mind will always have reason to doubt because belief is just a step away from dogma.

99.999% is not 1 but it certainly is close enough to close the books on the issue. Humans are anthropoid apes. End of story.

Except we don't know what we don't know. And how do we know that we weren't created this instant with all our memories implanted? Yeah, it seems ridiculous, and it very probably is. But it is possible, is it not?

Doubt is what keeps us as a species always striving for knowledge. Well, that and curiosity.

Dude, we can doubt everything all the time, but that gets us nowhere at all. Yes, I can say that there is a 0.0001% probability that we are not anthropoid apes. But I can also say with 99.9999% certainty that we are. Sorry, my money is on the latter. And by accepting the latter, I can get on with the business of discovering more amazing facts about our biological history, particularly with regard to genetics and how we fit within the larger animal kingdom. For instance, we have features that evolved over 350 million years ago in fish (our tetrapod ancestry originated in a fish/fish-like animal). Our backbones evolved much further back than this. So we are included in the phylum Chordata. We even have microscopic structures that first evolved in sponges. All life on this planet is interrelated via our genetic legacies. And the fact remains that of all the life forms on the planet, we are most closely related to the anthropoid apes, and so are ourselves classified as such.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

How is he wrong? Only a law can be proven without "doubt".

The same way you're wrong. Because you're a damned fool who doesn't know what he's talking about. Scientific laws are not proven, they are observed.

Oh, and by putting "doubt" in quotation marks, you contradict yourself anyway.

Actually, the scientific laws, or physical laws or the laws of nature, are theoretical.

Laws of Nature Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Physical law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Actually, scientific laws are laws. You have a hypothesis. If it can be verified with enough supporting data, it becomes a theory. If everyone agrees that the theory holds true (within a very tiny standard of deviation) with every experiment conducted over a significant amount of time, it becomes a scientific law. Hence we have the laws of thermodynamics, laws of motion, the ideal gas law, etc.

I included the links above. They show that what you posted isn't entirely accurate.

Scientific laws are not True. They are still theoretical.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9034/1/truthlaws.pdf

Scientific Laws - What Are Scientific Laws

Why Are Scientific Laws Considered Absolute Truths - Quora

 

[SwimExpert]

How is he wrong? Only a law can be proven without "doubt".

The same way you're wrong. Because you're a damned fool who doesn't know what he's talking about. Scientific laws are not proven, they are observed.

Oh, and by putting "doubt" in quotation marks, you contradict yourself anyway.

Actually, the scientific laws, or physical laws or the laws of nature, are theoretical.

Laws of Nature Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Physical law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So laws are just theories. They just have a fancy name. That about right?

You really should just stop. You are biting off way more than you can chew. Stay on the shallow side and keep your floaties on.

I'm sorry. Did I miss the links you posted detracting the claims I made? I included the links supporting the proposition, but I don't see yousr anywhere...

Hmmm. Now why is that?

You're contradicting yourself. Tell you what kid, come back when you're 15 and we can talk about it then.

 

[Kosh]

I must admit that I don't believe in Evolution. It's a fantastic theory of course and is a very powerful way of understanding natural processes but when one asks most people about Evolution they usually talk about humans being apes. Shows a lack of understanding of both Evolution as a theory and the nature of Science in general. May as well ask "Do you believe in Newtonian Physics. Science is NOT a religion!!

Greg

Human beings are, in fact, classified as anthropoid apes. Of this there is no ambiguity, no doubt. That you question this shows your lack of understanding of the facts.

Actually there is little doubt, but not "no doubt". All the current evidence seems incontrovertible. It's hard not to be totally certain. But a truly skeptical mind will always have reason to doubt because belief is just a step away from dogma.

99.999% is not 1 but it certainly is close enough to close the books on the issue. Humans are anthropoid apes. End of story.

Except we don't know what we don't know. And how do we know that we weren't created this instant with all our memories implanted? Yeah, it seems ridiculous, and it very probably is. But it is possible, is it not?

Doubt is what keeps us as a species always striving for knowledge. Well, that and curiosity.

Dude, we can doubt everything all the time, but that gets us nowhere at all. Yes, I can say that there is a 0.0001% probability that we are not anthropoid apes. But I can also say with 99.9999% certainty that we are. Sorry, my money is on the latter. And by accepting the latter, I can get on with the business of discovering more amazing facts about our biological history, particularly with regard to genetics and how we fit within the larger animal kingdom. For instance, we have features that evolved over 350 million years ago in fish (our tetrapod ancestry originated in a fish/fish-like animal). Our backbones evolved much further back than this. So we are included in the phylum Chordata. We even have microscopic structures that first evolved in sponges. All life on this planet is interrelated via our genetic legacies. And the fact remains that of all the life forms on the planet, we are most closely related to the anthropoid apes, and so are ourselves classified as such.

I can say with 99.9% certainy that humans are animals.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Except we don't know what we don't know. And how do we know that we weren't created this instant with all our memories implanted? Yeah, it seems ridiculous, and it very probably is. But it is possible, is it not?

Doubt is what keeps us as a species always striving for knowledge. Well, that and curiosity.

You are arguing solipsism, which is a proof positive sign of a weak and desperate mind.

I'm not arguing solipsism, I'm arguing epistemology.

Care to include any supporting information with your claims or are you just going to keep insulting me because you can't back your arguments up?

 

[Lakhota]

Scott Walker On 2016: 'I Wouldn't Bet Against Me'

I'm betting against you - you evil pukey little prick.

 

[orogenicman]

How is he wrong? Only a law can be proven without "doubt".

The same way you're wrong. Because you're a damned fool who doesn't know what he's talking about. Scientific laws are not proven, they are observed.

Oh, and by putting "doubt" in quotation marks, you contradict yourself anyway.

Actually, the scientific laws, or physical laws or the laws of nature, are theoretical.

Laws of Nature Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Physical law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Actually, scientific laws are laws. You have a hypothesis. If it can be verified with enough supporting data, it becomes a theory. If everyone agrees that the theory holds true (within a very tiny standard of deviation) with every experiment conducted over a significant amount of time, it becomes a scientific law. Hence we have the laws of thermodynamics, laws of motion, the ideal gas law, etc.

I included the links above. They show that what you posted isn't entirely accurate.

Scientific laws are not True. They are still theoretical.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9034/1/truthlaws.pdf

Scientific Laws - What Are Scientific Laws

Why Are Scientific Laws Considered Absolute Truths - Quora

They hold true within a very tiny margin of error. And I'm sorry, but that is as good as it ever gets.

 

[rdean]

If you don't believe in evolution then what do you believe created humans and all the life on earth?

He probably doesn't have a belief about origins because no one knows with any certainty and there is no good reason to substitute belief for knowledge.

One shouldn't believe in scientific theories because they aren't faith-based and, in the physical sciences, never be proved to be Truth.

Do you know what a "scientific theory" is? It's more than just a "theory"...

No, scientific theories are the current best explanations of the currently available information and subject to revision or rejection upon new information.

The only things that are more than theories are facts.

Do you think there are no facts in science?

Well, I think that the only thing I know is: Cogito ergo sum. Anything else is up for debate.

But, there seems to be a common reality, and in that context, yes science uses facts as the foundation of its theories and predictions.

Science has had better results and greater success than any other discipline in the history of humankind - as far as we know as a species.

As far as we know?

You are trying to hard by half to be clever. It's making you look foolish.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I must admit that I don't believe in Evolution. It's a fantastic theory of course and is a very powerful way of understanding natural processes but when one asks most people about Evolution they usually talk about humans being apes. Shows a lack of understanding of both Evolution as a theory and the nature of Science in general. May as well ask "Do you believe in Newtonian Physics. Science is NOT a religion!!

Greg

Human beings are, in fact, classified as anthropoid apes. Of this there is no ambiguity, no doubt. That you question this shows your lack of understanding of the facts.

Actually there is little doubt, but not "no doubt". All the current evidence seems incontrovertible. It's hard not to be totally certain. But a truly skeptical mind will always have reason to doubt because belief is just a step away from dogma.

99.999% is not 1 but it certainly is close enough to close the books on the issue. Humans are anthropoid apes. End of story.

Except we don't know what we don't know. And how do we know that we weren't created this instant with all our memories implanted? Yeah, it seems ridiculous, and it very probably is. But it is possible, is it not?

Doubt is what keeps us as a species always striving for knowledge. Well, that and curiosity.

Dude, we can doubt everything all the time, but that gets us nowhere at all. Yes, I can say that there is a 0.0001% probability that we are not anthropoid apes. But I can also say with 99.9999% certainty that we are. Sorry, my money is on the latter. And by accepting the latter, I can get on with the business of discovering more amazing facts about our biological history, particularly with regard to genetics and how we fit within the larger animal kingdom. For instance, we have features that evolved over 350 million years ago in fish (our tetrapod ancestry originated in a fish/fish-like animal). Our backbones evolved much further back than this. So we are included in the phylum Chordata. We even have microscopic structures that first evolved in sponges. All life on this planet is interrelated via our genetic legacies. And the fact remains that of all the life forms on the planet, we are most closely related to the anthropoid apes, and so are ourselves classified as such.

I agree with everything you just posted except that doubt somehow would prevent one from making amazing discoveries. In fact, doubt leads to amazing discoveries. What if no one doubted Newtonian physics or the Bible? In fact, look at those who do not doubt the Bible?

I'd bet on science any day of the week. But at some point, a new discovery is made, there is a paradigm shift, and what we thought we knew was't exactly accurate.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Human beings are, in fact, classified as anthropoid apes. Of this there is no ambiguity, no doubt. That you question this shows your lack of understanding of the facts.

Actually there is little doubt, but not "no doubt". All the current evidence seems incontrovertible. It's hard not to be totally certain. But a truly skeptical mind will always have reason to doubt because belief is just a step away from dogma.

99.999% is not 1 but it certainly is close enough to close the books on the issue. Humans are anthropoid apes. End of story.

Except we don't know what we don't know. And how do we know that we weren't created this instant with all our memories implanted? Yeah, it seems ridiculous, and it very probably is. But it is possible, is it not?

Doubt is what keeps us as a species always striving for knowledge. Well, that and curiosity.

Dude, we can doubt everything all the time, but that gets us nowhere at all. Yes, I can say that there is a 0.0001% probability that we are not anthropoid apes. But I can also say with 99.9999% certainty that we are. Sorry, my money is on the latter. And by accepting the latter, I can get on with the business of discovering more amazing facts about our biological history, particularly with regard to genetics and how we fit within the larger animal kingdom. For instance, we have features that evolved over 350 million years ago in fish (our tetrapod ancestry originated in a fish/fish-like animal). Our backbones evolved much further back than this. So we are included in the phylum Chordata. We even have microscopic structures that first evolved in sponges. All life on this planet is interrelated via our genetic legacies. And the fact remains that of all the life forms on the planet, we are most closely related to the anthropoid apes, and so are ourselves classified as such.

I can say with 99.9% certainy that humans are animals.

based on all the data...You're right.

 

[rdean]

Seriously people. If you owned a business and someone applied for a job and during the application process, they said evolution is a lie, climate change a conspiracy, science is a faith and education is for snobs and they dropped out of school, would you hire them? For what?

 

[BULLDOG]

Well, Scotty, if you have any serious hope of becoming president - you'll have to answer that question.

No he doesn't. He's absolutely correct, it's not a question that should be seeping into politics.

I agree it's a question that should not be in politics. Unfortunately, bible thumping teabaggers forced it front and center. Right there next to man made global climate change.

 

[SwimExpert]

I'm not arguing solipsism, I'm arguing epistemology.

Care to include any supporting information with your claims or are you just going to keep insulting me because you can't back your arguments up?

You're arguing nihilism, which invariably converts to solipsism when you look in the mirror. Not to mention the fact that is entirely a red herring. Look, I get it....you got a shiny new toy in class today. You want to take it out for a spin. You want to show off a little bit. But kid, you're pissing on grease fire when what you really need is baking soda. Now stand back and go back to class before you hurt yourself.