evolsion (Page 8) kittybobo34: When you say any facts, it should be compatible. I am not aware of a fact that doesnt fit  AchillesSinatra: Exactly!!! Every facts fits. And every fact fits my astrologer's "something will happen today" theory AchillesSinatra: This is bad news. A theory that explains explains everything explains precisely nothing. kittybobo34: OK, one could say that God fits all the facts too, but it doesnt, Given the theory is correct, it should fit the facts. AchillesSinatra: It does fit the facts. If not, show me where any contradiction arises I'm not religious btw, as if it matters kittybobo34: I do not see a contradiction, one could exist, that would change everything, but as yet none has been found. AchillesSinatra: Compare : God is really nice but there's a lot of bad shit going on and,, Darwinian natural selection What's with all this altruism? In neither case does a contradiction arise AchillesSinatra: "Sounds as if you would prefer to not believe any concept is correct." Perhaps. Kitty, are you aware that almost every scientific theory ever proposed turned out to be false? kittybobo34: yes, its been a long slow slog toward knowledge. The scientific theory has evolved a long way to weed out the BS. AchillesSinatra: Now, this is just silly. If I'd asked you 50 years ago, you'd have said "Boy, these guys before us were full of shit" On what possible grounds would you defend the position that current scientific theories are not also a load of bollocks? AchillesSinatra: It's a bit like... You make fun of the religious nutcases, who, no matter how many times they predict the second coming of Christ... always seem to butcher it. But when it comes to scientists estimating the age of the Earth... er, It's "self-correcting"  kittybobo34: They are not announcing those dates as facts, they are saying this is what we are finding with the evidence we see., as those dates were and are being posted there is always some doubt as to its accuracy AchillesSinatra: self-correction means that which was false was set right. Scientific estimates of the age of the Earth are nothing like that. You're wrong Next dude: No you're wrong ad infinitum Why can't you see this? kittybobo34: I think you are making the mistake of seeing scientific evidence as statements of pure fact AchillesSinatra: "They are not announcing those dates as facts, they are saying this is what we are finding with the evidence we see., as those dates were and are being posted there is always some doubt as to its accuracy" Phew, what a relief. So the current estimate is probably wrong? AchillesSinatra: You don't know what evidence is, friend. This is when it gets tiresome. Or would you like to explain? kittybobo34: I would say most definitly wrong, we can only measure what has solidified into rock, who knows how long it was molten before that AchillesSinatra: Geoff told me there is no evidence for God. The usual bs I don't believe in God, but here's the prob: Either Geoff gets to stipulate ex cathedra what does, and what does not, constitute evidence. Or... we defer to an objective standard such that we can all figure out these things for ourselves. Of course, Geoff never does.. He prefers to be the Pope (Edited by AchillesSinatra) kittybobo34: And astrologers think they can predict everyones lives, but when you analyse their points you find lots of holes in their reasoning, I am only defending my point of view, I try to pass on a bit of logic about that position, but I don't expect to convert anyone | Science Chat Room Similar Conversations |