Creation/evolution3

[Drich]

So, you understand that evolution is a gradual process of small alterations to an organism... but you don't think that the difference between the "choke-un" and the legitimate chicken, in the span of one generation, would be one of what you fully accept to be small changes?

At some point the last genetically consistant Choke-un Laid an egg that did not contain a Choke-un. Genetically it contained the DNA of a Chicken. At some point the choke-uns had to mutate. as mutation does not happen after 'birth' the changes happen in this case 'in egg.' Therefore the Egg preceeded the Chicken, as a Choke-un did not mutate into a chicken outside the egg. At some point a choke-un laid a egg with a chicken in it.

Which is it, Drich? Do you understand that evolution is a bunch of small changes, and hence that the change between the "choke-un" and the chicken would be, you know, small, or don't you? Was your need to disagree with me really so strong that you'd contradict yourself so thoroughly?

Again, there was a point where the mutative difference between a Choke-un and a chicken demanded a different classification. At some point how ever minute, the Choke-un laid an egg containing the first chicken.

I also get that you don't like how flipant I am with your version of God/science. to which I say, so what. How is this any different then what you all say/Do against My God?

Well, I guess the difference is that when you're flippant against science, you tend to say idiotic things, like intimating that science is my god.

I say things typically with a surface meaning and then a deeper one. I did say that science was your god, but i also suggested that you do indeed treat science as I would treat or reverance God. to that end what I said is true. You respect, and turn to science for answers, as I would respect and turn to God for answers. You find offense when someone poo poo's on your 'god' as do I.

The difference? In in no way do I demand that you worship at my alter, but per the name calling you do indeed demand I hold your 'god' in the same respect as you would.

Or you say demonstrably wrong things about science, like when you asserted that the Large Hadron Collider had found no evidence of the Higgs Boson, when in truth it had explicitly confirmed the existence of the thing two years ago.

Actually they still cant detect the higgs boson as it's life span is not measurable by anything we have to measure it with, what they do detect is the material left over from the partical decay.

Again the Netflix documentry, "Partical fever" actually interviews the 'd-bags' who actually work with this project. What I said about the higgs was taken directly from what they said of the same nature. Here is a link to the actual documentry.
http://particlefever.com/

watch the documentry. In the beginning they are sooo sure they will find this imaginary partical, and when they don't they say it can't be measured, but here we found all of these other known particals which is 'proof' of the higgs bosun.

Those other 'known particals' is what fueled the theory in the first place, and got them their funding. Before they built this collider they said they had to build this much bigger one because what they had would not be able to detect the higgs, just the reminates... Which is what they are saying about the big collider now.

Oh and here's proof that they can't find the partical itself but can indeed find the 'reminates of it.' One link deals with shelf life being too short, and the other deals with what is actually observible. the 'proof' of the known particals that we had before they built this big failed experiment.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/9053/2...d-2012.htm

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/...iggs-boson

It's like no one has the full story, everyone has peices or rather no one wants to publish the full story so they all publish peices... Looks like propaganda to me. Why? because in what other field can one make a claim based off of xyz get funding for a multi billion/trillion dollar project, and after a few years of run time tell everyone all they have is the same xyz they had in the beginning and declare a sucess?

That's 'science' for ya

I'd say that's the difference: when you're being flippant about science you are always wrong, and so your flippancy not only makes you come across as a colossally ignorant buffoon, but it also psychologically conditions you to devalue science, so you don't feel the need to actually research anything before you're flippant the next time, causing you to make more obvious mistakes.

That's the thing sport. I'm not wrong here. I am simply stating what is unpopular, and I can indeed back up what I have to say. But again, at the time i did not feel the need to do so as I gave you enough information to google it yourself. Since push has come to shove and your laziness is impeeding your own ablity to think for yourself, I guess i have no other recourse than to provide you with the 'doctrine' you need to replace your own thoughts with your 'god's' demands on what you should be thinking.

It's basically that you're trapped in a vicious cycle of Dunning-Kruger shit-wittery, whereas I say demonstrably true things and observe the total lack of evidence for a god. That's the difference.

labling me Dunning-kruger effect is just laziness on your part. To lable someone with this effect and show absolutly NO Provenaunce of your own position is what this effects describes. Again even in our first exchange i gave you enough key word information to google what had actually been found. Yet you were sooo certain you were right because your position as an atheist automatically puts you in the right over a christian? Please. Half the crap on this website presented by atheists is sterotypical bunk none of you have ever sourced for yourself.

One of the things my dsylexia has done for me is have me look up EVERYTHING, and catorgrize the source material so I know how to approach a given source. Why is it that you think I quote the dictionary so much to show you all that even the terms you use are wrong?( Eg: Rythm's misuse of the word Theory.)

Know, I rarly speak on anything I have not confirmed with several points of material. Now I have been guilty of mixing things and Raesetsu has caught my mistakes once or twice Creed caught me with my cousin's service record as I confused two different points and made them one. In the end this simply shows I am human and will error from time to time, but in no way does this mean I speak without any authority. No does it mean I speak as most of you do (from a sterotypical atheist position) without reference. What I may say could seem off, but this should inspire a true 'thinker' to look what I said up, rather double down in your own ignorance.

The last time we had a conversation about theoretical science, you made some assertions about the Big Bang theory not being based on evidence, and basically being the guess of one man. It took me all of five minutes to locate the history of the theory and show that not only was it not a guess, not only was it based on easily viewable evidence, but it also wasn't the work of just one person, but rather many, building a case based on observation and evidence over many years.

I was able to prove you wrong on every point with five minutes on google, which so easily that you actually never replied to that thread again (it was that one you made a few months ago about education and science) and I think that all this is actually a good example of my point: you don't understand any kind of science, theoretical or otherwise, because you're so sure of how much you know that you won't be bothered to actually look into the details before you talk. Though you prattle on about science here, the truth is that on every claim you've made that I can remember on science, you've been flat out, completely wrong.

Your either extremely lazy or flat out incompetent. a simple google search yeilded this page from the American museum of Natural History.
Georges Lemaître is the guy who orginally came up with the theory. Oh, btw he was a catholic preist.
http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/...aitre.html

Do you feel that burn? Do you feel the need to come up with some other reason to proove that you are still right in your statement that no one person came up with the big bang, and I am somehow still wrong?

If so, you may be experiencing the aftermath of the Dunning-Kruger effect!

douche

And you don't even seem to realize it. You're a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

How so? because I'm dyslexic? and people who have trouble reading or spelling are dumb, or is it because you have 'science' on your side and I believe in God 'magic' and because I believe in God magic that automatically makes you smarter???

Oh, my goodness.
Here are the criteria for the D-K effect per wiki:

1.fail to recognize their own lack of skill;
I have, that is why I LOOK EVERYTHING UP. You have proven over and over that you do not.

2.fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
When someone does indeed provide viable evidence I yield to it per my examples with raesetsu and Creed. Again, you do not per chicken and egg arguement.

3.fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
I will freely admit when I do not know something, and have done so here somewhere recently. You per chicken and egg, big bang, and the hydron super collider, assume you know better even though you fail to provide any support to what you have claimed.

4.recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill.
Again you have yet to yeild to the authority provided by my and the resources i have supplied you with that support my position.

So tell me again who is the one blinded by his own version of D-K effect?

Or will you bite the bullet and simply conceed?

I guess we shall see...[/quote]