Wortfish wrote:

The distinction between an hypothesis and a theory is arbitrary.

Wortfish wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
There's no need to sit around and come up with arguments against the overwhelming evidence for evolutionary theory, any more than there's a need to sit around and come up with arguments against the Earth being a sphere. The evidence is in, you've lost. If you want to sit around all day "playing devil's advocate" for your particular magic man then go for it, but please stop fapping in public.

We test the merits of a scientific hypothesis by trying to falsify it.

When I was at school, the teacher asked me to debate against the motion that I supported it to see if I could appreciate both sides of the argument.

You shouldn't be so certain that you are right: that is neither rational nor skeptical.

felltoearth wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

The distinction between an hypothesis and a theory is arbitrary.

B2993F93-6285-43E1-B8DC-D33BC83E9708.gif

Svartalf wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Svartalf wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Then that would mean it's not water then, wouldn't it?

First time I've ever been told that ice is NOT water...

You know you're playing a dumb word game here, right? If someone asks you for a glass of water, you don't hand them one full of just ice cubes.

yep, sorry, bbut worty's stuff is so sad I have to resort to the crudest methods to sustain my good mood.

campermon wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:Ah well. We needed a new pub.

You called?

Super hot in the uk at the moment. Just waiting for the garden to shade and then some mowing and set up the bbq.

Time for a beer while I wait.

Wortfish wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

Fallible wrote:I love ‘the outcome may startle you’, and then the outcome is exactly what one would expect from Wortfish.

I was startled by what I found.

What you ‘found’. Yeah, sure you were. You shouldn’t use your own reactions for a gauge of how others might respond. If you had asked us what side we thought you would come down on without giving us the answer, I guarantee you none of us would have been in any doubt. And lo, see how no one was startled. This of course all rests on you being genuine in the first place, and there is at least some question about that.

I had expected the evidence and arguments for evolution to be much more water-tight. Instead, I found a leaky boat.

SafeAsMilk wrote:
I find pointing and laughing is a good way.

Svartalf wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
I find pointing and laughing is a good way.

Maybe not THAT crude.

felltoearth wrote:
So take any one of the arguments for Intelligent Design you put forward above and tell us how it is falsifiable. I’ll wait.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

The_Metatron wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
There's no need to sit around and come up with arguments against the overwhelming evidence for evolutionary theory, any more than there's a need to sit around and come up with arguments against the Earth being a sphere. The evidence is in, you've lost. If you want to sit around all day "playing devil's advocate" for your particular magic man then go for it, but please stop fapping in public.

We test the merits of a scientific hypothesis by trying to falsify it. When I was at school, the teacher asked me to debate against the motion that I supported it to see if I could appreciate both sides of the argument. You shouldn't be so certain that you are right: that is neither rational nor skeptical.

Was your support for your original position so weak you allowed yourself to be made to argue a point you claimed to know to be wrong?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Wortfish wrote:

felltoearth wrote:
So take any one of the arguments for Intelligent Design you put forward above and tell us how it is falsifiable. I’ll wait.

I'll takeDarwin's famous test for falsification:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

I'll just reverse it to state that if it can be shown that a complex organ can be shown to have been formed by slight successive random changes, any case for creationism or ID would absolutely break down.

Wortfish wrote:

felltoearth wrote:
So take any one of the arguments for Intelligent Design you put forward above and tell us how it is falsifiable. I’ll wait.

I'll takeDarwin's famous test for falsification:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

I'll just reverse it to state that if it can be shown that a complex organ can be shown to have been formed by slight successive random changes, any case for creationism or ID would absolutely break down.

Wortfish wrote:

felltoearth wrote:
So take any one of the arguments for Intelligent Design you put forward above and tell us how it is falsifiable. I’ll wait.

I'll takeDarwin's famous test for falsification:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

I'll just reverse it to state that if it can be shown that a complex organ can be shown to have been formed by slight successive random changes, any case for creationism or ID would absolutely break down.

Wortfish wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
There's no need to sit around and come up with arguments against the overwhelming evidence for evolutionary theory, any more than there's a need to sit around and come up with arguments against the Earth being a sphere. The evidence is in, you've lost. If you want to sit around all day "playing devil's advocate" for your particular magic man then go for it, but please stop fapping in public.

We test the merits of a scientific hypothesis by trying to falsify it. When I was at school, the teacher asked me to debate against the motion that I supported it to see if I could appreciate both sides of the argument. You shouldn't be so certain that you are right: that is neither rational nor skeptical.

Was your support for your original position so weak you allowed yourself to be made to argue a point you claimed to know to be wrong?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

I was asked to argue in favor of abortion - which I do not support in general - with the usual "my body, my rights", "the foetus is no different to a tumor or parasite" line.

Wortfish wrote:

I'll just reverse it to state that if it can be shown that a complex organ can be shown to have been formed by slight successive random changes, any case for creationism or ID would absolutely break down.

laklak wrote:They are fucking parasites, by definition. And they don't change as they age, they keep sucking the lifeblood out of you till you die. Trust me on this.

Wortfish wrote:if it can be shown that a complex organ can be shown to have been formed by slight successive random changes

Wortfish wrote:any case for creationism or ID would absolutely break down.