Dedelco making a mouthful of Janic with his stupid theory against Darwin.
Theory of evolution or not? Darwinism and concurrency!
-
moinsdewatt
- Econologue expert
- posts: 5111
- Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
- Location: Isére
- x 554
Hello marco
That's right and when the theoretical model is supposed to be "perfect" the term theory is dropped since it becomes a fact. Example big bang theory, string theory, conspiracy theory, etc… therefore HIV / AIDS theory, theory of the vaccination.
It is fair (the inconsistency is the grain of sand underlined) except when it is their livelihood that is in question, even their social promotion, their media recognition or their mandatory silence when their hierarchical level is too low and that the closure of the grants, sponsorship, etc. taps off their noses because money (the nerve of war) comes from somewhere and depends on the results obtained, even in supposedly independent basic research.
Take the current example of Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV with his team, raised to the skies for this discovery, and the smear campaign of which he is currently the subject by affirming loud and clear that the "virus" is safe with a healthy lifestyle, or when it gives credibility to the work of Benvéniste (a high-level scientist rejected by the scientific community) on the memory of water, or even Professor Wakerfield on autism, etc ...
Effectively evolution is a fact, the key is to agree on the word evolution. In the conflict atheistic evolutionism and intelligent evolutionism purposely, one theorizes on the appearance of life like that by chance, for evolution "believers" it depends on an external and not internal will. It is the only really important point that separates them.
No one is perfect, on a human level, that's fine! Parallelism with HIV is precisely there to be compared with any other human approach, no matter the subject, since these are the same mechanisms that act at the base.
This is something to keep in mind when considering this subject. The history of HIV is an almost perfect example, since billions are at stake!
Nobody disputes this approach, it is to the honor of the researcher. Where it hurts is the use (or rejection) of the research results in question. Their comparison with other research, by thousands or tens of thousands around the world and whose global analysis is almost impossible, would effectively validate this or that theory, but and this is where the comparison comes in as for the HIV and vaccines is that even after decades of failure on the ground, the theory continues to be the only point of view officially accepted because of various interests including financial ones in priority.
It's human, but also a vanity. Example Pasteur who did not hesitate to crush his collaborators, pirate the research of other researchers for his benefit, derive financial and social recognition benefits (from Napoleon III), etc ... invalidating not only his own work, but also those of his successors and yet currently validated by a majority of the medical profession and researchers, despite the resounding failures of this theory. An old saying goes: "We only find what we are looking for"
First contested and fought by those very people who will then become its defenders. That is to say those who convert to the new theory, those who take the direction of the wind which turns, those who have become a minority see themselves ousted; we do not live in the land of care bears! Pasteur himself was vigorously opposed by the scientists of his time and was finally "recognized" only because he had powerful political backers and then for the social and financial interest that this represented for a whole branch of the world. industry and professional.
It is not about the coelacanth in itselfbut from the widely held discourse at the time that over millions of years there was evolution and disappearance ancient forms like those found in the earth's strata.
Of course, genetics changed the game and at the same time seems to reinforce the theory of a certain evolution. But here again it depends on the elements selected and retained. This is why I emphasized that it was less the comparative physical elements that were essential in taking an evolutionary position or not, but first the philosophical approach, the side " I believe that " or " I believe that " something else.
Thus for comparison, omnivorism and vegeta * ism: same scientific elements in hand, but different conclusions! The partisans of an intelligent design, contrary to the widely publicized discourse, have among them high-level scientists who do not share the same conclusions as atheistic evolutionists. So it's these comparisons between the two theories that are interesting.
This is also why the omnis do the same for the VG where: "Anyway, it will always be the same answers since, despite their refutation, it is always the same arguments that we use opponents from all sides. It is the fact of human nature!
I would like to respond to your comment, to point out the fallacies it contains:"The problem with any theory is that it's ... a theory exactly?" "==>
Classic fallacy. When I hear this sentence from critics of the theory of evolution, or any theory, I often get the impression that they are confusing the word "theory" with the word "hypothesis". A theory is the best we can get in Science when we want to model processes in our universe. When you have a theory, it is because you have successfully passed the “hypothesis” stage. That is to say, we have observations that validate our theory.
That's right and when the theoretical model is supposed to be "perfect" the term theory is dropped since it becomes a fact. Example big bang theory, string theory, conspiracy theory, etc… therefore HIV / AIDS theory, theory of the vaccination.
The important feature of a theory is its validity. It only takes a single argument, a single inconsistency, to collapse a theory, and when a theory collapses, it is then abandoned on the spot, or reconsidered with the new elements. Believe me, researchers have other things to do than spend a third of their lives (half for the most passionate) doing work and experiments on an invalid theory.
It is fair (the inconsistency is the grain of sand underlined) except when it is their livelihood that is in question, even their social promotion, their media recognition or their mandatory silence when their hierarchical level is too low and that the closure of the grants, sponsorship, etc. taps off their noses because money (the nerve of war) comes from somewhere and depends on the results obtained, even in supposedly independent basic research.
Take the current example of Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV with his team, raised to the skies for this discovery, and the smear campaign of which he is currently the subject by affirming loud and clear that the "virus" is safe with a healthy lifestyle, or when it gives credibility to the work of Benvéniste (a high-level scientist rejected by the scientific community) on the memory of water, or even Professor Wakerfield on autism, etc ...
Evolution is a fact (we know undeniably that living beings evolve), the theory of current evolution is the best modeling that we can do of this fact, since it is validated by all of our knowledge (a dozen disciplines go in the same direction, whether it is paleontology, comparative anatomy, embryology, molecular biology, genetics, etc.) and above all NOTHING allows us to refute it today!
Effectively evolution is a fact, the key is to agree on the word evolution. In the conflict atheistic evolutionism and intelligent evolutionism purposely, one theorizes on the appearance of life like that by chance, for evolution "believers" it depends on an external and not internal will. It is the only really important point that separates them.
"Which protocols? Like those of AIDS, vaccines, nuclear, chemicals and others? "==>
It is hard to understand where you are coming from with your AIDS and your vaccines. For AIDS I think that you point the finger at the errors of JUDGMENT which have been made on this subject, errors which do not come from experimental protocols, or observation, but quite simply from negligence and ignorance, in short, because behaviors that are the opposite of what Science is.
No one is perfect, on a human level, that's fine! Parallelism with HIV is precisely there to be compared with any other human approach, no matter the subject, since these are the same mechanisms that act at the base.
So yes, the man is often mistaken when he tries to speculate on facts that he does not control. Yes there are dozens of chemicals that we use every day, for which we have no perspective to assess their effect on the human body. Yes, in a few years we risk paying for this negligence. And yes, when there is money at stake, scientific rigor disappears.
This is something to keep in mind when considering this subject. The history of HIV is an almost perfect example, since billions are at stake!
But that has nothing to do with the establishment of a theory which is done according to a very strict and very rigorous framework (already the simple fact that one leaves the industrial framework, completely changes the context) Everything that enters in a theory must be testable and verifiable. Each researcher who performs an experiment and publishes his results, describes precisely the protocol used so that the entire scientific community is able to produce a replication and confirm or refute the results. Thus, in establishing a theory, it is objectivity which prevails: everyone is able to make the same observations.
Nobody disputes this approach, it is to the honor of the researcher. Where it hurts is the use (or rejection) of the research results in question. Their comparison with other research, by thousands or tens of thousands around the world and whose global analysis is almost impossible, would effectively validate this or that theory, but and this is where the comparison comes in as for the HIV and vaccines is that even after decades of failure on the ground, the theory continues to be the only point of view officially accepted because of various interests including financial ones in priority.
And you know, the dream of a researcher is not to validate theories with each of his experiences, but on the contrary to be at the origin of a revolution. This is how we leave an imprint in history.
It's human, but also a vanity. Example Pasteur who did not hesitate to crush his collaborators, pirate the research of other researchers for his benefit, derive financial and social recognition benefits (from Napoleon III), etc ... invalidating not only his own work, but also those of his successors and yet currently validated by a majority of the medical profession and researchers, despite the resounding failures of this theory. An old saying goes: "We only find what we are looking for"
“So concerning the theory of evolution, it (its interpreters) only retains what goes in this direction and considers that all the grains of sand of the machine are not to be taken into account. "==>
Unfounded prejudice. The strictly applied scientific method is very rigorous, theories like that of evolution or plate tectonics, needed to reach a very solid validity before being accepted.
First contested and fought by those very people who will then become its defenders. That is to say those who convert to the new theory, those who take the direction of the wind which turns, those who have become a minority see themselves ousted; we do not live in the land of care bears! Pasteur himself was vigorously opposed by the scientists of his time and was finally "recognized" only because he had powerful political backers and then for the social and financial interest that this represented for a whole branch of the world. industry and professional.
“The (somewhat old) example of the coelacanth is ONE of those grains in question. "==>
No grain of sand here. "Coelacanth" does not designate a species, but a group comprising several species. The species of coelacanths today are different from the species of yesteryear (For example, some species have lungs and gills, while others have only gills).
It is not about the coelacanth in itselfbut from the widely held discourse at the time that over millions of years there was evolution and disappearance ancient forms like those found in the earth's strata.
So evolution does not necessarily imply radical changes. If the species live in an environment that remains relatively stable, they will undergo very little genetic change, the genetic variability then remains essentially the same.
Finally, it should also be borne in mind that morphology represents roughly 5% of the genetic heritage, evolution is therefore not judged only on visual resemblance (Blood group, immune system, chemistry of the digestive system, respiratory system, etc ...)
Of course, genetics changed the game and at the same time seems to reinforce the theory of a certain evolution. But here again it depends on the elements selected and retained. This is why I emphasized that it was less the comparative physical elements that were essential in taking an evolutionary position or not, but first the philosophical approach, the side " I believe that " or " I believe that " something else.
Thus for comparison, omnivorism and vegeta * ism: same scientific elements in hand, but different conclusions! The partisans of an intelligent design, contrary to the widely publicized discourse, have among them high-level scientists who do not share the same conclusions as atheistic evolutionists. So it's these comparisons between the two theories that are interesting.
I saw that there was this subject, but I did not have the courage to read these 115 pages.
Anyway, it will always be the same answers since, despite their refutation, it is always the same arguments that we use opponents from all sides ...
This is also why the omnis do the same for the VG where: "Anyway, it will always be the same answers since, despite their refutation, it is always the same arguments that we use opponents from all sides. It is the fact of human nature!
0 x
-
Obamot
- Econologue expert
- posts: 28725
- Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
- Location: regio genevesis
- x 5538
On the merits, I recall that it was you who had questioned the merits of the use I had made of the word "theory»I am very glad that you changed your mind;)
On the form, could you do a good thing for all, no longer use the tag "Quote" to highlight the text of your interlocutors - since it makes their comments anonymous and above all, through this, your posts become completely indigestible amha - but use the one given by clicking in "Quote" (then a simple copy / paste allows you to continue as many times as you want) ....
Because every time we break our heads to find out who said what, and I think you're one of the only ones who don't!
On the form, could you do a good thing for all, no longer use the tag "Quote" to highlight the text of your interlocutors - since it makes their comments anonymous and above all, through this, your posts become completely indigestible amha - but use the one given by clicking in "Quote" (then a simple copy / paste allows you to continue as many times as you want) ....
Because every time we break our heads to find out who said what, and I think you're one of the only ones who don't!
Last edited by Obamot the 03 / 10 / 12, 10: 07, 1 edited once.
0 x
-
Obamot
- Econologue expert
- posts: 28725
- Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
- Location: regio genevesis
- x 5538
If that is the case:
1) you click in "Quote";
And it does it automatically!
2) If you want to continue and repeat, without having to click on "Quote" each time. You make a "copy" of the first tag of your contact:
[Quote = "Janic"] then the last one, at the very end [/ quote]
3) you paste them temporarily in an unused input window, as follows at the bottom right (or elsewhere);
4) so you can use it whenever you need it, by replacing the anonymous "Quote" tag with the nominative one! And by replacing the space left between the two tags by the words to highlight!
(You can obviously take a look in "Preview" to check that everything is "ok")
1) you click in "Quote";
And it does it automatically!
2) If you want to continue and repeat, without having to click on "Quote" each time. You make a "copy" of the first tag of your contact:
[Quote = "Janic"] then the last one, at the very end [/ quote]
3) you paste them temporarily in an unused input window, as follows at the bottom right (or elsewhere);
4) so you can use it whenever you need it, by replacing the anonymous "Quote" tag with the nominative one! And by replacing the space left between the two tags by the words to highlight!
(You can obviously take a look in "Preview" to check that everything is "ok")
Last edited by Obamot the 03 / 10 / 12, 10: 39, 2 edited once.
0 x
And Janic with his fanatic religious obsession, of the evolution according to the plan of God, of HIV without virus, of vaccinations to suppress, of no meat, constantly proves this scientific scientific observation by marco3000:
Even janic's cat is vegetarian, following the evolutionary design imposed by janic, he is virus free, even if he catches HIV = AIDS from cats, with a virus that janic forgot to deny !!!!
janic is like the director of the Chernobyl power station, after its explosion, denying the reality of the explosion of the reactor core, with however the graphite debris from the core of the burning radioactivity reactor, which killed the director and the men of the accident.
see page 116 and 113 of the book Grigori Medvedev: the Truth about Chernobyl Albin Michel
"It exploded, looks like it's the backup tank ..." ...
This version .... is at the origin of the measures which increase the number of deaths "
janic with his sickly negation of the VIN virus increases the number of deaths due to HIV !!
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_de_l ... %C3%A9line
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feline_imm ... ency_virus
http://www.doctissimo.fr/html/famille/animaux/fiv.htm
http://forum.doctissimo.fr/sante/medeci ... 2915_1.htm
Anyway, it will always be the same answers, since, despite their refutation, it is still the same arguments that we use the opponents from all sides ...
Even janic's cat is vegetarian, following the evolutionary design imposed by janic, he is virus free, even if he catches HIV = AIDS from cats, with a virus that janic forgot to deny !!!!
janic is like the director of the Chernobyl power station, after its explosion, denying the reality of the explosion of the reactor core, with however the graphite debris from the core of the burning radioactivity reactor, which killed the director and the men of the accident.
see page 116 and 113 of the book Grigori Medvedev: the Truth about Chernobyl Albin Michel
"It exploded, looks like it's the backup tank ..." ...
This version .... is at the origin of the measures which increase the number of deaths "
janic with his sickly negation of the VIN virus increases the number of deaths due to HIV !!
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_de_l ... %C3%A9line
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feline_imm ... ency_virus
http://www.doctissimo.fr/html/famille/animaux/fiv.htm
http://forum.doctissimo.fr/sante/medeci ... 2915_1.htm
0 x
ah, wikipedia and doctissimo as references: it's heavy! 
It is well worth dedeleco with its fanatic anti-religious obsession, of evolution according to the design of chance, of HIV with virus never found, of vaccinations to impose, of all meat, constantly proves this scientific experimental finding by marco3000:
It is well worth dedeleco with its fanatic anti-religious obsession, of evolution according to the design of chance, of HIV with virus never found, of vaccinations to impose, of all meat, constantly proves this scientific experimental finding by marco3000:
0 x
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 49 Replies
- 41018 views
-
Last message by Christophe
View the latest post
20/02/21, 00:10A subject posted in the forum : Company and Philosophy
-
- 22 Replies
- 12166 views
-
Last message by Obamot
View the latest post
06/10/12, 14:01A subject posted in the forum : Company and Philosophy
-
- 197 Replies
- 68892 views
-
Last message by Christophe
View the latest post
21/10/11, 11:28A subject posted in the forum : Company and Philosophy
Back to "Society and Philosophy"
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 291 guests