Chess Online

Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »
From	Message
stalhandske 22-Nov-21, 20:53	Evolution and creationism <So how did creationism catch hold of the minds of a gullible segment of the population? Indoctrination is a powerful tool. > I think the fundamental reason for 'creationism' is the belief that evolution theory and abiogenesis theories somehow contradict religion (Christianity, Islam, etc). It just does not. Evolution theory is a THEORY, not fact, nor a religion! There are several difficult parts of it, all of which have been given reasonable solutions (partial hypotheses). This theory is 'alive' (as all serious science is) and is constantly being tested and amended (like all scientific theories). It is quite a reasonable theory, which is not at all the same as saying I believe in it (as belief in a religion). It is alive precisely until it is scientifically refuted. Complete refutation is quite unlikely at this point since findings in its favour are so numerous and from so many independent fields, but amendments of details are quite likely as the research progresses. To say that evolution theory is not science can ony be done by individuals who do not understand what science is.
riaannieman 22-Nov-21, 21:19	To believe in something implies an amount of faith in the unseen, unproven, unknown or otherwise not perceptible. To believe something, on the other hand, implies an amount of proof that is incontrovertible. In this way I believe that evolution theory is correct. I don't believe in evolution theory. There are many, many facts on the table that can be evaluated objectively. These facts point towards an acceptable premise that evolution did, does and will happen. The facts that point towards evolution theory as an acceptable postulation have been pointed out and discussed many times, in this thread as well as others, and there are lots of literature available to enrich one's own mind.
stalhandske 22-Nov-21, 23:27	Riaan Thanks for pointing out the quite significant difference between believing and beleiving in something.
stalhandske 22-Nov-21, 23:48	The Scientific Method Some religious fanatics claim that the theory of evolution 'does not follow the Scientific Method', and refer to an article by Bob Ryan (of all people!). blogs.timesofisrael.com Fact: <Bob is an American with an MBA in Business Administration. He is a gentile who supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. He is a Christian Zionist who knows God is calling His chosen home as foretold in prophecy.> Wow, this guy must be competent to judge what science is and what it is not!   This is an excellent example of the level at which creationists argue. Also, they make promises of returning to points where they were proven (I mean PROVEN!) wrong, and then those are conveniently forgotten
stalhandske 23-Nov-21, 00:16	the geography of scientific illiteracy Referring to such an article by Bob Ruýan is not only ridiculous but also shows complete illiteracy of the scientific literature, which is belittled in a way that is a huge insult to decades and centuries of serious scientific work and the scientists behind it. But when you don't know better and when you are completely incompetent in judging, but at the same time sure of your self-proclaimed knowledge - that is the result. This is truly sad, and it is somewhat strange to notice that such religious fanaticism is quite active in the US, but hardly noticable in Europe. Can anyone explain this apparent geographical distribution?
stalhandske 23-Nov-21, 00:38	This is has a funny side to it My comment on the scientific method was immediatey swallowed, 'hook, line and sinker' as BC often says so eloquently!   About non-professionals talking about science: it is like having a taxi driver (who is good at his job) perform brain surgery, or a plumber delivering a baby with high forceps.
stalhandske 23-Nov-21, 00:47	Correction: This has a funny side to it Yet, it is mostly sad. Of course, it is also about keeping a secure distance so that the real facts cannot be forced upon you. Which is why the major bulls' manure is presented in a club with only one member, who both makes the questions and the answers to them. To be sure that his opinions cannot be directly (and easily) invalidated, he puts all opponents he is scared of on 'ignore'.
stalhandske 23-Nov-21, 00:54	<Ask Christians who believe the theory of evolution how they reconcile that belief with the belief humans were made in the image of God. I’ve asked the two people in your club who identify as Christians that question and they refuse to answer it.> They have not, that is your wishful thinking! The idea that 'humans were made in the image of God' is a statement and an idea that is in no way contrary to abiogenesis or evolution theories (or Big Bang theories for that matter). The ONLY obstacle between that conclusion, and yours, is your insistent interpretation of what the Bible says. And, whatever you say, the vast majority of present-day Christians accept evolution theory as a valid idea.
stalhandske 23-Nov-21, 01:00	Now it is apparently thought that posting the light-weight article by Bob Ryan a second time will make the argument stronger! Ohh, why don't you post it a third time - may be I will be 'converted'?
riaannieman 23-Nov-21, 01:39	stalhandske, the reason why I don't follow posts in other clubs is that I surround myself with people, books and knowledge which actually give me scientifically peer reviewed and correct information- yourself, for example, who is extremely knowledgeable in the field of microbiology, especially the O2 exchange in cells, to name but one specialized field during your long and illustrious career. It is very sorry that itchynscratchy is not with us, nor dsb13. They each bring to the table expertise and knowledge that I would eagerly read. Although I do research on the internet, I don't like it because in most cases information is not peer reviewed, checked for validity and correctness, falsehoods exposed and pure illiteracy-, incompetence- and ignorance of certain subjects, and that statements have not been verified. Most often I would initiate a search on the internet, and then go to written (paper) publications of some sort- reputable PC magazines mostly, because of my career, but if another interest crosses my path, the two local municipal libraries close to my house. Or I would by the books and magazines I need. In this way I have built up an extensive library on topics that I have fancied over the years, so much so that I don't even know how many books I have in my possession, and often times I would remember reading a particular piece of interest but cannot find the reference I need to post here. It is my advice not to react to information that we both know is invalid. Don't even expose yourself to such drivel, negative energy, or taxing emotions; you can do much better to pursue real intellectual values and information, and discuss and share it with people who are your peers, or eager to learn (the eager student would be me!) I dare say that we have enough intelligent, objective and a variety of people in this club that always stimulate lively debate, and make each of us consider and evaluate what we know..... or thought we knew! As I have conceded more than once: I learned something new and have to backtrack and change my opinion, point of view or perceptions.
stalhandske 23-Nov-21, 03:59	<Although I do research on the internet, I don't like it because in most cases information is not peer reviewed, checked for validity and correctness, falsehoods exposed and pure illiteracy-, incompetence- and ignorance of certain subjects, and that statements have not been verified. > This is a very important note. For reasons I don't really know the details of, some people rely without criticism on almost anything they find on the Internet - and you can actually find ANYTHING! I think it is basic lazyness, and a novel method of finding statements officially printed to the world (!) that - lo and behold - agree with what you anyway 'knew is right'. So, down falls all the criteria of scientific quality and knowledge - they are unimportant! You can even criticise the core of scientific research without any qualification, and be believed without doubt. What these people don't realise is that what they are actually doing is allowing their barber to remove their brain tumour, or their plumber to perform a high forceps delivery of their baby. It is just that when it comes to a phenomenon such as evolution, they won't be immediately punished for their ignorance.
mo-oneandmore 23-Nov-21, 04:21	Riaan and Shiva. I agree that internet is filled with massive amounts of invalid theory, fake news, conjecture, miss interpretations, insufficient validation and many other flaws, but like Science and the scriptures and the media: Research on the internet remains a highly valued tool as long as one takes some of it with a grain of salt or less (See www.space.com and www.youtube.com for a couple among millions of quick cyber search examples )
zorroloco 23-Nov-21, 04:25	Deleted by zorroloco on 23-Nov-21, 06:10.
stalhandske 23-Nov-21, 04:35	<Research on the internet remains a highly valued tool as long as one takes some of it with a grain of salt> Yes, that IS very important! The Internet contains all the bad but ALSO all the good, and the issue is to choose!! And to choose right.
zorroloco 23-Nov-21, 04:40	Research Internet research requires the ability to differentiate solid trustworthy sites from trash. Andrew just doesn't understand how to do that. Not surprising when his only real source is a rewritten, multiply translated, second-hand mythology that he believes is literally true. With that subterranean bar, it’s unsurprising he’s never learned to filter his sources.
riaannieman 23-Nov-21, 05:22	Yes, I do in fact do my initial research on any topic on the internet- but to gain sources! Just think of this: it cost quite a lot of money to research, write, print and publish a book (just ask bobspringett, of whose pen I read one book, which is a novel, not even a scientific publication!) To make public a book in print is expensive, while an article, web page or podcast on the internet is very cheap. So, it stands to reason that any scientific print is costly, in all sorts of ways (time, effort, financial, editing, copyright, publishing, advertising and much more), and I highly doubt that a good scientist will go through all that just to publish junk in print. On the other hand, I saw a picture on WhatsApp a while ago. I referred to it in another thread. The first picture is of people in lab coats, with flasks, equipment, benches, good lighting in a clean room with sophisticated computers, doing research into viral technology. In the second picture a person is sitting on the toilet, cellphone in hand, researching why we should not be vaccinated. This is why I don't trust the internet. I just get the starting point with some basic info on the internet, and then move on to good literature. The only times that I almost trust published articles on the internet, is when it is from a university, when someone does a dissertation, or when I know the author from other published works. But I once looked up the use of cannabis oil, came across a *.pdf document from a university, and referred to it as truth. It was later proven to be nonsense. Someone published it with the university logo and made it look official. It was convincing. I almost started to believe that there are merits in the use of cannabis oil. When I was questioned about my source, I tried to refer to it again, but it had been removed and I got a -404 error. It was nonsense.
mo-oneandmore 23-Nov-21, 05:45	Riann Indeed! Bob is an excellent source of research, even though his preference is fiction.
zorroloco 23-Nov-21, 06:28	.edu Eight ways to tell if a website is reliable. None of these by itself is sufficient 1. Look for Established Institutions The internet is full of websites that were started five minutes ago. What you want are sites associated with trusted institutions that have been around for a while and have a proven track record of reliability and integrity. Such sites may include those run by government agencies, nonprofit organizations, foundations, or colleges and universities. 2. Look for Sites with Expertise You wouldn't go to an auto mechanic if you broke your leg, and you wouldn't go to the hospital to have your car repaired. This is an obvious point: Look for websites that specialize in the kind of information you're seeking. So if you're writing a story on a flu outbreak, check out medical websites, such as The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and so on. 3. Steer Clear of Commercial Sites Sites run by companies and business—their websites usually end in .com—are more often than not trying to sell you something. And if they're trying to sell you something, chances are whatever information they're presenting will be tilted in favor of their product. That's not to say corporate sites should be excluded entirely. But be wary. 4. Beware of Bias Reporters write a lot about politics, and there are plenty of political websites out there. But many of them are run by groups that have a bias in favor of one political party or philosophy. A conservative website isn't likely to report objectively on a liberal politician, and vice versa. Steer clear of sites with a political ax to grind and instead look for ones that are non-partisan. 5. Check the Date As a reporter, you need the most up-to-date information available, so if a website seems old, it's probably best to steer clear. One way to check: Look for a "last updated" date on the page or site. 6. Consider the Site's Look If a site looks poorly designed and amateurish, chances are it was created by amateurs. Sloppy writing is another bad sign. Steer clear. But be careful: Just because a website is professionally designed doesn't mean it's reliable. 7. Avoid Anonymous Authors Articles or studies whose authors are named are often—though not always—more reliable than works produced anonymously. It makes sense: If someone is willing to put their name on something they've written, chances are they stand by the information it contains. And if you have the name of the author, you can always Google them to check their credentials. 8. Check the Links Reputable websites often link to each other. You can find out which other websites link to the site you're researching by conducting a link-specific Google search. Enter the following text into the Google search field, replacing "[WEBSITE]" with the domain of the site you're researching: link:www.[WEBSITE].com The search results will show you which websites link to the one you're researching. If lots of sites are linking to your site, and those sites seem reputable, that's a good sign.
hogfysshe 23-Nov-21, 06:41	I will occasionally use The Wayback Machine to see how long a website has existed, and what it looked like in past years. That can sometimes make me more comfortable that the company is reputable. web.archive.org This is also, of course, a useful resource that will often pull up past versions of websites that you would like to access for one reason or other.
stalhandske 23-Nov-21, 06:52	Hogfys Wow, that was new to me - a very interesting method.
hogfysshe 23-Nov-21, 07:01	Deleted by hogfysshe on 23-Nov-21, 07:02.
hogfysshe 23-Nov-21, 07:02	that's how I found the lightbulb on the home page of this club, when it had gone missing between when a previous version of the club closed and a new version opened, ...I think between II and III. on a music forum, another friend had lost his avatar (a gumball machine), which I found for him on an old version of the forum.
stalhandske 23-Nov-21, 20:08	Hogfys <that's how I found the lightbulb on the home page of this club, when it had gone missing between when a previous version of the club closed and a new version opened, ...I think between II and III.> That's right. I had not secured that light bulb, and your help was invaluable! Just look at the beauty of it
stalhandske 23-Nov-21, 20:39	How many in the US 'believe' in evolution theory? There has been some argument about this, but that's unnecessary because it has been studied blogs.scientificamerican.com Much depends (as expected) on exactly how the question is put. But, the conclusion is interesting: <These findings are in keeping with arguments by sociologists of religion that highly religious Americans may feel conflicted about saying humans have evolved, unless they are able to clarify that they also believe God had a hand in the development of life. Indeed, the subset of people who respond differently to the two survey approaches consists mainly of those who believe that God or a higher power played a role in human evolution. For example, nearly all white evangelical Protestants who say humans have evolved—whether in a branched-choice or single-question format—also say God had a role in human evolution.> So, when even the most highly religious US Christians are asked the appropriate single question (see article), their vast majority accepts evolution - just like the case among Catholics, European Lutherans, and the English Church. Any other claim (as seen in a single-member club here), is just false information. But as we have learned over the years, that's the characteristic of this individual. All one needs to do is to look up the facts. Lazy people who are already convinced of the outcome won't do that.
zorroloco 19-Dec-21, 16:57	This is wonderful www.onezoom.org Welcome to the OneZoom tree of life explorer... An interactive map of the evolutionary links between all living things known to science. Discover your favourites, see which species are under threat, and be amazed by the diversity of life on earth.
bobspringett 19-Dec-21, 17:36	Zorro 16:57 A great chart, mate! But it doesn't list the Vombatus Horribilis (Dreaded Black Wombat). Has it bee censored so it could be shown to children without giving them nightmares?
stalhandske 19-Dec-21, 18:38	Bob 17:36 Not only censored for children, but also for Members of this Club, most of whom have to fight those Vombati Horribili every day anyway.
riaannieman 19-Dec-21, 22:26	stalhandske; 19-Dec-21, 18:38: ".....have to fight those Vombati Horribili every day....." She cooks sometimes- I don't fight, because I don't know what she put in the food. I am wary of unknown mushrooms, strange roots and berries, and new spices to which my palate have not become accustomed to. This is why I usually offer to cook. Just to be sure.
stalhandske 19-Dec-21, 22:31	Riaan <This is why I usually offer to cook. Just to be sure. > I would not dream to do that. First, because (even as a chemist) I am really no good cook, But, much more importantly, because my Vombatus terribile is a fantastic cook, and a specialist on mushrooms! May be she isn't that 'terribile' after all?
riaannieman 20-Dec-21, 05:30	At last I had a moment to look at the blog mentioned by stalhandske; 22-Nov-21, 23:48. In the first paragraph I found a misstatement. "Science does not allow for facts, only theories and laws." My reactions was "Whaaaaaaaat??????" In the second paragraph he says ".....from pointing to micro as evidence of macro....." And that is exactly the point! His tone implies that it is contradictory. I further read through the post and realized that there are several misstatements and outright lies. One of them was that Darwin came to the realization while on the ship, The Beagle. If I remember correctly the catalyst was when he stepped on shore at the Galapagos Islands; he had observed some phenomena, and noted it, but the realization dawned upon him when he observed the finches. Please correct me if I am wrong. This is how I remember history. As for speciation- I have made mention of it before, and I mention it again. I have family that is heavily involved and invested in breeding back the extinct Quagga (Equus quagga quagga). Their efforts are coordinated and conducted by the University of Stellenbosch, and the efforts are showing promising results. If successful, I will have observed it right in front of my eyes over a period- so far just over 26 years, when I married my wife. (It is her uncle and cousins who is involved in this project.) Although it is true that the resulting animal will not be the true original species, gene research have been underway and I heard from my cousin that they intend to alter the genes later to closely resemble the original species. Apparently that is still many years away. I understand that it is easier to continue with the current program until a certain point in time, when it will no longer be optimal and tinkering with the genes will be inevitable. When I got to the part of the E. Coli research, I decided that I need to spend more time on the spiritual thread of Spinoza.
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, free online chess games database, chess clubs, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, online chess puzzles and more.