Gary Lineker in a spot of bother

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

Hmmm all this is very interesting.

Pretty much everyone knows where I stand vis a vis religion. However I firmly believe in evolution whereas I think intelligent design is extremely dangerous fucktardery of the highest order. However what makes me stand out from most religios is I am quite willing to admit that I might be wrong.... my faith might be mistaken but it works for me. So, as a 'weird' sort-of-Muslim I think commentators need to be a bit clued up about what they are commentating.... I think if you expect to work on tv you shouldnt go around spouting off on the tv but respect all cultures out there... is it alright for him to say if a black player danced round the corner flag 'that must be some African war ritaul!'? Dont think so. At the same time, there's no need for a bloody imam to get involved and I think it hysterical that it happened on Al-Jazeera.... pot... kettle.... black

 

[beorhthelm]

I really don't have to make such predictions based on evidence.

thats convenient isnt it.

So, it is a science, but so is the science of homeopathy...

science of homeopathy

no it isnt. it has offered no proof of its working and the proposed hypothosis of how it functions is deeply flawed and contradictary (if water retains "memory" of the good stuff it must also remember all the bad stuff its contacted, so would be poisionous). just because some crackpots attribute the word "science" to something does make it so. Evolution on the other hand has observable predictions that can demonstrate it.

 

[Seagull58]

Oh, really? So it has been proven? After all those years, they have finally found
the missing link? After all those cases of falsified or scientifically inaccurate "evidence",
they've finally managed to find the proof?

Amazing! How could I have missed that?

Would you be so kind as to post a link for me? Surely such a breakthrough
in science must have been announced all over the Internet?

We know what your belief is but we're talking about scientific fact/theory vs religious belief or faith. Please don't start all this nonsense because you happen to believe in an omnipotent being who created everything and you choose not to believe scietific evidence.

 

[Guy Crouchback]

so you dont "believe" in science, despite everything around you that is built upon it - this method
of communication for one.

The fact that I remain sceptical about one praticular theory doesn't mean that I am against
science per se. I only believe that God, as the Creator of the entire Universe, is the source
of all science (and might have used evolution as one of his tools of Creation, but whether we,
humans, evolved still remains unproven).

at least you are honest about being uneducated

You are quite right about me being uneducated. Apart from having an MSc in Electronic
Engineering (I specialize in Digital Technics) and BA in English Literature, I have no other
education worth mentioning.

However, my atrociously low level of education doesn't change the fact that it is still not
proven beyond all doubt that humans evolved.

 

[Seagull58]

Do you realise that there have been hundreds of such reports on finding the missing link,
and they all turned out to be either falsifications or scientifically innacurate? Tell ya what,
Acker, if the real missing link is finally found and Darwin's theory proven (and when
that happens we can all be sure the entire world will hear about it), I shall send you a crate
of best Polish vodka. Until then it's still "from goo to you by way of the zoo"
(an oversimplification, I know, but that's the gist of it, right?)



Of course I realise they have been digging out those fossils for over 150 years now,
but they still haven't found the missing link, have they? Besides, you can't very well
draw comparisons between a scientific theory and Christian religion.
Words 'faith' and 'knowledge' belong to two different semantic categories and if we start
mixing them up we shall arrive at nonsensical conclusions or gross oversimplifications.

Anyway, don't get me wrong - while looking at some people I do not find the theory
of evolution to be entirely unlikely to turn out to be true one day. However, until that
happens, being a cautious man, I shall remain sceptical.

A vast body of scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution. A few books that were written about 1900 years ago, and have been copied and rewritten, accurately or not, many times since, support your faith-based hypothesis. You're not a cautious man. You're a very gullible one.

 

[Guy Crouchback]

You're not a cautious man. You're a very gullible one.

People, whatever you say about me: that I am uneducated, gullible, a fucktard
etc. etc. (which, I concede, is all true) it still doesn't change the fact that it is
not proven beyond all doubt that humans evolved.

For fear of repeating myself too many times, I hereby cease my activity in this thread.

I shall pray for you all to Our Lord Jesus Christ and Saint Virgin Mary the Queen of Poland.

All best wishes.

 

[beorhthelm]

You are quite right about me being uneducated. Apart from having an MSc in Electronic
Engineering ...

so you must understand well the Theory of Electromagnetism, based at least a years acedemic work on that, yet because its a theory according to you it not proven? presumably your dissertation is unproven too. well done.

 

[jgmcdee]

Well, it may be my limited knowledge of English but does 'valid' in fact mean
the same as 'true' or 'proven'? If I, for example, made a statement, let's call
it Crouchback's First Theorem, saying that "All Crystal Palace fans are wankers",
then such statement would certainly be valid, as there would appear to be
more than one proof to confirm it. But would the statement be true?
Well, we wouldn't be able to tell it with certainty until we conducted a thorough
and detailed scientific reasearch of all Palace fans' sexual behaviour (not a nice
task, I know, but hey - sometimes science requires sacrifice, right?)

This is neither a theory nor a theorem, but a hypothesis. And although it's valid in terms of grammar there is no other validity you can attach to it without research.

Regarding testing your hypothesis you need to look at every Palace fan to find out if they are wankers. You don't get to find one that's a wanker and go "well there you go then" because that doesn't tel you anything by itself. Conversely, if you test one and find that they aren't a wanker that does tell you something, namely that your hypothesis is incorrect.

I didn't say I don't believe in evolution (anyway, 'believe' doesn't seem
to be a right word to use in relation to a scientific theory, either something
is proven and then I know it's true, or it is not proven and I don't
know if it's true or not) only that I am sceptical about it. I also said, in the
very same post, that I wouldn't be surprised if one day it turned out to be
true that we evolved.

You're confusing evolution the process with the "Theory of Evolution" as put forward by Darwin. It has been proven time and again that we evolve, but the discussions about the finer points around the mechanism, speed, frequency and similar are all largely up for grabs.

And I'm not going to bother to reply to the rest; if you say you have a degree in engineering and then quote homeopathy as an example of a science you really weren't paying much attention in class and remind me not to hire you to do any work for me (after all, this whole electromagnetism thing is just a theory).

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

For anyone interested in what Einstein's views on religion...
Albert Einstein: Quotes on God, Religion, Theology

 

[Triggaaar]

Until neither The Intelligent Project or the evolution theory is proven, I can remain sceptical.

I think you mean 'either', otherwise it's time to end your skepticism.

So, it is a science, but so is the science of homeopathy...

science of homeopathy

A bold statement, but I still believe that it was God who created the Universe and whether He used evolution in the process or not is a secondary issue.

That isn't a bold statement, that's just saying you believe in God. If you believe in him, then it would be weird to think he didn't create the universe.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

For anyone interested in what Einstein's views on religion...
Albert Einstein: Quotes on God, Religion, Theology

Thanks for this... a lot of truth there.

However I particualrly liked:

Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)

This I DEFINITELY agree with.

 

[Triggaaar]

Well, it may be my limited knowledge of English but does 'valid' in fact mean the same as 'true' or 'proven'? If I, for example, made a statement, let's call it Crouchback's First Theorem, saying that "All Crystal Palace fans are wankers", then such statement would certainly be valid, as there would appear to be more than one proof to confirm it. But would the statement be true?
Well, we wouldn't be able to tell it with certainty until we conducted a thorough and detailed scientific reasearch of all Palace fans' sexual behaviour

Your theory would be subject to the same rules as other theories:

Or to quote wiki 'A scientific theory cannot be proven; its key attribute is that it is falsifiable, that is, it makes predictions about the natural world that are testable by experiments. Any disagreement between prediction and experiment demonstrates the incorrectness of the scientific theory, or at least limits its accuracy or domain of validity.'

It's not provable, but it is falsifiable. We only need to find one Palace fan that doesn't meet your theory to falsify your theory. That could be done.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Changing the thread title might not be a bad idea

 

[GOM]

Was Crouch praying Muslim stylee when he did his famous goal celebration on the touchline ?

 

[MJsGhost]

Hay guys, enough of the puns! There's no more silage in this particular topic...

 

[Surrey_Albion]

Religion is a load of bollocks and the sooner the whole world realise it the better

Exactly this, we are all adult ffs! also there is no Santa or Easter Bunny either, really do not understand religious types, apologies if I offend but if I do then you need to grow up

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

In most modern debates about religion, there seems to be a rather narrow focus on the irrelevant issue of origins. It would be far more interesting if people concentrated on rival explanations of good and evil (for example).

Totally agree. The assumption that any card carrying Christian must totally believe the Creation story belongs in the "it's either black or white" school, with no room for shades of grey.

Being a card carrying Christian, I am well aware that the Creation Story is just a story, and I also read some stuff about Intelligent design last night as well, prompted by this thread, and thought that was a load of old cobblers as well.

I have had some very interesting conversations recently about whether Jesus was a Communist, attitudes to wealth and so on - much more interesting.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

If the world suddenly realised that religion was a load of bollocks would it change anything. I dont think so. Human beings always nneed to believe in something and need to follow something... and they are really good at finding reasons to kill each other so if not religion itll be something else. Religions isnt the issue... its us.

And as I now have to teach law for four hours I will be spared the binfest that may follow this post...

 

[Acker79]

People, whatever you say about me: that I am uneducated, gullible, a fucktard
etc. etc. (which, I concede, is all true) it still doesn't change the fact that it is
not proven beyond all doubt that humans evolved.

For fear of repeating myself too many times, I hereby cease my activity in this thread.

I shall pray for you all to Our Lord Jesus Christ and Saint Virgin Mary the Queen of Poland.

All best wishes.

I would like to point out that I have not insulted you, I have tried to avoid the discussion on religion (I really don't understand the point of insulting someone for their religion, and am bored with the discussion of religion on here at the moment).

I am merely highlighting how your argument against evolution is quite spurious. - That it's "only a theory", that it is undermined by a missing link are not actual arguments that have any legitimacy. That the proofs of evolution are so wide and consistent that evolution, including human evolution, is as close to proven as anything in science. I hope you don't feel like I have been disrespectful to you or your religion.

 

[Triggaaar]

People, whatever you say about me: that I am uneducated, gullible, a fucktard

Millions of intelligent people believe. Intelligence and belief are not mutually exclusive.

still doesn't change the fact that it is not proven beyond all doubt that humans evolved.

It has been proven beyond all doubt. That doesn't mean that people won't doubt it for any number of reasons. But as with intelligence, many people accept evolution and also believe in a god.