Gary Lineker in a spot of bother

[Acker79]

double post

 

[BadFish]

It seems a little unfair that of the two theories offered one requires proof but the other only requires faith

 

[spring hall convert]

What a braindead thing to say.

 

[Questions]

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?

What are the two bits that need linking Guy ?

 

[Dan Gleeballs]

Who grassed him up?

Made me laugh

 

[Barrel of Fun]

It seems a little unfair that of the two theories offered one requires proof but the other only requires faith

Indeed, indeed.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

It seems a little unfair that of the two theories offered one requires proof but the other only requires faith

Both are highly dependent upon faith.

 

[Triggaaar]

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?

Perhaps because you don't pay much attention. Proof of so called 'missing links' have been found.

 

[Triggaaar]

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

Ah, I see the debate continued. What do you mean 'the' missing link is found? I suspect you mean something about humans, not sure, because there is no 'one' (ie, 'the') link. All living creatures have evolved. Most species that existed are now extinct. There are links between all existing creatures and their ancestors, and most links will never be found. But some of the previously 'missing' links have been found, like fossils of birds with wings and claws on the end of their wings from when they were legs etc (I can't be bothered to look that up for you, but they exist and are verified).

But despite that, Darwin's theory will not be proven, because as Acker says 'In science, theory is the ultimate goal'. 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.'

 

[Perkino]

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

You do realise that you criticise your own religion in that statement therefore making your statement ...

 

[beorhthelm]

Both are highly dependent upon faith.

incorrect. one is based on faith and irrational believes. the other is based on evidence and structured processes of testing and elimination. evolution can be tested for and proven to occur. does this mean we must have evolved? not quite, but rationally it seems more probable than not. the current alternatives are baseless, offering no proves, nor mechanisms to support observations, nor anything to test for, just faith.

 

[ArfurW8]

So we have people actually arguing creationism on NSC now? JCLs man.

Gary Lineker apologises: "I'm sorry but I'm not aware of every player's religion. "

Having watched his presenting on the Open a few years ago,and his work on the Olympics this year,there are a number of things he is not aware of.

 

[looney]

What a load of fucktards.

A theory is a conjecture, it seeks the proof to turn it into scientific fact.

Darwin had a Theory about evolution, now its evolutionary science.

Religion is bollocks.

 

[looney]

because as Acker says 'In science, theory is the ultimate goal'.

In your art school dreams maybe, scientific theory is a means, it is not an end in itself.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

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).

 

[jackanada]

Many people
suspected Fermat's Last Theorem to be true for many years... Until those three letters Q.E.D. appeared
under the final proof of the theorem, it was, in fact, unproven (I really feel like I'm stating
the obvious here).

.

About Fermat's Last Threorem:

This theorem was first conjectured by Pierre de Fermat in 1637, famously in the margin of a copy of Arithmetica where he claimed he had a proof that was too large to fit in the margin. No successful proof was published until 1995 despite the efforts of countless mathematicians during the 358 intervening years.​

.

Would like to clarify that Fermat made a conjecture - which became incorrectly known as his Last Theorem as it was the last of his hypotheses remaining to be proved or disproved. It became a Theorem once it had been demonstrated and substantiated with a rigour anyone without a Professorship may not be able to imagine.

Darwin conjectured (made a hypothesis) (had an educated guess) about evolution, he backed it up with some observations to show that while in no means did he believe he had cracked it it was at least plausible, and perhaps credible.

Many thousands, if not millions, of observations and experiments, of new scientific techniques and discoveries being able to be assimilated into this model have made it a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Yes there are still parts to be explained, and there are plenty of scientists who find room for God in this understanding of the universe, but to deny it really makes you a -to borrow the word - fucktard.

Not convinced - how about GRAVITY - that is a scientific theory, our understanding of it has grown more complicated since it was 'discovered' and there are still mysteries around it, but really, who is going to deny the existence of GRAVITY?

finally, speaking of fucktards...

A theory is a conjecture, it seeks the proof to turn it into scientific fact.

not in science fucktard

 

[00snook]

Perhaps because you don't pay much attention. Proof of so called 'missing links' have been found.

Yeah.

Carlos Tevez is one of them.

 

[Jesus Gul]

wonder what strain of Islam this guy follows

http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/oddballs/877040-danny-celebrates-zenit-goal-vs-porto-by-pretending-to-urinate-like-a-dog

 

[topbanana36]

for those who think religion is bollocks look what the book of fairy tales says. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.
For the word of the cross is stupidity to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. i thought this was interesting.

 

[Guy Crouchback]

only one proof is required to establish the theorem's validity[/indent]

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?)

which seems to go against your point of not believing in Evolution

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.

I agree that the analogy to the mathematical theorem was not very precise.

Given the evidence available which theory do you think is most credible?

I really don't have to make such predictions based on evidence. Until neither The Intelligent
Project or the evolution theory is proven, I can remain sceptical. In fact, I believe that
God might have used one or the other in the process of creation. I also believe that he
created the gravity and other things mentioned by other posters in this thread.

It seems a little unfair that of the two theories offered one requires proof but the other only requires faith

Well, if Darwininsts would like to have the feeling of scientific superiority over the supporters
of intelligent project theory, then they should be able to refute all the apparent inconsistencies
in their theory.

Darwin had a Theory about evolution, now its evolutionary science.

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

science of homeopathy

Religion is bollocks.

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.