Atheism

Originally posted by Oliver North
I mean I'm the only person who has taken you seriously in this thread and the first thing you do is accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about

idiot

EDIT: I liked you better when you said you were leaving...

I see now. The way you wrote your response to the Aquatic Ape question read just like a Wikipedia, and the fact that you called it a Theory provided further testament to my assumption. Generally people who mislabel a hypothesis as a theory do so because they have very limited knowledge of the subject, and they obtained the information via wiki etc. You obviously didn't understand the tone of what I wrote.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I liked you better when you said you were leaving

Originally posted by Oliver North

Apparently I don't mesh with the mob mentality on the Atheist thread.

the mob mentality of me being offended by your response to my, and only my, answer to a question you asked?

Originally posted by Oliver North
the mob mentality of me being offended by your response to my, and only my, answer to a question you asked?

mostly your peers, but you're doing a pretty good job.

of what, thinking you are an idiot?

Originally posted by Oliver North
of what, thinking you are an idiot?

ahhh. the name calling. how enlightened you are.

I don't remember claiming to be enlightened... idiot

EDIT: all i did was sincerely answer a question you asked

[QUOTE=14257472]Originally posted by Oliver North
hey, apparently atheists don't know anything about science...

EDIT: tongue in cheek, I'd go toe-to-toe with Raisen on, literally, any scientific topic [/QUOTE

You did make yourself out appear scientifically enlightened. I already know your retort...."In comparison to Raisen" etc. Please just stop before you have to backpedal

Originally posted by Oliver North
I don't remember claiming to be enlightened... idiot

EDIT: all i did was sincerely answer a question you asked

And I sincerely responded. I even explained why I responded in that manner; yet you chose this route.

Originally posted by Raisen
and the fact that you called it a Theory provided further testament to my assumption. Generally people who mislabel a hypothesis as a theory do so because they have very limited knowledge of the subject, and they obtained the information via wiki etc.

I'm just going to touch of this because I am petty and pedantic.

Aquatic Ape is a theory. It is an explanation for a series of observations that one can use to generate new questions for research. Hence, a theory. A hypothesis is a specific question that can be addressed in an experiment or some other type of method. So, for instance, questions about comparative cranial capacity, changes in pre-human diets or the ease of childbirth in the water would be specific hypotheses related to aquatic ape theory.

The Descent of Woman itself uses multiple lines of evidence to support aquatic ape theory, and doesn't present it as a singular testable hypothesis at any time. You are free to challenge this, but I would ask you, what then is the specific testable hypothesis that could be, by itself, called "aquatic ape".

That being said, given your own admitted ignorance of the issue, and the fact your friend is in anthropology, it is understandable that the nuance of scientific terminology isn't something you would know.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm just going to touch of this because I am petty and pedantic.

Aquatic Ape is a theory. It is an explanation for a series of observations that one can use to generate new questions for research. Hence, a theory. A hypothesis is a specific question that can be addressed in an experiment or some other type of method. So, for instance, questions about comparative cranial capacity, changes in pre-human diets or the ease of childbirth in the water would be specific hypotheses related to aquatic ape theory.

The Descent of Woman itself uses multiple lines of evidence to support aquatic ape theory, and doesn't present it as a singular testable hypothesis at any time. You are free to challenge this, but I would ask you, what then is the specific testable hypothesis that could be, by itself, called "aquatic ape".

That being said, given your own admitted ignorance of the issue, and the fact your friend is in anthropology, it is understandable that the nuance of scientific terminology isn't something you would know.

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify"😉 or empirically contradict ("falsify"😉 it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis'😉.

The aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH) or aquatic ape theory (AAT) is a hypothesis about human evolution, which posits that the ancestors of modern humans spent a period of time adapting to a semiaquatic existence.
AAH has not been accepted among the mainstream explanations of human evolution.

PLEASE JUST STOP

You are attacking me, yet you are proving my original assertion. Please read up before you form such a "strong" stance. You are using a single reference to call something a Theory; which in itself, doesn't support the very definition of Theory. You apparently don't even know the difference between hypothesis and theory.

I really approached you with respect, but now you're FORCING me to go on the offensive.

/slow clap

Originally posted by Raisen
You are attacking me, yet you are proving my original assertion. Please read up before you form such a "strong" stance. I also never "self admitted" any ignorance; you are putting words into my mouth in a desperate attempt to appear correct in this forum. I simply said that I could find the resource that dispelled the hypothesis. You are using a single reference to call something a Theory; which in itself, doesn't support the very definition of Theory. You apparently don't even know the difference between hypothesis and theory.

I really approached you with respect, but now you're FORCING me to go on the offensive.

nono, it's cool man, it's done

lol, there is no way we top that

Now I kind of want to see him and Dolos going at it.

Originally posted by Oliver North
nono, it's cool man, it's done

lol, there is no way we top that

I never intended to approach you aggressively. You've resorted to name calling, putting false words in my mouth, and sarcasm. You conveniently took an hour to respond (finally doing your homework?).

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Now I kind of want to see him and Dolos going at it.

thats probably a human rights violation though.... 🙁

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Now I kind of want to see him and Dolos going at it.

lol. why is that?