Science, Creation & EvolutionEvolution Stickers To Be Removed From TextbooksI'm going to answer this for you in an interesting way. A couple years back I was bringing up the idea that the AIDS dissidents could be right because they had a lot of evidence AGAINST the connection of HIV = AIDS. However, evidence against a theory is only holes in the theory unless you offer a BETTER one in place, Let me reproduce the replies I got to me, and you can get a very clear answer to your question if you can understand it: "There is an established theory with a lot of evidence for it (spread mechanism for the HIV, correlation between HIV and AIDS and numerous other things you have consistently seen fit to ignore), even though our knowledge is not entirely comprehensive and there are gaps. So you come along and say that because of <insert gap in knowledge>, all of it is nothing but rubbish, but you don't even offer an alternative theory, or if you do, it fits the observed events and facts worse than the one you disparage. You are exactly like a creationist who says that because we do not know exactly what happened in between the birth of the universe and one unit of Planck time, everything we know should be discarded and we should espouse Young Earth Creationism instead, you are no different than those fools. Once the dissident crowd actually hatches a theory, it gets evaluated, and If #1: it fits the facts better than the old one, then their work is good. If #2: it fits as well, but has more variables, Occam's Razor cuts it out of the running. If #3: it doesn't fit as well, it gets thrown out. So far all they've managed is #3. Their "research" doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and it is therefore rejected, and all they do is bitch and moan about how they're not given equal treatment, just like creationists. Sorry, but superior performance is given superior merit, deal with it. The challenge is: Produce a model of AIDS that fits all observed facts better than the current one and that supports your position, or produce a theory that supports your stance and fits the facts as well and with the same number of variables and you'll be taken seriously. #1 and #2 from the above list." To top it off I asked: Justforfun000 wrote: If they are valid points against the heart of the theory, then how does that not discredit it? If they are conclusively shown to be either wrong or not supported by evidence, than does this not disprove the theory? "They are not valid against the heart of the theory, you numbskull! They only point out what the mainstream already knows, namely the areas where knowledge is lacking! They do not come withing parsecs of touching the heart of the theory, just like creationists don't come within parsecs of touching the evolution or Big Bang theories. You are, for the purposes of this debate, no better than a creationist, just like I pointed out at the start, and you have it down to a T, Invincible Wall of Ignorance included." So with that rather embarrasing ass-handed-to-me-soundly answer to my questions, I finally got it. You should be able to see in relation exactly what the answer is to your question. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame