Study shows we should be third....

[stemark44]

The decisions that have cost us third place are the ones made by our manager!

 

[brasil_spur]

1) It is called Evolution Theory because it is a theory. Organisms do evolve quickly enough for instances of evolution to be observed. There is also a large fossil record from which we can infer the process of evolution at work over a longer period of time.

It's not called Evolution Theory because it is a Theory, it is called Evolution Theory because when Charles Darwin first started writing about this concept over a hundred years ago it was at that time a theory. Since then it has become a scientific fact, much like the way in which you wouldn't claim that gravity is still a theory (i hope) despite the fact that as far as science is concerned what you are observing and talking about is the Newtonian Theory (the theory of gravitation).

A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. In experimental sciences, a theory can never be "proved", it can only be "disproved" by experiment. This is precisely was makes a theory scientific. There has been no scientific disproving of the theory of evolution as yet.

In the case of evolution there is such an incredibly vast amount of evidence to substantiate it as a process that every scientist in the world of course understands that Evolution is a reality. However as evolution is vastly complex not all aspects of how evolution works are fully understood as yet, but evolution as a concept is real and exists, scientifically there is no debate around that.

That's not to say that religious nut jobs don't still think that man came from God and woman came from the first man's rib. Just that they have zero proof for this and this has been disproved by science a thousand times over.

 

[StartingPrice]

It's not called Evolution Theory because it is a Theory, it is called Evolution Theory because when Charles Darwin first started writing about this concept over a hundred years ago it was at that time a theory. Since then it has become a scientific fact, much like the way in which you wouldn't claim that gravity is still a theory (i hope) despite the fact that as far as science is concerned what you are observing and talking about is the Newtonian Theory (the theory of gravitation).

A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. In experimental sciences, a theory can never be "proved", it can only be "disproved" by experiment. This is precisely was makes a theory scientific. There has been no scientific disproving of the theory of evolution as yet.

In the case of evolution there is such an incredibly vast amount of evidence to substantiate it as a process that every scientist in the world of course understands that Evolution is a reality. However as evolution is vastly complex not all aspects of how evolution works are fully understood as yet, but evolution as a concept is real and exists, scientifically there is no debate around that.

That's not to say that religious nut jobs don't still think that man came from God and woman came from the first man's rib. Just that they have zero proof for this and this has been disproved by science a thousand times over.

Clearly you missed the part where I said I have discussed this at length previously, and have no interest in debating it as the point I was making was nothing to do with Evolution or evolution Theory at all - it is just that some folk need to patrol like nuovo-zealots, and I find it rather tedious.
You also, clearly, missed the part where I said I have no problem with Evolution as an acceptable explanation of the mechanisms by which life came to develop on the planet, from simpler to more complex organisms.

I knew all of this, and didn't need a lecture from you.

You are right that a theory is "the the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment." And I bascially said that, organisms can be seen to be evolving on petri dishes, and that this together with the huge number record of the fossil evidence means that I, for one, accept Evolution as factual.

The amusing thing is that what I mentioned inpassing was the application of Evolution Theory by the national Socialists - this was a process that began way before the 1920s - at a point you would concede, Evoltution Theory, whilst becoming more and more compelling, was still a Theory - without the subsequent work carried out in laboratories - but, there again, you would have to be a historian, which I am, and not a scientist (or, a reader of popular science books) to fully appreciate that.

As I pointed out in the post you decided to take issue with, I really had/have no interest min discussing this in SpursChat, and I don't come onto this forum to discuss anything I would wish to discuss academically (I would go onto an appopriate acadamic forum for that, or, maybe, write a book where I could explain my thinking on an issue at full, without being constantly interrupted by amateurs, or having constant complaints about length of post).

Because you insisted on opening this all up, when I had clearly said this was not the place for it, and because I stated clearly that the point I was making was not an issue of evolution and if (sic.) wished to go back and alter the terminology, for instance to evolution from evolution theory the reference, to National Socialisms using evolution to justify their theories, and because I have got entwined in these type of debates perviously, by folk like you who clearly have axes (of varying dullnesses) to grind, and because I did state that these debates are in the archives (but also very time-consumming) maybe (sic.) could just go and read them rather than troubling me, and because anyone with the amount of intellectual understanding realises fully that there is nothing inherently antipathetic between religion and evolution, many religious people who accept evolution as factual, and many other bodies of knowledge than science, with many complex arguements which make the simple reduction of Hypotheised Deity to scientific proof laughable, and for the silly, childish labelling of anyone who has religious belief (that's how it reads) as a religious nut job, a tendency demonisation I am finding more and more alarming in a supposedly liberal World, I am putting you on IGNORE.

p.s. If you had went and read the debates we had back in the day, you would see that I have provided nothing but agnostic arguments here.

p.p.s. Now, for anyone else who wants a debate on this, go onto chat and argue with anyone who has more patience with the likes of Brasil than I have.

 

[LeSoupeKitchen]

Coulda woulda shoulda.

I get your point SP but the point is it's all about 'could' rather than 'should'. We can sit here and moan about decisions until the cows come home, and after the games we will continue to do that I'm sure.

But even without considering SK's point that it's not as cut and dry as 'if we'd got that penalty we'd have won' or 'if we'd not had a bit of luck we'd have lost', the difference for this season is only 6 points (if you take that table at face value...which I think is dangerous).

How many points have we lost due to our own incompetence? Or through the other team simply being better than us? A lot more that's for certain.

To me it always seems very small time and pedantic to be whinging about decisions going against you. Part of football is dealing with those decisions and going on to win anyway. Yes if it was costing us 20 points a season it would be different, but in the greater scheme of things it's small patatas my friend. We have bigger issues to think about and I hope our club as a whole doesn't take on the victim approach of the bindippers who claim to have referees, the woodwork, black people, Jesus and Alex Ferguson against them.

The thing is, I can handle losing games due to our own incompeteance. Yes I'll feel gutted that we lost and I'll replay the moment x player missed an open goal and think about what could have been. I will, however, accept the fact that we lost, that is was down to our players abilities and that is how football works. Losing a game to terrible refereeing leaves me 100 times more angry and upset as it is outside of our players control and therefore makes the entire sport pointless.

In terms of what would have happenned had the decisions been correctly made- I agree that in theory our season may have been even worse as x player might have then got injured or we would have missed the penalty and lost our confidence. But probability wise if you replayed the season over and over with the decisions made correctly, the average result would have us finishing higher.

 

[brasil_spur]

p.s. If you had went and read the debates we had back in the day, you would see that I have provided nothing but agnostic arguments here.

p.p.s. Now, for anyone else who wants a debate on this, go onto chat and argue with anyone who has more patience with the likes of Brasil than I have.

p.s. Obviously i have not read these debates, perhaps i wasn't even a member when they occurred - no need to get all high and mighty about it.

p.p.s. Wow, nice adult take on this, hmmm you're about 12 then i take it? Seriously no need to get all snidey and petty over things. My stand point on evolution (a subject which YOU raised in this thread lest we forget) is basically the scientifically agreed fact on the matter, yours is a debate on semantics and frankly has no firm scientific basis. However no need to behave like a spoiled child StartingPrice - i'd have thought better of you.