Wrong-way evolution of the creationist movement

[quote name='zionoverfire']Well good so now we only need to toss out anything that can't be directly demonstrated in an experiment, I guess that means we should toss quantum mechanics right out the window, who cares if it works if we can't test it. Most of science is theory and many theories cannot be proven.[/QUOTE]

The statement "who cares if it works if we can't test it" is a paradox. You don't know it works unless you can test it. Unless by "it works" you mean, "I dream of it producing measurable results".

Any theories that cannot be proven come under very heavy criticism in science. For example, string theory has come under a lot of criticism for being untestable. In the mean time, it manages to scrape by on the hope that we will eventually develop methods to perform the proposed experiments. Which is ok as long as no one tries to insinuate that it is anything more than question (and therefore has no more scientific authority than any other question).

In any case, untestable theories have no practical value. If they did then they would have a testable effects. I think mankind would generally agree that theories which are ultimately untestable are useless to everyone except scientific romantics.
 
[quote name='chunk'] Any theories that cannot be proven come under very heavy criticism in science. [/QUOTE]

And after they stand up to that critism we use them and if after a time we find a flaw we either modify the theory or replace it. Look at classical physics, it doesn't work in all situations yet without belief that is was right and correct we never would have produced the experiments and calculations to refute it. For all we know the theory of gravity is unprovable but I have seen very few people who wish to challenge it's teaching, why? Because it doesn't interfer with their religious beliefs. The scientific evidence backing the theory of evolution is far greater than that backing gravity. We can demonstrate that gravity occurs and how it occurs but we cannot explain why it occurs. With the theory of evolution we can show that evolution occurs we can show how it occurs and we can explain why it occurs, what we cannot do is create a time machine and go back into the past and detail every little step of it's occurance in detail for you, if that's not good enough for you then perhaps you shouldn't rely on the field of biology for any answers at all since most of it is based on far more shaky ground.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']And after they stand up to that critism we use them and if after a time we find a flaw we either modify the theory or replace it. Look at classical physics, it doesn't work in all situations yet without belief that is was right and correct we never would have produced the experiments and calculations to refute it. For all we know the theory of gravity is unproven but I have seen very few people who wish to challenge it's teaching, why? Because it doesn't interfer with their personal beliefs.[/QUOTE]

No. After they are proven they are used. Fending off criticisms is not enough. Furthermore, you assume that all theories automatically pass from unproven to proven after a time. This certainly isn't the case. Most theories end up being proven wrong when they are tested. Otherwise, we wouldn't need to test them now would we? And regardless of what you think, we DO need to test them.

Also, you are wrong about classical physics. Classical physics did not coast by on belief that it was correct. It passed controlled experiments proving that it was correct.

The theory of gravity is proven. At least to a much much greater extent than biological evolution. That is why no one is challenging its teaching, because it is proven. Every high school graduate in America has performed experiments proving the theory of gravity, but no one has performed an experiment demonstrating the evolution of amebas into parrots.

There is nothing about evolution that interferes with beliefs more than gravity. Gravity interferes with personal beliefs as much as anything else does, but as long as you provide scientific proof people will, begrudgingly, adjust their beliefs accordingly. That is why evolution faces so much opposition while gravity does not, because gravity provides irrefutable scientific evidence while evolution provides next to nothing by comparison.

You are so quick to jump to conclusions. Where is the spirit of scientific skepticism? Science has no place for gullibility.
 
[quote name='chunk']
The theory of gravity is proven. At least to a much much greater extent than biological evolution. That is why no one is challenging its teaching, because it is proven.[/QUOTE]

And that right there is why you shouldn't even be in this conversation.

Come back when you understand what the word theory means.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']And that right there is why you shouldn't even be in this conversation.

Come back when you understand what the word theory means.[/QUOTE]

Oh please. You have no idea what you are talking about. I know that in your elementary school class they probably made a big deal about the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a law, but if you grow up and become a real scientist then you will find that the terms are used pretty loosely, especially theory and law. Obviously, you don't know this because if you did then you would be aware that usually the choice of the word "theory" or "law" has more to do with whichever was more popular when the theory caught on. For example, the "theory of relativity" (at least special relativity) is really more of a law than a theory. Its used extensively in commercial applications for godsakes.

You are the one who shouldn't be in this conversation. I can't believe that we keep having to talk about elementary school bullshit instead of the real issues. Also, I am I sick of bringing up what you should have learned in elementary school, the scientific method:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

This is the goal of all scientific theories. Lets look at gravity. #1 check. #2 check. #3 check. #4 check. Ok, all checks. In science, that means the theory has been "proven".

You have no respect for experimental evidence and controlled experiments in science, yet you think that I shouldn't be in this conversation because of my use of the word theory. If I weren't so tired of the nonsense that you and the others keep spouting then I would find it laughable.

Please, please, please just stop talking. I can't stand it. I have no self control and I can't help myself from replying, but this conversation is intolerable.
 
Actually your complete and total lack of understanding of science continues to astound me, you continue to use simplified concepts for first year students when trying to play with the big boys.

It's called the Theory of gravity because we do NOT KNOWN WHY IT exists. You CANNOT prove the existance of something simply based on its effects, when we understand how the force of gravity is created then we can prove it's existance.

And for god's sake please stop confusing Newton's law of universal gravitation with the theory of gravity it not only makes you look stupid but it makes it look like you haven't even taken a basic physics class to go along with the biology classes you apperently slept through.
 
[quote name='chunk']
If you think that I don't know the definition of the word science then why don't you tell me what you think the definition is and compare it with what you think I think the definition is? However, before we get into a game of semantics, I should mention that regardless of what you think it is, my definition gets to the core of why science exists, why it is well respected, and why it deserves respect. So you can define science however you want, but I ensure you that the kind that I define is the only kind that has any advantages over things like religion or philosophy.


Honestly. I'm sorry for being so harsh, but some of you guys really need to get your heads out of your asses. I normally hate to push the burden on you to prove me wrong, but I have given the most logical and convincing argument that I can muster and if you ask me it seems very convincing. If you have a problem with my logic then go ahead and use your own logic to prove me wrong from the beginning. Starting with the scientific method...[/quote]

Reading this the first thing that came to mind was "this guys full of himself". You seem to think, but don't turn that thinking back onto yourself, and the assumptions you have arrived at. Usually the person making the argument isn't the one who decides if it is convincing or not. And praising your own argument, stating how great it is, also isn't exactly a sign of humility.

Though if religion proved true, then it would be scientific. As it is, exactly what advantage (besides psychological) does religion have over anything?




There you go again. More uncontrolled experiments. You saying the changes are the result of evolutionary pressures doesn't make it so. How can you tell that the head sizes wouldn't have changed anyway? How do you know it is proof of evolution instead of proof that, lets say, aliens are manipulating the ecosystem? Even if it were evolution, how can you tell they aren't changing due to other pressures? Where is the control?
Click to expand...

If it's change over time, either gradual or in rapid spurts, it is evolution. Evolution has a long history, natural selection is what darwin introduced. If you need to learn the distinction between evolution and evolution through natural selection I'd be more than happy to show you.

Also, there has been no biological evidence of a distinction between humans and other animals, other than more advanced intelligence. There is conclusive evidence, and you yourself have agreed, that evolution occurs in other, fast reproducing, species. And there is an enormous amount of DNA, and paleontological evidence of humans, and other animals, evolving over time (DNA and paleontological) and from a common ancestor (DNA). The controlled experiment is the ideal, and some supporting evidence has been shown through controlled experiments. But other forms of experiments, such as natural experiments and field experiments, are also acceptable in science and more common. The natural evidence observed fits the definition of natural experiments. Again, I'd suggest learning what you're arguing against before doing so. I swear the less you're contradicted, the more you rant and the more you stumble. Everytime you try to discuss a new area of science, a new misconception emerges.


Obviously, you don't know this because if you did then you would be aware that usually the choice of the word "theory" or "law" has more to do with whichever was more popular when the theory caught on.
Click to expand...

Law refers to general principals, and is a general description. Theories are hypothesis with strong evidene and are usually more complex. It's funny though, you trying to tell people what terms scientists use in their day to day work.


Though, looking at your posts, you seem to be becoming aggravated. I've actually been hoping for this for a few posts now, and it appears I've finally seen it.

I am not familiar with the human genome project. However, that is irrelevant to this conversation. I imagine that you aren't familiar with the person Melchizedek, but that doesn't diminish your ability to determine that the bible is not a scientific document. I think that this illustrates one of your fundamental misunderstandings regarding science. Science is not about knowing the right facts and citing the right authorities. It is a method for finding a certain kind of fact and you do NOT gain a better understanding of science by simply memorizing what you have heard or read somewhere.
Click to expand...

Also, Melchizedek is a particular person, knowing the name of a person provides no benefit to any argument other than history. The human genome project is a massive, and quite famous, genetic research project mapping the human genome, or in simple terms, mapping out every single gene in human DNA, with the hope of using it to tell what individual genes do and how they work. In discussing genetics, your comparison is the equivalent suggesting that not understanding natural selection, and not knowing who darwin is, are equal of a liability in discussing evolution.

Also, for the most part, science has moved beyond the time where you can be self educated and a loner and make great scientific discoveries. Again, there are exceptions, but to improve on science you need to know the previous research that has been done. Now, you can go back and challenge that research, but you need to understand other research done in that field.

How do you know it is proof of evolution instead of proof that, lets say, aliens are manipulating the ecosystem?
Click to expand...

How do I know I'm really talking to you? Maybe this entire would is all made up for me, and I'm on TV and people watch me everyday, like "the truman show". Seriously, my suggestion isn't much more ridiculous.
 
[quote name='chunk']
the scientific method:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

This is the goal of all scientific theories. Lets look at gravity. #1 check. #2 check. #3 check. #4 check. Ok, all checks. In science, that means the theory has been "proven".
[/QUOTE]

Congradulations Chunk! You've figured out how to SUPPORT a theory not to prove one. Maybe next you'll take another baby step and figure out that there is a difference between a theory and law! :baby:
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Actually your complete and total lack of understanding of science continues to astound me, you continue to use simplified concepts for first year students when trying to play with the big boys.

It's called the Theory of gravity because we do NOT KNOWN WHY IT exists. You CANNOT prove the existance of something simply based on its effects, when we understand how the force of gravity is created then we can prove it's existance.[/QUOTE]

The problem is that you are dead wrong. I mean it is is nice that you think that, but in fact it is generally not called the "theory of gravity" unless you are referring to one of einsteins theories. Newton's theory of gravity is usually called the "law of gravity". Ironically enough, einsteins theory of gravity does attempt to explain how gravity works and, relatively speaking, it has a lot of scientific proof backing it up. On the other hand, newton's law of gravity does not attempt to explain gravity by more fundamental principles. Predictably, this is the exact opposite of what you claim.

As many evolutionists correctly point out. "Theory" as used in science does not mean unproven. Proof of a theory does not change it from a theory into something else. It will always be a theory, no matter how much proof is garnered. Normally I don't like to make a big deal out of conventions and terminology (nor do I like to cite web pages), but since you are making such an issue out of this then I have to ask you to just stop making a fool out of yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Furthermore, the details of how gravity works are not relevant to its existence. In science, existence is defined by measureable effects. This should be so painfully obvious. It requires no further explanation. If you can measure it then it exists. If you can't understand this then I can't help you.

Stop dragging the thread off topic. I will not argue about the world "theory" anymore. I won't reply to anymore of your posts unless they deal with evolution and its relative strength as a scientific theory. I don't care if you call it a hypothesis, a theory, a fact, a wild fantasy, or anything else. Vocabulary is not the issue here. The issue is how well evolution meets scientific standards.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Reading this the first thing that came to mind was "this guys full of himself". You seem to think and think, but don't turn that thinking back onto yourself, and the assumptions you have arrived at. Usually the person making the argument isn't the one who decides if it is convincing or not. And praising your own argument, stating how great it is, also isn't exactly a sign of humility. [/quote]

You're right, but you guys are really stretching my nerves thin. No matter how wrong you think I am, I don't think even you would say that I have "no logic".

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Though, exactly what advantage (besides psychological) does religion have over anything? [/quote]

Where did this come from? I was talking about the advantages of science over religion. Man, it's like anytime you see the word religion in the same sentence with a positive word like "advantages" you flip out and get totally distracted.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']If it's change over time, either gradual or in rapid spurts, it is evolution.[/quote]

Well in that case my face evolves hair every morning. ::rolleyes::
By that definition, I doubt anyone thinks that evolution doesn't happen.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Evolution has a long history, natural selection is what darwin introduced. If you need to learn the distinction between evolution and evolution through natural selection I'd be more than happy to show you.[/quote]

I think I know, but I'd be glad to hear what you have to say (although I doubt it is relevant to this discussion).

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Also, there has been no biological evidence of a distinction between humans and other animals, other than more advanced intelligence. There is conclusive evidence, and you yourself have agreed, that evolution occurs in other, fast reproducing, species. And there is an enormous amount of DNA, and paleontological evidence of humans, and other animals, evolving over time (DNA and paleontological) and from a common ancestor (DNA). The controlled experiment is the ideal, but other forms of experiments, such as natural experiments and field experiments, are also acceptable in science and more common. The natural evidence observed fits the definition of natural experiments. Again, I'd suggest learning what you're arguing against before doing so. I swear the less you're contradicted, the more you rant and the more you stumble. [/quote]

No. That is the point. Noncontrolled experiments are not acceptable. You can observe almost anything you want if you are free to select your data, especially with a nebulous and statistical theory like evolution. Doubly so if given very long periods of time.

Do you have any idea what kind of patterns I could find if I only looked at ancient celestial records when developing a theory of planetary motion? And since those are recorded by humans they are more difficult to misinterpret compared to fossils.

Furthermore, similar DNA patterns do not necessarily imply anything about evolution. As our ability to understand DNA increases, our ability to genetically engineer increases in parallel. In the next 20 years we could very well find that much of the genetic similarity arises from some other overarching order apart from common ancestry.

The point is that the DNA evidence doesn't really support evolution, it is just shoehorned in there. For example, suppose that they had access to DNA evidence around 100CE. If they had used your logic then they would have stated that such evidence proves the existence of one god as opposed to many.

You see, if the "evidence" is weak enough then what you "prove" has more to do with what you assume than anything else. How many times do I have to illustrate the faults of uncontrolled experiments? There is a reason why they aren't used as scientific proof.

I am stumbling because you keep going on and on with your uncontrolled experiments and I don't know what else to say. Why do you keep doing this?

How many times do I have to say that uncontrolled experiments do not satisfy the scientific method? So any theory which doesn't have uncontrolled experiments is of a much lesser status than one which does.

Anyway. This is it. I don't have any more time for this bickering. I'm not responding to anymore posts that don't address the scientific method, either from you or anyone else.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Law refers to general principals, and is a general description. Theories are hypothesis with strong evidene and are usually more complex. It's funny though, you trying to tell people what terms scientists use in their day to day work. [/quote]

General descriptions usually aren't referred to as laws without strong evidence. So the technical distinction between a theory and law is pretty subjective. Furthermore, the technical definitions of the terms "theory" and "law" are not generally applied. There are few "laws" nowadays, simply because the term has fallen out of popularity. For example, the "law of gravity" was very complex for its time (Newton created new mathematics in developing it). It certainly started out as a hypothesis and has probably garnered more evidence then any other theory in existence. By the technical definition it is certainly as much of a "theory" as the "theory of relativity" yet it is called a "law" because at the time the term law was more popular. I dare you to find a clear distinction between the "law of gravity" and the "theory of relativity" that justifies the differing terminology.

Why do you find it funny that I am telling people what terms scientists use in their day to day work?

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Though, looking at your posts, you seem to be becoming aggravated. I've actually been hoping for this for a few posts now, and it appears I've finally seen it.[/QUOTE]

Why do you want to make me aggravated? Don't tell me. You guys are pulling my leg. I knew you couldn't possibility be serious with all this nonsense.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Also, Melchizedek is a particular person, knowing the name of a person provides no benefit to any argument other than history. The human genome project is a massive, and quite famous, genetic research project mapping the human genome, or in simple terms, mapping out every single gene in human DNA, with the hope of using it to tell what individual genes do and how they work. In discussing genetics, your comparison is the equivalent suggesting that not understanding natural selection, and not knowing who darwin is, are equal of a liability in discussing evolution.[/quote]

I know what the human genome project is (that they are mapping the human genome). I'm just not familiar with the techniques being employed and what results they have, if any.

In any case, I don't agree with what you say my comparison is equivalent to. The bible is more of a historical document than a scientific theory such as evolution. So the historical people are more relevant to that discussion than darwin would be to evolution. So I think the comparison still holds. You do not need to necessarily know all the details of something to make a determination about it. In fact, many times the reason we don't know about things is because we were smart enough to know they weren't worth pursuing.

Now that isn't to say that evolution isn't worth pursing as a field of research, but as a nonresearch topic it is riddled with problems and in my opinion not worth learning about in great detail.

Would you stick a knife through your hand? Why not, have you ever tried it? You don't need always need to be fully informed to know enough.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Also, for the most part, science has moved beyond the time where you can be self educated and a loner and make great scientific discoveries. Again, there are exceptions, but to improve on science you need to know the previous research that has been done. Now, you can go back and challenge that research, but you need to understand other research done in that field.[/quote]

Yes this is true. However, There is a difference between finding a fault and fixing it and I don't think it is beyond criticism by the layperson. If it ever were then it would lose all meaning as a search for "truth" (although it would still be useful for engineering).

Anyone can think and observe for themselves whether or not the claims of science are true. That is the significance of science.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']How do I know I'm really talking to you? Maybe this entire would is all made up for me, and I'm on TV and people watch me everyday, like "the truman show". Seriously, my suggestion isn't much more ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

That is exactly my point. That is how ridiculous ALL uncontrolled experiments are.
 
[quote name='chunk']It should be painfully clear that if it doesn't offer any advantages then it is useless in every possible way. I'm not sure what you mean by validity, but if it is useless then it is absolutely irrelevant and, therefore, its validity is also irrelevant. So it doesn't "have to have an advantage", but it is a waste of time if it doesn't have anything else to offer.

My religious beliefs don't have anything to do with science. That is exactly the point. By separating the various modes of thought into distinct categories we can more efficiently take advantage of what they have to offer. Just like how any sane person keeps the waffles in the freezer and the gas in the tank of your car. The fact that waffles have nothing to do with gas is the very reason why it is worthwhile to separate them.

The way I see it, it seems that some of you (those of you that think that science explains everything) try to put your waffles in the gas tank and call it gas, simply to avoid facing the reality that you want some waffles. Even if you don't need the waffles, by putting them in the gas tank you contaminate the gas.[/QUOTE]

Now we're getting somewhere.

Science does not have to "offer advantages" to be valid, after all there are plenty of scientific discoveries that have been disadvantageous; for example, scientific discoveries can create destabilizing social conditions (IE Medieval people discovering that the Earth doesn't revolve around the sun) or adverse enviornmental conditions (IE the discovery of poisons like Agent Orange which turned out to kill military personnel and unborn Vietnemese babies)

You also seem to think that religion is analagous to a consumable necessity, likening it to gasoline (your analogy - not mine). Religion is not necessary to have a consistent world view, and in fact a strict materialist has a much more logically consistent worldview then a christian or muslim fundamentalist.
 
[quote name='camoor']Now we're getting somewhere.

Science does not have to "offer advantages" to be valid, after all there are plenty of scientific discoveries that have been disadvantageous; for example, scientific discoveries can create destabilizing social conditions (IE Medieval people discovering that the Earth doesn't revolve around the sun) or adverse enviornmental conditions (IE the discovery of poisons like Agent Orange which turned out to kill military personnel and unborn Vietnemese babies)

You also seem to think that religion is analagous to a consumable necessity, likening it to gasoline (your analogy - not mine). Religion is not necessary to have a consistent world view, and in fact a strict materialist has a much more logically consistent worldview then a christian or muslim fundamentalist.[/QUOTE]

Once again, you show an inability to grasp the most basic of reasoning. The presence of disadvantages does not preclude the presence of advantages. The two are not mutually exclusive. Most things, if not all things, offer both advantages and disadvantages. I never said that science cannot have any disadvantages to be useful or valid. I said that it needed to have advantages. I challenge you to name one thing which you consider "valid" which doesn't offer any advantages. It is impossible because the very reasons why you consider it "valid" are advantages.

This is really very plain and simple. I don't know why you are giving me a hard time about it. Everything has pros and cons. If there are no pros then there can only be cons and that thing is worthless. However, just because there are cons that doesn't mean there aren't pros. What is so hard to understand about that?

Also, I wasn't likening religion to gasoline, I was likening science to gasoline and faith to waffles :) . I disagree that a strictly materialist world view is consistent, but I won't go into the reasons why it is inconsistent because that will take us off topic. In any case, I only brought it up as a possible motivation for why you guys want to shoehorn everything which you consider reasonable under the name of "science". Your motivations could be entirely different, in which case the consistency of strict materialism is moot, but that doesn't change the fact that you want to designate unscientific thoughts as science.

Why don't you get to the point already? Do you have an alternative definition for science or not? Even if you could successfully argue against my definition, without an alternative definition that would only call into question the significance of science itself. I don't think that either of us is trying to argue that science is insignificant, so show your cards already. What is your definition?

Don't worry; I know that what you really think (which is "science is whatever I want to believe") doesn't do much for your side of the argument, but I'm sure you can keep pulling the conversation off topic long enough to think up something else.

(I broke my promise about not replying to posts that don't mention the scientific method, but since we are discussing the definition of science, or at least what determines a good definition for science, I figure it is close enough.)
 
[quote name='chunk']You're right, but you guys are really stretching my nerves thin. No matter how wrong you think I am, I don't think even you would say that I have "no logic".[/quote]

Logic and good logic are two different things.


Where did this come from? I was talking about the advantages of science over religion. Man, it's like anytime you see the word religion in the same sentence with a positive word like "advantages" you flip out and get totally distracted.
Click to expand...

I think even you can understand how a question about what advantage religion holds over science is related to this discussion.



Well in that case my face evolves hair every morning. ::rolleyes::
By that definition, I doubt anyone thinks that evolution doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

](*,) I'm referring to change of living things over generations, not growth of normal things during ones life. Any change from one generation to another that alters the characteristics of the species is evolution. Anyone with an IQ of 10 could have understood that.



I think I know, but I'd be glad to hear what you have to say (although I doubt it is relevant to this discussion).
Click to expand...

"I think I know", that's the whole problem with your argument. You barely understand even the basic principles of evolution, and the proposed means of evolution. Evolution is change over generations, that's all. Natural selection is the means darwin proposed by which evolution occurs. Natural selection means the organisms that are best adapted to their environment are the ones with the best chance of survival and reproduction, therefore their traits becoming more and more prominent over generations.



No. That is the point. Noncontrolled experiments are not acceptable. You can observe almost anything you want if you are free to select your data, especially with a nebulous and statistical theory like evolution. Doubly so if given very long periods of time.
Click to expand...

Well, scientists routinely engage in many different kinds of experiments, two that I mentioned were field experiments and natural experiments. Those are accepted, and more common than, controlled experiments. You are arguing against practices that are accepted as rigorous, and viable. You have to do a better job of explaining why the whole of science should conform to your ideas. Right now, no matter how you argue, that is impossible. You don't understand the different ways science functions, you only understand the extreme basics of genetics, evolution and the scientific method. To present a truly good argument it is usually best to at least be able to discuss these things on the same level and same depth as the people you are arguing against, you don't even come close. You present no evidence to suggest why your view is better than the one currently held on experiments and the scientific method, and you present no counter argument to the suggestions that your view would stifle science due to the fact that much of what is known in science would not be acceptable under you definition.

Do you have any idea what kind of patterns I could find if I only looked at ancient celestial records when developing a theory of planetary motion? And since those are recorded by humans they are more difficult to misinterpret compared to fossils.
Click to expand...

One created by humans, one created by time and earth. One is filled with biases, innacuracies and the like before modern scientists even first glance at it, the other is accurate. Studying fossils is like studying the planetary motion directly, studying a 19th century book on fossils is like studying ancient celestial records and the theories of ancient people.

You need better examples, your examples are ridiculous and don't do anything to support your arguments.


The point is that the DNA evidence doesn't really support evolution, it is just shoehorned in there. For example, suppose that they had access to DNA evidence around 100CE. If they had used your logic then they would have stated that such evidence proves the existence of one god as opposed to many.
Click to expand...

What does what the ancients would do with it have to do with anything? Though nice touch with the CE. You're arguing what may have been if something, which never happened, had happened. And your arguing as if their findings would mean anything today. You saying DNA doesn't support evolution doesn't make it so.


I am stumbling because you keep going on and on with your uncontrolled experiments and I don't know what else to say. Why do you keep doing this?

How many times do I have to say that uncontrolled experiments do not satisfy the scientific method? So any theory which doesn't have uncontrolled experiments is of a much lesser status than one which does.
Click to expand...

A controlled experiment is ideal, but vast, overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with the idea that the only kind of valid experiment is a controlled one. In some fields, particularly psychology, many argue that they aren't even the best kind of experiment.


General descriptions usually aren't referred to as laws without strong evidence. So the technical distinction between a theory and law is pretty subjective.
Click to expand...

Yes, but theories do not become laws. If you were to read a scientific journal the terms are applied to specific meanings, especially the term law.
It certainly started out as a hypothesis and has probably garnered more evidence then any other theory in existence.
Click to expand...

So you fight evolution tooth and nail, but just assume gravity "probably" has more evidence than any theory?

By the technical definition it is certainly as much of a "theory" as the "theory of relativity" yet it is called a "law" because at the time the term law was more popular.
Click to expand...

Where's your evidence for this if you're so certain?

I dare you to find a clear distinction between the "law of gravity" and the "theory of relativity" that justifies the differing terminology.
Click to expand...

Can't, unlike you I realize when something is beyond my experience and understanding, such as physics. I know there are considerable differences, but really can't discuss these things too well. I know there are substantial differences between the way newton described gravity, more as an actual force, and the way einstein described gravity, something to do with curved space and gravity not being an actual force on its own. I don't care about physics, and have never taking anything resembling a physics course or read a book dealing with anything in this field.

Why do you find it funny that I am telling people what terms scientists use in their day to day work?
Click to expand...

Not a scientists, not around any people engaged in scientific work in a situation where they would use scientific terms (and not dumbed down ones so everyone else, such as you or I, can understand).



In any case, I don't agree with what you say my comparison is equivalent to. The bible is more of a historical document than a scientific theory such as evolution. So the historical people are more relevant to that discussion than darwin would be to evolution. So I think the comparison still holds. You do not need to necessarily know all the details of something to make a determination about it. In fact, many times the reason we don't know about things is because we were smart enough to know they weren't worth pursuing.
Click to expand...

We were? Like the ancient greek Heron who invented the steem engine? Or the supposed finding of an ancient egyptian battery, believed to have been used in medicine. Or all the times that states cut off scientific funding because they believed it went nowhere, or stifled it because it contradicted religious doctrine. Science has just as much to do with dumb luck than anything else.

But, you need to understand something in depth to make a strong argument and defense of your opinion and judgement, especially in your case since you aren't providing any evidence for your side. Knowing who thought of an idea or theory is not important (except to know their background, useful in debunking some types of theories), knowing the theory itself, and the evidence to back it up, is essential when arguing against it. You don't need to know anything to have an opinion, but you damn well better know it if you hope to get anywhere when you decide to argue against it.


Would you stick a knife through your hand? Why not, have you ever tried it? You don't need always need to be fully informed to know enough.
Click to expand...

Evidence of why it would be bad: Hard impace on your body hurts, thumbtack in hand hurts. Bullet through hand hurts. Being stabbed hurts. Holes in the body can lead to massive loss of blood and infections. I am fully informed about many of the dangers that risk it. Now, if I had never been cut, never seen a cut, never heard of anyone getting a wound or hurt, then I would not know that it would be painful or dangerous.



Yes this is true. However, There is a difference between finding a fault and fixing it and I don't think it is beyond criticism by the layperson. If it ever were then it would lose all meaning as a search for "truth" (although it would still be useful for engineering).

Anyone can think and observe for themselves whether or not the claims of science are true. That is the significance of science.
Click to expand...

If the lay person wants to educate themself in the scientific theory they want to tackle then they can argue it effectively. If they have no form of education, self taught being a form of education, in that field, then there opinion has no importantce (except, obviously, peoples influence on government funding for science and research). Basically, if you want to tackle a scientific theory, you have to know what support that theory has in the first place.

If they want to set up some sort of experiment where they can record actual verifiable data, then they can. For example, if I believe that tv commercials are getting longer, that isn't a valid scientific statement. If I find data of the average length of old commercials, and record the time (and then average them out) of all the current commercials, then I'd have a way of showing whether my belief was valid.


That is exactly my point. That is how ridiculous ALL uncontrolled experiments are.
Click to expand...

Again, you're arguing against hte scientific community on that one.
 
[quote name='chunk']Once again, you show an inability to grasp the most basic of reasoning. The presence of disadvantages does not preclude the presence of advantages. The two are not mutually exclusive. Most things, if not all things, offer both advantages and disadvantages. I never said that science cannot have any disadvantages to be useful or valid. I said that it needed to have advantages. I challenge you to name one thing which you consider "valid" which doesn't offer any advantages. It is impossible because the very reasons why you consider it "valid" are advantages.

This is really very plain and simple. I don't know why you are giving me a hard time about it. Everything has pros and cons. If there are no pros then there can only be cons and that thing is worthless. However, just because there are cons that doesn't mean there aren't pros. What is so hard to understand about that?

Also, I wasn't likening religion to gasoline, I was likening science to gasoline and faith to waffles :) . I disagree that a strictly materialist world view is consistent, but I won't go into the reasons why it is inconsistent because that will take us off topic. In any case, I only brought it up as a possible motivation for why you guys want to shoehorn everything which you consider reasonable under the name of "science". Your motivations could be entirely different, in which case the consistency of strict materialism is moot, but that doesn't change the fact that you want to designate unscientific thoughts as science.

Why don't you get to the point already? Do you have an alternative definition for science or not? Even if you could successfully argue against my definition, without an alternative definition that would only call into question the significance of science itself. I don't think that either of us is trying to argue that science is insignificant, so show your cards already. What is your definition?

Don't worry; I know that what you really think (which is "science is whatever I want to believe") doesn't do much for your side of the argument, but I'm sure you can keep pulling the conversation off topic long enough to think up something else.

(I broke my promise about not replying to posts that don't mention the scientific method, but since we are discussing the definition of science, or at least what determines a good definition for science, I figure it is close enough.)[/QUOTE]

I picked up a definition that I felt fit the bill from google :

Science - The systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. Also, the methodology used to acquire this knowledge.

Tighten up your writing style. I'm starting to think that you're trying to win the arguement by burying us with your meandering, rambling paragraphs.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Can we just let this thread die? Honestly, not even *I* am whipping this dead horse anymore.[/QUOTE]

But you don't whip dead horses, you just post sick links.;)
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']But you don't whip dead horses, you just post sick links.;)[/QUOTE]

I'm not doing that either!
 
That was some sick shit... Aparantly all the mods BUT Stealthy thought it was ok since I disclaimered and put it in the OT area...
 
[quote name='Kayden']That was some sick shit... Aparantly all the mods BUT Stealthy thought it was ok since I disclaimered and put it in the OT area...[/QUOTE]

Disclaimers don't count, it's still nudity and we don't post nudity links.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Disclaimers don't count, it's still nudity and we don't post nudity links.[/QUOTE]
:shock:

Quick! Warn Sub! :rofl:
 
[quote name='Kayden']:shock:

Quick! Warn Sub! :rofl:[/QUOTE]

Bah I say!

But look at it this way you only got banned for 2 days and it hardly slowed you down.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Bah I say!

But look at it this way you only got banned for 2 days and it hardly slowed you down.[/QUOTE]

Not only was I banned, I was drunk! :lol:
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Yes you drunk is quite disturbing at least I'm still an ass.[/QUOTE]

Disturbing? Unitelligible, yes, but disturbing?
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']yep that to, you go through mood swings like Paris Hilton through men.[/QUOTE]

What the fuck do you mean you stupid ass monkey fucking horse raping donkey humper?

Err.... want a cookie?

:whistle2:s

Touché
 
[quote name='Kayden']What the fuck do you mean you stupid ass monkey fucking horse raping donkey humper?

Err.... want a cookie?

:whistle2:s

Touché[/QUOTE]

zion loves cookies! But only if your girlfriend makes it, although I suppose that would be logical anyhow.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']zion loves cookies! But only if your girlfriend makes it, although I suppose that would be logical anyhow.[/QUOTE]

Logic? BURN IT!!!! :hot:
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']:lol: Well I guess this thread will excape the flames.[/QUOTE]

This, our combined posts, and most the threads they infect.
 
[quote name='Kayden']This, our combined posts, and most the threads they infect.[/QUOTE]

True, I think I'll hide out here and the OT during cleansing.
 
Dont let this be you...
beavis6.jpg
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']...

So I'm guessing you two are trying to kill this thread off, correct? :lol:[/QUOTE]

Would you like to join up?

So evolution to me feels like a big basket of freashly picked red roses.......
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Would you like to join up?

So evolution to me feels like a big basket of freashly picked red roses.......[/QUOTE]

I'm partial to crythansinums myself.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']What about the noble orchid?[/QUOTE]

Specifically? I think its the way it makes me feel inside when I look at it. Its gentle petals ever so fragil... It gives me a power trip when I crush them!!! :twisted:
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']What about the noble orchid?[/QUOTE]

I actually like tulips a lot, they grow them here in huge fields and it's amazing to all the rows.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Specifically? I think its the way it makes me feel inside when I look at it. Its gentle petals ever so fragil... It gives me a power trip when I crush them!!! :twisted:[/QUOTE]

Hey, whatever flicks your clit. ;)
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']What about the noble orchid?[/QUOTE]
Noble Orchid was actually my nickname in highschool.




What are we talking about?
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']I actually like tulips a lot, they grow them here in huge fields and it's amazing to all the rows.[/QUOTE]

We've got some tulips in front of the house, but I really like the tulip trees.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']I like dogwood trees and dogs.[/QUOTE]

Dogs are nice, but I haven't had one since I was little. It was a german shepherd. My sister had a pug for a while too.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Dogs are nice, but I haven't had one since I was little. It was a german shepherd. My sister had a pug for a while too.[/QUOTE]

Dogs are awesome and also incredibly stupid.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Dogs are awesome and also incredibly stupid.[/QUOTE]

They aren't all stupid. However pugs are just about the dumbest dogs out there. Ugly too.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']They aren't all stupid. However pugs are just about the dumbest dogs out there. Ugly too.[/QUOTE]

Oh they aren't well then why can they only speak spanish.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top