2 of 3
2
Evolution…..EXPOSED!
Posted: 05 April 2005 12:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  291
Joined  2005-04-02

[quote author=“Anonymous”]
Well if this is coming from a non-believer, then our schools are really doing a horrible job.  Bulldog, just what do you think a scientific theory is?  What does it mean in science to have a proof?  What is an answer to everything in science?  Moreover, what is an over-enthusiastic scientist?

Our schools are doing a really horrible job if you think that anyone has proven that evolution is a fact. A scientific theory is a testable hypothesis that attempts to explain observed phenomena. The best scientific theories are the ones that explain all of the current body of evidence, subject to Occam’s Razor.

The fact is that most of what is taught in science are theories. It doesn’t mean that they don’t work in practice, but scientists have to consider the possibility that one day we may uncover evidence that some commonly accepted theories cannot explain. Even concepts that are so widely accepted and seem so incontrovertible that they are called “laws”, such as the “laws of gravity” may one day be insufficient to explain some new evidence that is uncovered. This doesn’t mean that we have to throw everything away. It doesn’t mean that we can’t rely on these theories as facts when we conduct experiments or when we send a man to the moon. But we cannot claim that we know everything about how the universe works. Therefore, if we are to be honest with ourselves, then we have to admit that they are still theories.

This is what separates scientific theories from articles of faith. When contradictory evidence appears, scientifists must find a new theory or modify the old one to account for it. When this happens with articles of faith, the faithful either ignore the evidence or, as we have repeatedly seen in this forum, they remold the facts to fit in with the article of faith.

Anyone who can’t open their mind to the mere possibility that scientific theories may contain inadequacies shouldn’t claim the title scientist.

- Bulldog

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2005 01:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  291
Joined  2005-04-02

[quote author=“hampsteadpete”]

Furthermore, although some over-enthusiastic scientists may refer to evolution as a fact, in the end it is still a theory. It has not been proven to be true beyond any possible doubt and it is not the answer to everything. Like most scientific theories, many questions remain.

Before you put out ideas like this, I suggest you discover for yourself the facts about what constitutes a scientific theory.  Evolution is as much a fact as relativity, and you should know that.  There is no serious doubt about evolution in the scientific community, and evolution is the absolute foundation of modern biology, and other sciences.  There is only healthy discussion and disagreement about the details.

After I responded to your objection and another like it, I found this interesting article called “Evolution is a Fact and a Theory”. Here’s the URL:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

The author makes a fairly compelling argument. However, he is careful to define what he means by “fact”.

Merriam-Webster offers several definitions appropriate to our discussion:
[list]FACT
- the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a >
- something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact>
- a piece of information presented as having objective reality[/list:u]

The author modifies the definition as follows:

In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.

I would draw your attention to the words “provisional consent”. This is what I was driving at. You can’t call any scientific theory a (dictionary) fact when you haven’t seen ALL of the evidence. However, under the authors (reasonable) redefinition of the word, I would agree with you that evolution is a fact. But under any of the Merriam-Webster definitions, I would still argue otherwise.

I hope that this is sufficient to put this matter to rest, since I’d rather be debating the religious nutbags. raspberry (LOL)

- Bulldog

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2005 01:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

This is what separates scientific theories from articles of faith. When contradictory evidence appears, scientifists must find a new theory or modify the old one to account for it. When this happens with articles of faith, the faithful either ignore the evidence or, as we have repeatedly seen in this forum, they remold the facts to fit in with the article of faith.

Yes, this is why there are so many different demoninations of the church. “Believers” mold the bible, the “word of God” to suite themselves, to agree with their own lifestyles. Even though it is deemed as blasphemous to abide by or believe anything else than the word of God, word-for-word. (sorry, no biblical reference here) There isn’t anyone on the planet that obeys the bible word-for-word. So how can anyone believe in something that has been systematically bastardized by its own believers? It’s so bloody asinine. A theory can be added to or taken away from, but how can anyone attempt to add to or take away from “THE WORD OF GOD”? I guess this is a question for TheChamp.
By the way, has anyone noticed that there are very few believers defending their faith in thia forum? If I were Champ, I would recruit some theologians.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2005 01:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Bulldog,

I reacted too quickly I guess.  I agree with everything you subsequently posted.  My concern was that the language you had used came awfully close to that used by the creationist/IDers and that is what set me off.  Your comments would be better understood in a forum of scientists vs. this one where nuts like thechampion keep posting.  So my humble apologies.  I’ll try to reign in my impulses better in the future :oops:

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2005 12:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Evolution is not a theory.  It’s a fact.  There are theories about evolution (puctuated equilibrium, natural selection, etc.)  but evolution itself has been proven.  We know that evolution happened but not the mechanisms of exactly how it happened.  Those are what the theories are about.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2005 12:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

Guess everything I have been saying is nonesense then. wink

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2005 12:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“TheChampion”]Guess everything I have been saying is nonesense then. wink

Pretty much…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2005 12:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

I still believe it anyway and keep on keeping on. grin

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2005 12:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“TheChampion”]I still believe it anyway and keep on keeping on. grin

you like being a fool?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2005 12:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

If it means that I am a fool by believing in Jesus, then by all means. What the world treasures and what I treasure are two different things.

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2005 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“TheChampion”]I still believe it anyway and keep on keeping on. grin

Well that’s obvious.  No amount of evidence, argument, or reason could ever shake your beliefs because you have already chosen what you will believe based on the bible’s dictum.  I’m not sure exactly why in your case but I assume it helps you cope with your own mortality and/or helps you “make sense” of things.  For me faith isn’t necessary and I can view things objectively.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2005 04:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1229
Joined  2004-12-22

Jesus never talked about creation that I can find.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2005 04:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  106
Joined  2004-12-21

[quote author=“Iisbliss”]Jesus never talked about creation that I can find.

***
That’s how smart our ancestors were.

The story of Jesus IS the story of creation.  It has nothing to do with him being human but everything to do with explaining how life came to arise on earth.  Once you label it as a story of creation, it is then, by inherent design, that there CAN BE NO EYEWITNESSES to creation as no life was yet present (i.e. obviously no humans either).

JL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2005 09:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Um, yeah.
Continuing…
Just a few retroactive, reverse-order reactions, to pass the time:

The fool, Champ, believes blindly.  However much you claim otherwise, you are blinded by your Faith.

Nitpicking “Fact” and “Theory” is a bit preposterous.  I feel they really mean two different things.  A fact is an item, something self-contained and complete, something that can be confirmed.  A Theory is an abstract attempt to explain things.  Evolution holds up well, and is based on lots of facts.  It is a Theory, in the scientific sense—it is incomplete and fallible, or, rather, correctible, adaptable.  But it has not and likely will not be evidentially refuted.
Semantics.  Doesn’t really matter.  The “Fact” is that Evolution is fully rational, in that we see how life adapts on many levels throughout our everyday lives.  Creationism, as a literal notion, is absurd.
As, of course, is the Noah’s Arc fable, which rarely gets cited as an obvious piece of fiction with a huge role in the debate.  Whatever boats they find in the mountains, they won’t find one that went around the world and found room for every land animal, even if you leave out the ones that have gone mysteriously extinct in our recorded past (an obvious refutation to much Creationist, God’s perfect, unchangeable world nonsense.)

Well, there goes my train of thought.
Oh—Billy Graham as an example of intellect?  There’s a problem.  Unless the term “Evil Genius” is being employed.

The thought that Champ is actually just a devil’s advocate must have occurred to us all at some point.  Sadly, even if he were, there are plenty of folks who really feel like he does.  Mind you, it’s fun to call him the Devil’s Advocate.

His original notion that “fact follows theory” is a mindless critique of science in general.  When a scientist is faced with a number of facts (like Darwin, for instance), he will try to find some way of describing these facts.  When this theory is developed, one will hold other information up to it and emend the theory as needed.  A lousy scientist might not do this, but, in this context, another world for “lousy scientist” is “Creationist.”
One cannot criticize science on this level if one’s entire perspective has a religious basis.
Religion offers a theory, then forces everything else to conform, even ignoring and altering and suppressing information that does not fit, and often punishing those who bring the information to light.
The fact that religion refuses to evolve could be its only valid argument against evolution, except that, however painfully slowly, even religion changes.
Enough for now.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2005 10:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

Are you telling me that you guys actually like me? WELL BLESS MY BUTTONS! I was getting a complex there, but maybe I am actually liked (or at least tolerated).

You all like me…..you really do!!! (not?)

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed