|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Lakefingers]
#10052671 - 03/27/09 11:07 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Why wouldn't it be?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Poid]
#10052755 - 03/27/09 11:18 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: I personally never for one second ignored the fact that I am basically an advanced .
It feels that most people around me do, though.
People say that they know evolution is ... and can be proven, or they say they know creationism is ... and is true because they are told that.
Which is better: These people trusting what others say? Or those people over there trusting what others say?
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Poid]
#10052801 - 03/27/09 11:24 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: Why wouldn't it be?
Because it's self-evident.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Lakefingers]
#10052906 - 03/27/09 11:38 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
Quote:
Poid said: I personally never for one second ignored the fact that I am basically an advanced .
It feels that most people around me do, though.
People say that they know evolution is ... and can be proven, or they say they know creationism is ... and is true because they are told that.
Which is better: These people trusting what others say? Or those people over there trusting what others say?
Neither of those people are 'good' because they don't trust their own logic, and they're just sheeple. IMO, it's better to be wrong by yourself then to be right with everyone else, or vice-versa.
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
Quote:
Poid said: Why wouldn't it be?
Because it's self-evident.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10053349 - 03/27/09 12:40 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Interestingly, even Karl Popper conceded that Darwinian evolution was not a testable scientific theory, but rather "metaphysical research program." He did go on to say how useful evolutionary theory was, but of course it did not meet his own criteria for what is scientific, namely falsifiability.
A little footnote: Not all philosophers of science agree with Popper about falsifiability as being the criteria for science. Thomas Kuhn argued that science works in a series of paradigms, and found little evidence of scientists actually using falsificationist methods.
--------------------
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Poid]
#10053425 - 03/27/09 12:50 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
What knowledge structure makes it cool? Is cool simply a sleight of scientific proof? A factoid?
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Lakefingers]
#10053449 - 03/27/09 12:53 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Oh, you're going all the way over there...
Frankly, I despise the term cool. I just think it is a notable feat that a monkey (gorilla?) can use a separate apparatus to hunt for food, much like us humans do.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Poid]
#10053511 - 03/27/09 01:02 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: Oh, you're going all the way over there...
Frankly, I despise the term cool. I just think it is a notable feat that a monkey (gorilla?) can use a separate apparatus to hunt for food, much like us humans do.
I was following the radius out from the center, taking the circumference.
*
Which animals have we taught to hunt and which have taught us?
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Lakefingers]
#10053536 - 03/27/09 01:07 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I certainly personally haven't taught any animal to hunt, but there are certain types of canines that assist hunters in catching game.
I also certainly haven't been personally trained by an animal to hunt, but I would think that nature in general gives us a few hints.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Poid]
#10053564 - 03/27/09 01:11 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I watch birds for tips on scavenging.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Lakefingers]
#10053598 - 03/27/09 01:15 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Shit, you're right!
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Lakefingers]
#10054667 - 03/27/09 03:54 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
Quote:
Poid said: I personally never for one second ignored the fact that I am basically an advanced .
It feels that most people around me do, though.
People say that they know evolution is ... and can be proven, or they say they know creationism is ... and is true because they are told that.
Which is better: These people trusting what others say? Or those people over there trusting what others say?
Exactly. The debate in america is mostly stupid and mostly a faith based discussion.
I never got why people think you have to be stupid to not accept evolution- the inverse is true for the marjoiryt of people. How would most people have any idea what to believe and why should they? I can't think of any reason why they should.
And the title of this post is dumb. All I saw was an assurance of one man that it isn't a scientific theory but he doesn't say why. More faith.
I also have no idea why he says you have to reject religion to accept evolution or why he thinks that's the common belief amongst evolution proponents. Seems stupid to me- more faith.
Why should I believe this guy? I see no reason to at all.
Evolution is clearly a scientific theory.
|
Redrawing
Psychonaut
Registered: 04/03/08
Posts: 526
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10055091 - 03/27/09 04:49 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Evolutionary theory has become dogma for the intellectual elite. There are cases of professors losing jobs, tenure, and becoming blacklisted for entertaining the notion of intelligent design.
The evolutionary dogmatist will immediately shout "creationist!" the second you have the gall to question evolutionary theory. They slander anyone with this, even if he is not in any way suggesting the presence of an omniscient, omnipotent deity. Scientists love appealing to the either/or fallacy -- either you're a justified scientific intellectual or a religious nut. Intelligent design is not an appeal to religion (the argument scientists have used to keep 'ID' out of school curriculum in the United States), it is an umbrella term for any number of potential or existing theories that attempt to account for the intuition that the universe MAY NOT have come about through pure, blind, random, accidental luck.
So instead of trying to account for the gaps in fossil record, or explain why the evolutionary model doesn't always fit ontological observations about biological systems, evolutionary theorists build straw men all day and knock 'em down, without ever feeling the need to assert any evidence for their own position.
David Berlinski wrote an article called "The Deniable Darwin" which covers some pretty damn good arguments rejecting evolutionary theory as it is currently understood and accepted by academic institutions. http://www.arn.org/docs/berlinski/db_deniabledarwin0696.htm
Check it out, maybe you won't be so complacent with evolution after you read it.
-------------------- I'm an insect who dreamt he was a man and loved it, but now that dream is over and the insect is awake
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Redrawing]
#10055729 - 03/27/09 06:24 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I think the biggest problem in this debate is the fact that the bible says that god created the world in a week and that was about 6000 years ago. Evolution says something very different. IT is possible to believe in both evolution and spiritual sense of a higher being, a creator. But evolution + religion? well there dont really seem to be many western religions that are compatible with evolution atm.
I dont see why no one has started an international church for people who believe in God but cannot come to grips with scriptures. The church could involve discussion as to what God really is and what he means to people. Maybe some ppl have tried and its not picked up? I dunno.. seems like the right thing to do.. A lot of people feel like there is a higher power at work but have trouble dealing with this because they think that they have to 'chose' a religion.
Doesnt the whole notion of following a religion seem disgusting? You KNOW that most people on earth have a different religion and that they believe it for the same reasons that you do (you were taught it by someone) and that their religion has the same evidence as yours (old stories).. but.. you still convict to your own religion? In today's world this seems really horrible.. and I dont think we should stand for it.
But no one is there, willing to help find GOD in todays world, as opposed to in the ancient world of scriptures. No one is willing to look for god withOUT initial assumptions as to what God is. Some will say - thats because GOD doesnt exist!
But I am not willing to say this, because I want to find a way of understanding the world that any person can assent to, even people with an emotional conviction in God (almost all exhibitions of 'human intelligence' have occured in people who believed in god.. so I think any attempt to seek greater understanding should be something that even the believers can agree with)
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Noteworthy]
#10055787 - 03/27/09 06:31 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Evolution is God. How's that work?
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
#10055802 - 03/27/09 06:33 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
nope
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Noteworthy]
#10055834 - 03/27/09 06:37 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
andrewss
precariously aggrandized
Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 8,725
Loc: ohio
Last seen: 3 months, 1 day
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
#10055881 - 03/27/09 06:43 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: It's the fragile personality structure that frantically needs to be different IMO. "How could it be that we are here only to die without a special purpose beyond what is evident"
And you just don't want to acknowledge that there is a judger god out there that lords over all of the universe and will send you to hell unless you repent for your sins... heathen
But anyway, I like evolution, its not bad at all. I just think where all this science leads the human that is really curious is still to a dilemma of interpretation of the function of life in the universe. I dunno, I like the ideas of the will to power and life as further chains on the causal links of what is the essence of life. This isn't really over stepping bounds (but omg science will like totally figure EVERYTHING out, duh! ....) just taking it all the way I guess
-------------------- Jesus loves you.
Edited by andrewss (03/27/09 06:47 PM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Redrawing]
#10056102 - 03/27/09 07:14 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redrawing said: Evolutionary theory has become dogma for the intellectual elite. There are cases of professors losing jobs, tenure, and becoming blacklisted for entertaining the notion of intelligent design.
Can you provide evidence of this happening? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I believe that the situation would have been more complex than how you describe it.
Quote:
The evolutionary dogmatist will immediately shout "creationist!" the second you have the gall to question evolutionary theory. They slander anyone with this, even if he is not in any way suggesting the presence of an omniscient, omnipotent deity.
Source?
Quote:
Scientists love appealing to the either/or fallacy -- either you're a justified scientific intellectual or a religious nut. Intelligent design is not an appeal to religion (the argument scientists have used to keep 'ID' out of school curriculum in the United States), it is an umbrella term for any number of potential or existing theories that attempt to account for the intuition that the universe MAY NOT have come about through pure, blind, random, accidental luck.
Incorrect. Intelligent design is about God, and only about God. There's no point trying to pretend it's some respectable agnostic skepticism - just look at the name. It clearly refers to an 'intelligent designer'. Proponents of it say it doesn't specifically refer to God, but when pressed they provide no other explanation for who the 'designer' is. And we're not trying to keep ID out of the school curriculum. We're trying to keep it out of the science curriculum. You can't go around teaching non-scientific theories in science class.
Quote:
So instead of trying to account for the gaps in fossil record, or explain why the evolutionary model doesn't always fit ontological observations about biological systems, evolutionary theorists build straw men all day and knock 'em down, without ever feeling the need to assert any evidence for their own position.
You couldn't be more wrong. If scientists don't feel the need to assert any evidence for their own position, why are there so many journals on the topic? Each journal comes out weekly or monthly and contains at least 10 articles in each issue. My university library carries 89 journals with evolution in the title. That represents a staggering amount of work being put into the study of evolution. I suggest you think about that before insulting the scientific community with accusations of straw-men arguments.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Silversoul]
#10056144 - 03/27/09 07:18 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: Interestingly, even Karl Popper conceded that Darwinian evolution was not a testable scientific theory, but rather "metaphysical research program." He did go on to say how useful evolutionary theory was, but of course it did not meet his own criteria for what is scientific, namely falsifiability.
A little footnote: Not all philosophers of science agree with Popper about falsifiability as being the criteria for science. Thomas Kuhn argued that science works in a series of paradigms, and found little evidence of scientists actually using falsificationist methods.
But evolution is clearly falsifiable. The whole theory would have to be revised if a possum skeleton was found in rock dating from the Triassic period, or if human remains were found inside those of a dinosaur.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
|