Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

Community > The Pub
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Legend]
    #14745535 -

Tell these guys evolution doesn't exist. They literally play with it on a daily basis.


--------------------

wat man rly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: DieCommie]
    #14745540 -

DieCommie said:
He has an agenda, and it is trying to sell the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection.  That is not the same as selling an agenda.  Saying he is 'selling an agenda' is a dysphemism.



his agenda seems to be to sell atheism and deny the existence of god, he
pushes it with shit like this and in his books and lectures

he has an agenda and he's selling it


--------------------
California Has Legalized Child Prostitution

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #14745548 -

Prisoner#1 said:
The Ecstatic said:
Isn't making mistakes part of the scientific method?




having faith is a part of the scientific method too because there are
theories that break the very laws that science has established


And scientists are very stubborn when it comes to defending theories. Due to the fact that they build their careers upon certain theories, they are pretty loathe to admit they were wrong. Defense of the theory becomes more important than the persuit of "truth" or the scientific method.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #14745556 -

At least his makes sense, then. Are you saying she isn't? Or that he shouldn't?


--------------------

wat man rly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #14745558 -

Prisoner#1 said:
The Ecstatic said:
Isn't making mistakes part of the scientific method?




having faith is a part of the scientific method too because there are
theories that break the very laws that science has established


Dont you mean observations that are inconsistent with theories?  Saying theories that break laws doesnt really make sense. 

All scientific theories have a scope with which they were constructed to cope with.  None are purported to have scope over each and every observation.  Furthermore, all theories are always considered tentative.  The notion that a new observation could be inconsistent with any theory is fundamental.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745566 -

Mad_Larkin said:
Prisoner#1 said:
The Ecstatic said:
Isn't making mistakes part of the scientific method?




having faith is a part of the scientific method too because there are
theories that break the very laws that science has established


And scientists are very stubborn when it comes to defending theories. Due to the fact that they build their careers upon certain theories, they are pretty loathe to admit they were wrong. Defense of the theory becomes more important than the persuit of "truth" or the scientific method.


Bullshit.  Scientists make their careers by doing the exact opposite of what you claim.  Engineers use existing theories and observations.  Scientists look for and create new ones.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: DieCommie]
    #14745578 -

DieCommie said:
Mad_Larkin said:
Prisoner#1 said:
The Ecstatic said:
Isn't making mistakes part of the scientific method?




having faith is a part of the scientific method too because there are
theories that break the very laws that science has established


And scientists are very stubborn when it comes to defending theories. Due to the fact that they build their careers upon certain theories, they are pretty loathe to admit they were wrong. Defense of the theory becomes more important than the persuit of "truth" or the scientific method.


Bullshit.  Scientists make their careers by doing the exact opposite of what you claim.  Engineers use existing theories and observations.  Scientists look for and create new ones.



Well engies and labcoats both do both of those things, but engineers are more based on known principle because their job is to design and maintain practical systems while scientists are primarily focused on, well, everything.


--------------------

wat man rly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: DieCommie]
    #14745581 -

So what would happen to Dawkins if the theory of evolution was proven false?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: DieCommie]
    #14745582 -

DieCommie said:
Prisoner#1 said:
The Ecstatic said:
Isn't making mistakes part of the scientific method?




having faith is a part of the scientific method too because there are
theories that break the very laws that science has established


Dont you mean observations that are inconsistent with theories?  Saying theories that break laws doesnt really make sense. 

All scientific theories have a scope with which they were constructed to cope with.  None are purported to have scope over each and every observation.  Furthermore, all theories are always considered tentative.  The notion that a new observation could be inconsistent with any theory is fundamental.



no, I meant what I said, science is another religion

big bang = everything came from nothing... no, cant have that because it
violates the laws of matter conservation

revised big bang = everything came from a singularity... well, dont
question on the singularity because the answer is 'we dont know'

each stage of a theories evolution requires the faith that it's correct,
what observations are being made that support the singularity as the
origin of the universe, what evidence is there to support the origins of
life theories... all require faith and this religion of science is no different


--------------------
California Has Legalized Child Prostitution

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745616 -

these two need to take mushrooms together


--------------------
ONE-EYED WANT
-------------------------
knock a hoe out this dimension, continue my ascension
-bhad bhabie
rip. todcasil, acid sloth, st1llnox, shLong, ModestMouse, vinsue, big worm (sketch), tim

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745626 -

Mad_Larkin said:
So what would happen to Dawkins if the theory of evolution was proven false?


You can't prove something false that's readily apparent and practically applied on a daily basis, so your point is moot. We just recently domesticated foxes, for example.


--------------------

wat man rly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #14745647 -

Prisoner#1 said:
each stage of a theories evolution requires the faith that it's correct,



This is just wrong. Plain, blunt, foolishly wrong. Evolution can be directly observed and manipulated, and has consistent results between each person who would do so. The idea of development over time through evolutionary means is simply a logical extrapolation of what we can observe.

The difference is science has practical goals and religion doesn't. Science doesn't dictate what you should do with your life, only what you can do. I know some people find that difficult to accept.


--------------------

wat man rly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: blujay]
    #14745651 -



in case anyone wants to watch who hasn't seen it.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: blujay]
    #14745652 -

blujay said:
Mad_Larkin said:
So what would happen to Dawkins if the theory of evolution was proven false?


You can't prove something false that's readily apparent and practically applied on a daily basis, so your point is moot. We just recently domesticated foxes, for example.


So there is nothing that could prove the theory of evolution as false? Cool. We might as well just believe in it for the shits and giggles then.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745658 -

Mad_Larkin said:
So what would happen to Dawkins if the theory of evolution was proven false?


That is an unreasonable question that betrays, Im sorry to offend here, a stark ignorance of science. 

Recall what I wrote earlier,
Furthermore, all theories are always considered tentative.  The notion that a new observation could be inconsistent with any theory is fundamental.

and compare this to your statment,
theory of evolution was proven false?

The theory of evolution will never be proven to be false, because all scientific theories are always taken to be tentative.  To put this in context know that life being made of cells is a tentative theory, just as the heliocentric model of the solar system and atomic theory that describes matter as atoms.  All of these theories could be modified or tossed out by the observation of new evidence.  But we know that there is so damn much evidence for them, and we have looked for contradictory evidence for generations and yet to find none.  So we are highly suspect when anybody claims that they have new evidence, and we are even more suspect when it is claimed this evidence 'proves' something.


A more reasonable question is, "What would happen to Dawkins if new observations were inconsistent with the theory?"  I cant speak to him, I dont read his books or follow him.  But the vast majority of biologists would have a great time with new observations to model and investigate, and probably more money flowing into evolutionary biology to investigate this new mystery.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745675 -

Mad_Larkin said:
blujay said:
Mad_Larkin said:
So what would happen to Dawkins if the theory of evolution was proven false?


You can't prove something false that's readily apparent and practically applied on a daily basis, so your point is moot. We just recently domesticated foxes, for example.


So there is nothing that could prove the theory of evolution as false? Cool. We might as well just believe in it for the shits and giggles then.


If you knew the first thing about evolution, you would understand that indeed, it could not at this point be proven false. We've verified it by directly watching microbial life evolve and analyzing it's DNA as it goes. We've taken that knowledge and applied it to create our own cells by selectively choosing DNA and chemically assembling it, and we've used that knowledge to breed animals in favor of specific traits to the point that they are no longer compatible with their original lineage.

*While we will not be proving it false, there is still much to discover about it's specific mechanics and function. You have to remember that while we understand it's basis, specific developments are likely to change as we delve deeper into artificial design and synthesis of biological machines. There will be nuances of it we aren't currently aware of as we further study it with a hands-on approach.

Edited by blujay (07/10/11 01:55 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: DieCommie]
    #14745678 -

Quote:
big bang = everything came from nothing... no, cant have that because it
violates the laws of matter conservation

revised big bang = everything came from a singularity... well, dont
question on the singularity because the answer is 'we dont know'


Neither of those is, or ever was the big bang theory.  But the fact that there are parts that 'we dont know' is true, and much discussed in astrophysics.  Thats basically all they do, because you cant do research on the parts that we do know... 

I think you are very confused about what science, as an institution, does from day to day.  Science as an institution is different from science as a subject in school.  Science as a subject in school deals with the established theories and observations, and you go over and over them.  So you get the impression that science is all about established theories.  But in scientific research, you have to go beyond the established theories and observations.  You have to.  Nobody is going to pay you to dogmatically preach established cell theory or electromagnetism (unless you are a teacher :wink:).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: blujay]
    #14745679 -

So evolution in microbes has been proven. That is all.

Another of the flaws of science is to extrapolate theories onto the macro scale based on mere assumptions.

Edited by Mad_Larkin (07/10/11 01:54 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745688 -

Mad_Larkin said:
So evolution in microbes has been proven. That is all.


No.  You don't prove theories, that is fundamentally unscientific.  Again, all theories are tentative - that is why they are called theories.  Evolution in microbes has mountains of supporting evidence, just as evolution is all forms of life does.  The tentative nature of evolution by natural selection as a description for biodiversity is astronomically low because of the mountains of evidence.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: DieCommie]
    #14745706 -

You're just taking my words and trying to refute what I'm saying by applying scientific nomenclature when my meaning is already pretty clear.

So what would happen to Dawkins if the theory of evolution was proven false?

and

What would happen to Dawkins if new observations were inconsistent with the theory?

Are esentially the same question, just worded differently.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

Community > The Pub
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* ShamanicFreedomRadio episode 5: The Richard Dawkins Delusion opaquelens 288 0 12/30/08 04:29 AM
by opaquelens
* SYMPHONY OF SCIENCE - Sagan, Dawkins, Kaku, Jastrow
( 1 2 all )		 Envix 2,000 38 03/29/10 11:07 PM
by dill705
* Richard Dawkins interviews Richar Leakey about how we are primates Frost 581 11 08/10/09 05:25 PM
by laserpig
* Richard Wright dead at 65
( 1 2 3 all )		 dark1313star 3,729 40 09/18/08 06:18 PM
by andrewss
* Richard Wright has died theorganicdomino 583 1 09/15/08 11:03 AM
by Dr. Spock
* HUMAN FINGER IN CHILI AT WENDY'S FAST FOOD!
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 California 11,116 89 04/08/20 04:25 PM
by Taco Chef
* Wendy's Joins Arby's D4NK 1,013 14 04/24/08 04:36 PM
by Snape
* I Ate From Wendy's Last Night SprewellSleeve 450 3 01/04/10 11:31 PM
by elementswrath

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
10,120 topic views. 3 members, 1,320 guests and 131 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 16 queries.