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.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
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: Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
Re: evolution or creationism? [Re: TheGus]
    #4925132 -

hahaha


--------------------
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: evolution or creationism? *DELETED* [Re: Annom]
    #4925253 -

Post deleted by Lakefingers

Reason for deletion: No reason.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: evolution or creationism? [Re: Lakefingers]
    #4925303 -

"Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000 feet and I'll show you a hypocrite... If you are flying to an international congress of anthropologists or literary critics, the reason you will probably get there -- the reason you don't plummet into a ploughed field -- is that a lot of Western scientifically trained engineers have got their sums right." --Richard Dawkins

Unlike pseudoscience, evolution is backed by an incredible amount of evidence. While there may be some inconsistencies, I would go as far as to say that the simple fact that we are descended from apes is indisputable at this point. If you have really read Darwin and Dawkins as you claim, you should already know this.

Also, how is it not falsifiable? If any evidence was found to suggest that life came to be under a process other than evolution, it would be falsified, its just that this type of evidence has not been found and will not be, as far as I can tell.

Btw, Darwinism doesn't refer exclusively to the theories proposed by Charles Darwin himself. He was the one that brought rise to it, but Darwinism has been greatly expanded on by other biologists over the years.

Edited by itstarssaddam (11/12/05 08:45 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: evolution or creationism? [Re: Lakefingers]
    #4925309 -

Science is not objective (maybe you know that)

Science rests on the principle that the universe operates occording to objective laws, and it seeks to uncover this underlying objectivity by observation and testing. Science trys its best to be objective, and while it may not always be perfectly unbiased, you still have not proposed a better method for understanding the laws that govern the world around us.

Evolutionary theory has been falsified.
It (Evolutionary theory) is entirely ad hoc and any claim against it would only prove it.

Ummmm don't you think these statements are a little contradictory? Even worse is the fact neither are correct. Why evolutionary theory has changed over time, the basic tentants of the theory have not. If you are really interested in disproving evolution I can give you a way to start. Remember though, disproving with actual EVIDENCE, may be more difficult then taking uninformed stabs at the philosophy of science.

A. Go grab your rock pick and start digging through some Cambrian rock. Maybe you can find a mammalian fossil (or any fossil that should not be there under evolutionary theory) buried somewhere in the rock.




So, these two pieces of information imply that a) science has no superiority (other than MORAL in the Western scientific worldview) over religious beliefs or pseudo-science; also these imply that science is self-contradictory and that is precisely what it is not supposed to be.

So what is your alternative again? What technological advances have religious and pseudo-scientific beleifs helped create. Ex. The feat of flying to the moon requires and incredible amount of knowledge about physical laws. Did this knowledge come from religion? From pseudo-science? Do you think that all the engineers involved in production prayed or meditated to gain their wisdom? No they observed tested and built upon previous knowledge. The superiority of science as a method of gaining information and knowledge is present in every bit of technology you use every day.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: evolution or creationism? *DELETED* [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4925321 -

Post deleted by Lakefingers

Reason for deletion: No reason.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: evolution or creationism? [Re: Lakefingers]
    #4925349 -

I see your point. I know science isn't objective, but nothing is truly objective. The scientific method is the most objective method we know. It indeed is important to see that it is just the best tool we have and not a 100% perfect and objective way to observe and model the universe. 

I don't see or know where/when/how the idea of evolution is falsified. You are jumping onto conclusions about the whole scientific method because you have read/thought/heard something about evolution theory being falsified?

What is wrong with the scientific method? With the tool itself and not the application of the tool.

Quote:
The theory of evolution is scientific hog-wash because it even violates the scientific method, which is that things should be falsifiable (that is, a theory should make a claim that can be proven wrong), but there is _nothing_ that can prove the theory of evolution wrong.


No, that is not the scientific method . A theory should not make a claim that can be proven wrong, it's not about wrong are right, it's about making a model of the real world. This model can be accurate in a certain degree, but doesn't have to be 100% true.

A theory should make predictions that can be tested, evolution does this. A prediction is a logic result of the theory. click

Quote:
Is there failure or success in nature that could disprove the concept of the survival of the fittest?


Quote:
Well, there are many different takes on Darwin, even within the scientific communities. However, theories by Richard Dawkins or random-mutation theories of evolution disprove Darwin's theory of evolution. There are dozens, probably hundreds of books written on this, some are crap, but some are academic and settle the case: that the case can not be settled.



Again, it's not about the ultimate truth in science. Science does not say anything about the truth of theories. It is about explaining aspects of reality in a logic way; a model.

Evolution is a good model because it gives an explanation for how organisms change over time and it predicts how organisms change over time. You can't prove evolution to be wrong, you might come up with a better model though. Newton was not proven wrong when Einstein came with his relativity theories. Einsteins theories are more accurate, but Newtons theories are still a good way to explain and predict the real world. There is no true or false, there are good models, very good models, bad models, etc.

Quote:
Science doesn't claim to be truth? If that were _true_ all scientific enterprise would be rendered useless. What is the point of science to
produce untruths? We're speaking about truth in different ways. you're thinking in the Popperian sense of science as a non-inductive, non-truth claiming activity (I disagree with this view, btw) and I'm speaking of truth produced by science slightly in that sense, but mostly in the sense of the objectivity and sway it has in society.



It's not about truth or untruths. That's just not science, that's religion. If science says something about the truth of theories it becomes a religion and that exactly is where science is different from a religion; it doesn't say anything about the truth of its theories.

I see your point about the other truth though and I don't like to see that. Much of the "hate" against science is caused by this newspaper-science, which claims that science is not a tool, but the ultimate truth.

But this is not a reason for me to abandon everything that has to do with science or the basics behind science (the scientific method). I don't like how science is interpretated by some people, tv and newspapers though.

Quote:
Hopefully we'll even disregard science one day.


We have the time and systems to discus this due to science and science alone. I love the technological revolution of the last 30-100 years. I really think it has made the world a better place.

Quote:
No, actually I think creationism is much more beautiful. What is not beautiful is determism and necessity. Things that are beautiful in non-fiction for instance are things that are no possible. Creationism is (from my academic viewpoint) not possible, but it is much more beautiful and elegant than the plebian, nasty, uninspired idea of evolution!



Here we have a different taste I guess  :smile:

I just prefer scientific theories above other fiction stories; I prefer a scientific fairy tale above the bible. That's the foremost reason I like science.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: evolution or creationism? [Re: Lakefingers]
    #4928416 -

Lakefingers said:
Christian miracles are also backed by 'an incredible amount of evidence' (I love this phrase).


:what:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: evolution or creationism? *DELETED* [Re: Annom]
    #4929159 -

Post deleted by Lakefingers

Reason for deletion: "

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: evolution or creationism? [Re: Lakefingers]
    #4929342 -

Science is a method we have found useful to make predictions about the natural world. Creationism and Intelligent Design are completely and utterly useless in making predictions. At best, they are harmless. At worst they are horrors. They are never useful for anything other than navel gazing


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: evolution or creationism? [Re: Lakefingers]
    #4929370 -

Lakefingers said:
Honestly, thanks for not gawking at me for my joyous questioning of the authority of science :smile:


I'm not gawking, I'm just waiting for you to give an example of the "incredible amount of evidence" backing Christian miracles.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: evolution or creationism? *DELETED* [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4929482 -

Post deleted by Lakefingers

Reason for deletion: .

Edited by Lakefingers (11/13/05 04:56 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: evolution or creationism? [Re: Lakefingers]
    #4929493 -

Lakefingers said:
Christian miracles are also backed by 'an incredible amount of evidence' (I love this phrase).


So this "evidence" can't even be demonstrated, let alone identified, yet you still say there is an "incredible amount?"

:confused:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: evolution or creationism? [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4930437 -

Let me boot up my spirituality powered computer, and post on shroomery.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: evolution or creationism? [Re: TheCow]
    #4930463 -

computers dont run on "science" either.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: evolution or creationism? [Re: porcupine]
    #4930476 -

porcupine said:
computers dont run on "science" either.


Between spirituality and science, which discipline is more likely to deal with circuit boards, microchips, power adapters, etc.?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: evolution or creationism? [Re: Silversoul]
    #4930879 -

evolution cannot disprove that a god created us. but it disproves many religions, which is where the idea of god came from. i am a firm believer of evolution. but if we cant even see 80 percent(maybe more) of our universe, how the hell would we know who or what created it?


--------------------
"Psychedelics should be used not to escape reality, but to embrace it"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: evolution or creationism? [Re: porcupine]
    #4931257 -

porcupine said:
computers dont run on "science" either.


You are confusing some abstract notion of 'run on', vs. description. The nice thing about science, as an electrical engineer I can tell you, is that it has results.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: evolution or creationism? *DELETED* [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4931270 -

Post deleted by Lakefingers

Reason for deletion: .

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: evolution or creationism? [Re: Lakefingers]
    #4932698 -

Lakefingers said:
If I wasn't versed (if I didn't _believe_) in the tools of science I wouldn't accept that evidence either. Although evidence is not entirely relative to the worldview it is related to and empirical evidence can destroy certain beliefs the belief-system is more important than the evidence. The reason you see that evidence as necessary and important is because you believe in science, rationality, causality, etc.


What?
My point being, anyone can :whatever: with language, but science aims to figure out real things in this universe.  Sure you might not believe in science, but its a silly argument as you clearly enjoy using the fruits of its labor.  So your argument basically boils down to an inability to accept reality or to accept that spirituality has given us nothing of tangible benefit, while us brainwashed scientists have brought us out of the forest.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: evolution or creationism? [Re: TheCow]
    #4936570 -

TheCow said:
porcupine said:
computers dont run on "science" either.


You are confusing some abstract notion of 'run on', vs. description. The nice thing about science, as an electrical engineer I can tell you, is that it has results.


and similarly, the nice thing about spirituality i can tell you is that it has results.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 9,315 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Why evolution isn't a scientific theory.
( 1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 )		 Mr. Mushrooms 14,368 265 04/20/09 03:22 PM
by zouden
* Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 ObliviousSeeker 8,783 127 06/20/08 03:03 PM
by OrgoneConclusion
* Evolution or Creationism capliberty 2,420 14 07/06/06 03:24 AM
by Psilocybeingzz
* Creationism dismissed as 'a kind of paganism' by Vatican's astronomer
( 1 2 all )		 YthanA 2,834 28 05/05/06 09:20 PM
by SkorpivoMusterion
* I want to debate a "creation scientist".
( 1 2 3 4 ... 11 12 all )		 Phluck 16,973 232 12/01/04 04:26 PM
by Diploid
* Creationism / Evolution
( 1 2 all )		 angryshroom 2,625 23 11/11/03 06:29 AM
by StrangeDays
* Evolution: Prove it scientifcally and make $250,000
( 1 2 all )		 dblaney 4,039 29 04/27/07 03:22 PM
by SneezingPenis

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,476 topic views. 1 members, 165 guests and 11 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 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.