Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 4 of 224 (474269)
07-07-2008 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mike the wiz
07-07-2008 9:08 AM


Theory in science
Personally, I think it's irrelevant to put stock in one particular theory over another. Whether it's evolution, or anticipation or whatever - the fact is that nobody has actually logically proven that any one theory is certainly true.
1) Theories can't be proved! That theories are ideas waiting to be proved is a common misunderstanding among non-scientists. In science, a theory is the highest form of explanation. Theories explain facts, and give them meaning. A powerful theory also allows successful predictions to be made, and new facts to be found.
2) There is generally only one theory in each given field, and it constitutes the current best explanation for the facts it covers. The theory of evolution does not appear to be in conflict with this "anticipation" hypothesis.
Personally I think the whole thing is about beliefs, as neutrally there is no reason to favour one theory over another. I apreciate that the evidence is apparently there for evolution,(i.e. I don't say scientists are dishonest) but epistemologically, evidence itself is not a powerful inference, and evolution is largely hypothetics. There is a large amount of evidence for creation, technically speaking, because certain facts are in place which would certainly follow if creation was true.
There is a huge amount of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution, and no scientific evidence for creation. Belief in creationism is a belief.
I can't question matter, nor any other facts. Atleast not in this manner, if we define knowledge as "justified true belief". Thuse we have this debate which goes on forever. This is why it's better to trust in the unchanging Word rather than changeable limited man theories.
The unchanging Word would not lead to computers and all of the other things science has produced. It would have us believing in a global flood about 4,350 years ago and accepting slavery.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mike the wiz, posted 07-07-2008 9:08 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 07-11-2008 9:07 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 15 of 224 (476626)
07-25-2008 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by mike the wiz
07-23-2008 8:48 AM


Re: Theory in science
BUT - the bible is infact apriori, in that is states worldwide flood and death BEFORE human knowledge of fossils.
Two subsequent posts addressed this line, but I think they missed the point.
There is no scientific evidence supporting a worldwide flood. Period.
Therefore, any conclusions based on that premise are undermined.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2008 8:48 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 07-29-2008 7:33 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 18 of 224 (476775)
07-26-2008 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Syamsu
07-26-2008 5:52 PM


Bring evidence next time
I think the best reason to believe Dubois' theory is true, is because Dubos establishes objects as things unto themselves, which all the rest of science really doesn't do. And that independent existence of things is in agreement with common sense of how things are. When you look at a thing, you may sense that the object has it's own future, and acting toward it.
None of that is evidence. That's wishful thinking at best. And I wouldn't consider Dubos' idea a theory. In science that term is reserved for ruling paradigms which have withstood the test of time and make successful predictions. It may at best be an hypothesis, but its not a theory.
But on the other hand if we take away freedom of the object from our view, like in regular mainstream science, then it is kind of a slave to some abstract law of nature, or a slave to far away initial conditions. Either way the object then does not seem to have an independent existence, and that doesn't seem realistic.
Realistic? You want realistic you can sum it up in two words: (Fecal matter) happens!
All the philosophers who have ever sat on a log while others were working have not been able to change that one iota.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Syamsu, posted 07-26-2008 5:52 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Syamsu, posted 07-26-2008 7:03 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 40 of 224 (479195)
08-25-2008 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Syamsu
08-25-2008 11:22 AM


Re: Freedom is real science proved it
So can any of these brainists validate their belief that decisions only occur in brains, in face of the scientific evidence referenced in the orignal posting that freedom abounds?
So to how many degrees of freedom do you want your answer specified?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Syamsu, posted 08-25-2008 11:22 AM Syamsu has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 43 of 224 (479207)
08-25-2008 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Syamsu
08-25-2008 12:03 PM


Re: Sophistry
Right, brains are not required to make decisions, freedom abounds in the universe at large, so says science.
I think this should be about brainists validating their beliefs scientifically, since the creationists beliefs are already validated by the papers referenced.
I mean you are asking these questions about creationism, but in the meantime you seem to be slipping in the brainist beliefs without any scientific evidence whatsoever.
This post is one of the most amazing bits of sophistry I have ever seen.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Syamsu, posted 08-25-2008 12:03 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Syamsu, posted 08-25-2008 12:17 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 45 of 224 (479211)
08-25-2008 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Syamsu
08-25-2008 12:17 PM


Re: Sophistry
Enlighten me about what thoughts go through your head when you deny freedom is real.
This new concept of "freedom" you are pushing is merely an untested and unsupported hypothesis.
At this point it appears to be contradicted by the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Why should we abandon thousands of years of accumulated knowledge for one tiny bit of contradictory information--when that tiny bit is neither tested nor supported?
This is the kind of stuff that cranks push.
From Wiki:
But why don't you all believe in freedom in the universe at large, when direct experience, common knowledge, religion and science prove it is real?
Sorry, I must have missed the proof. Direct experience and common knowledge are not proof. Anecdotes? Pah! As for religion, see tagline, below. And scientific "proof?" This idea doesn't even have the scientific evidence to rise to the level of a theory. It is still an untested hypothesis.
You are missing several important steps in the scientific process, going from an idea to "proof" all at once. And then you are relying on that "proof" for additional far-reaching conclusions.
Sounds more like creation "science" than real science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Syamsu, posted 08-25-2008 12:17 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Syamsu, posted 08-25-2008 12:48 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 47 of 224 (479225)
08-25-2008 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Syamsu
08-25-2008 12:48 PM


Re: Sophistry
Can you reference any of this overwhelming evidence that contradicts freedom is real ?
Sorry, used up my "response to nonsense" time for the day. Got to get some work done.
Try a google and see what the responses have been to that "freedom" idea. Has it caught on or is it being widely ignored?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Syamsu, posted 08-25-2008 12:48 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Syamsu, posted 08-25-2008 2:00 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 141 of 224 (480110)
08-31-2008 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Granny Magda
08-31-2008 7:39 PM


Re: Good Planets and Evil Toothbrushes
I know that creationists are desperate for anything that can be made to look as though it supports your views, but this just seems desperate.
That is what creation "science" is all about.
It has no necessary relation to science and everything to do with religious apologetics.
Creation "scientists" (many or most of whom have degrees in theology and related subjects) look for any possible information which when stretched, twisted, misinterpreted, or otherwise abused, can be made to seem to support their religious beliefs--and then its off to the races.
I think this thread is a classic example.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Granny Magda, posted 08-31-2008 7:39 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024