Is Evolution Science?

You tell 'em, man!------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Believe me that won't be happening. Haha

---

I am sorry to say this prophecyexclaimed you just Lost My respect. If you are not willing to Investigate. what is the point? in the Other Topic you said that I was Brainwashed into Evolution. But you clearly are the one who is Brainwashed into creation. I was a christen now I am a atheist/agnostic Evolutionist. I did research into life. if you can't do research from both sides. I can say nothing but this You my friend are ignorant. You will Argue that I am wrong but you won't look at things from my point of view. I am sorry but its the truth. I on the Other Hand have looked at things from both Views and arrived where I am now.

Wow, I am indeed stunned. You have taken your first steps in following scientific methodology, very rare for a creationist. Admit you don't know and plan for discovery. This very attitude has given us some of the greatest scientific minds in history.A little background on me:
I have always accepted ToE to be accurate, but only recently became interested in the Debate. This started after I heard someone talk about the Moon Dust argument. Along with that, some were saying that ToE was "in crisis." Accepting this at face value, I looked into creationist claims and data, and also the rebuttals by supporters of evolution. What I found from creationists was far from scientific, more like high hopes. Misrepresentation and faulty methodology seemed to be the rule, not the exception. Being a scientist myself, I found it very insulting that they were claiming this was science. If someone in my field were as reckless as some have been in the name of "creation science" they would be out of a job.My suggestion to you is not only learn about the biology of nature, but also about the practice of science. Science has its own language and context that isn't used in every day conversation. Guess, hypothesis, theory and law all have different meanings in a scientific discussion as compared to everyday life. Thinking critically about evidence and falsification is a part of all science, not just evolution.One more suggestion, before this turns into a sermon, you might want to read a little philosophy. My favorites, as I apply them to science, are Pascal and Socrates (via Plato). More specifically, Pascal has a dream in which he wakes up to realize that he is still dreaming. A dream within a dream. He comes to the realization that he can't know if he's dreaming right now or if its reality. Hence the phrase "I think therefore I am". All we can know is that we think, everything else can't be absolutely proven. Hence, no absolute proof in science. Socrates talked about perfect forms. For example, everyone knows what a perfect circle is and it can be defined, yet know one can draw a perfect circle (think about the irregular shape atoms and atomic bonds and how that would make a circle "bumpy" if constructed of a ring of atoms). In science, we can explain and define certain phenomena without being able to replicate it. Philosophy is a great place for critical thinking and the use of logic.People on this board and others have long waited for an intelligent conversation on SCIENCE and implications of this in ToE, and hopefully you can do this. Good luck, hope to hear back from you.

"Cogito ergo sum" was coined by Descartes, not Pascal. Pascal was the rascal (pun intended) that came up with that horrendously fallacious "wager."BTW, Descarte's famous statement is also fallacious -- it begs the question by assuming its conclusion (I am) in the premise (I think). Blessings,::

Is it fallacious? Isn't it just a tautology? You've correctly pointed out it's the same as "I am therefore I am", but is that truly fallacious?

Descartes' statement is fallacious to the extent that his conclusion is invalidly deduced from the premise according to the rules of logic. Tautologies are not deductive, and so are not accurately characterized as fallacious. Since his statement is not a precise syllogism (it only contains one premise), perhaps it is better regarded as an axiom than a deduction. In that sense, then, you are correct.So I suppose to answer your questions more directly -- yes, the statement is basically a tautology, and as such is not a valid deduction (i.e. when regarded as a deduction it is fallacious). I was unwarrantedly regarding the statement as a deduction only because it was used in the context of Loudmouth's post as a deductive conclusion. Basically, one cannot validly deduce that one objectively exists solely from the knowledge that one's thought's exist. One can at the very most conclude that he is his thoughts, as well as is everything else which he exeperiences.Truly, all theorems of logic are tautologies. I think it was Wittgenstein who said something precisely to that effect...Blessings,::EDIT: Reading Loudmouth's post again, I do not find the context which I just claimed led me to regard Descarte's statement as a deduction. It seems perhaps I was projecting a bit whilst reading his post from the number of times I've seen Descartes' statement abused. My apologies for the confusion. [This message has been edited by ::, 08-19-2003]

Doh, it was Rene Descartes. What was I thinking. Maybe Pascals was "I think therefore I can do quadratic equations using this weird number pyramid."Anyway, I was trying to say that absolute truth is unknowable, or uncertainty is the only certainty (fallacious as well, I know). Something like that. That's what I took away from my reading of Descartes. In this framework nothing in science can be known as a certainty, but only as highly probable or highly improbable, which is what almost all of science ever promises.Besides, it's always a great thought experiment to discuss over a few brews.

No I was Saying that I wont be turning my beliefs into an athiest perspective! PLEASE READ IT AGAIN BEFORE YOU CALL ME IGNORANT!If you know what I meant then you are the ignorant one my friend. So if I keep my beliefs as a Creationist then I am ignorant. No I am sorry but you should not be able to respond to me. I need an ignore list or something anything you say is and insult please discontinue the insults!------------------
Psalm 14:1
The Fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" (emphasis added) -- Charles Darwin

ABOVE in reply to DC85's remarks.------------------
Psalm 14:1
The Fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" (emphasis added) -- Charles Darwin

The last on-topic portion of this discussion was Message 22 by Prophecyexclaimed and its replies. Is anyone interested in the original topic, or is this thread done?------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator