Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is NOT science: A challenge
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 586 of 591 (137223)
08-26-2004 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 573 by riVeRraT
08-26-2004 11:35 AM


Re: Faith in the unseen
However, it is likely that a professional scientist would know a great deal more about the scientific method than you do, correct?
quote:
No, it doesn't.
So, it is your opinion that it is unlikely that a professional scientist would actually know more than you about what they do for a living, is that correct?
Would you say that a practicing medical doctor would know more about diagnosing disease than you do?
quote:
He is human and I do not know what drives him, if I claimed I did, then I am a fool.
What "drives him" is beside the point.
The scientific method is the same no matter who is doing the science, and there are numerous sources that explain the scientific method as well.
Do you doubt that a professional mechanical engineer might have a better grasp of the concepts and physics behing what he or she does, and that due to their being an expert and professional in their field, they may know more about how they do their work than you do?
quote:
Scientists are supposed to be non-biased,
Incorrect.
Scientists are supposed to be biased in favor of the evidence.
The method and also peer review are what correct for personal or experimental bias.
quote:
The quote from talk origins only proves what I'm saying. Since most scientists don't even believe in God, why would they look to explain him, or creation?
The quote from TalkOrigins just destroyed what you were trying to use as support; that there are scientists who reject the ToE.
The tiny minority of scientists who reject the ToE do so for personal, religious reasons, and to do so they must reject all of the evidence that points to evolution having happened.
Please briefly describe the scientific method as scientists use it.
I'll bet you can't.
quote:
Your dam right I can't, as I can't explain why certain people believe in religion.
Now if you asked me to explain the scientific method, as scientists should use it, I could, its obvious.
OK, then please describe the scientisfic method.
I'll bet you can't.
...and this is one of your misconceptions.
Scientists do not "try to prove" the ToE.
The evidence supports the ToE, not scientists.
quote:
Maybe in the begining this was true, but I think this is not the case anymore. When a geologist uncovers a bone structure, what do you think the first thing he/she would say to themselves?
How does this fit into the evolutionary timescale, I bet.
If you get up early in the morning, and you want to see the sunrise, do you look to the east?
Why do you look in that direction instead of keeping a completely open mind about which direction you predict the sun will come up?
Perhaps it is because the hypothesis that "the sun always rises in the east" has been tested so many millions of times that it would be silly and perverse to constantly doubt it and predict that the sun will rise from a different direction.
It would be a big waste of time, silly, and perverse, similarly, to constantly doubt that common descent with modification is not the origin of species on Earth, because the idea has been tested millions and millions of times and has never been falsified.
quote:
Only after something wouldn't fit would there be a question to as why, and then look for a way for it to fit in.
It is much more likely that this one find is an anomoly or a mistake than for the previous several million finds are all wrong.
The ToE deals with life ONCE IT GOT HERE, not before, as you have been told numerous times.
What was that you were saying about being "always willing to learn"? Why haven't you learned the above, despite being corrected over and over again?
quote:
I am happy that you feel this way, but I have read too many web-sites, and met to many people who don't fell that way.
That's nice, but it is still completely wrong that the ToE has anything to do with the origin of life.
It doesn't matter what people you have met feel or websites you have read say, they are all wrong if they say that the ToE addresses how life first appeared on Earth.
Even Darwin was very explicit about this in Origin of Species.
quote:
If you put TOE in reverse all the way back to the simplest form of life, it is so easy to say that it randomly happened, as most people do.
OK.
That still doesn't make it part of the Theory.
quote:
That would be the ultimate conclusion for most people. Espicially those that don't believe in God.
I realize that random life formation is not part of ToE, but it is part of "the big picture" for most.
OK, good, then you will never again say that the ToE deals with how the first life appeared on Earth, but deals only with life once it got here, however it did.
Really? Please provide 5 examples of the Chemists who work on this issue that mention the ToE in their peer-reviewed professional paper.
quote:
I don't have time to do that.
Then you have no business making the claim.
quote:
Anyone that is smart enough to write a paper should know that not to include that in wrtiing. That doesn't mean that is not the way they think.
Until you provide me evidence that this is part of what they do professionally as practicing Chemists, all you are doinf is talking trash with no basis in fact.
That's called lying.
quote:
This is more like what someone would write in a paper:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html
No, that's more of what people would write in a high school textbook.
[qs]But these same people would try to prove or speculate how it all started with what? You guessed it another theory.
One theory leads to another, don't you think?[/quote]
Yes, of course, that's how we know that theories are very successful; they spawn new scientific fields and areas to explore.
quote:
I mean if they could figure out how life started, and since life evolves, it would help explain how things evolve. ToE would be the continuation of the theory of life, and the 2 go hand in hand.
Well, yes, they are related, but that is similar to saying that Meterology and the study of aerodynamics are related; aerodynamics and meterology both deal with wind, but you don't expect aerodynamics to explain where wind comes from.
quote:
What do you believe? You belive in the ToE,
No, I consider the ToE to be the current best explanation for the evidence thus far.
quote:
and that Life was magically started by some God?
I think it is fairly likely that life emerged by chemical processes, although panspermia is not completely crazy.
There isn't really all that much evidence to make me very sure about any of the ideas, so I don't really know.
God could have "poofed" the first life into existence, and it would make no difference at all to the ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 573 by riVeRraT, posted 08-26-2004 11:35 AM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 587 of 591 (137230)
08-26-2004 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 576 by riVeRraT
08-26-2004 11:58 AM


Re: Faith in the unseen
quote:
I understand your point, but it still wouldn't be good science to accept a theory because of another theory.
I agree.
However, you have a double standard.
You accept all of these other theories that use the exact same method and have less overall support compared to the ToE, yet you reject the ToE.
That means that you have no rational, evidence-based reason to reject the ToE.
quote:
Those theories tend to explain something simple and unchanging, even though the actual theory may be complex.
Irrelevant.
quote:
I can't say the same for ToE. So I wouldn't compare them.
OK, but let's talk about a complex theory, like the Theory of General Relativity, or maybe Chaos Theory.
Do you reject them?
This is very good evidence that you reject the ToE on purely religious grounds, since you thus far have not been able to produce any scientific evidence whatsoever to refute any part of it.
quote:
I accept the germ theory and atom theory, but realize they could be wrong. Also again, just because it may or may not be true that germs cause desease, and atoms exist, that its true we evolved.
The evidence is overwhelming that germs cause disease, that matter is made up of atoms, and also that all life on Earth evolved.
If you accept the first two but not the ToE, then you are rejecting evidence, most likely on religious grounds.
That is evidence of your religious bias and refusal to accept scientific evidence.
Remember, the ToE uses the exact same scientific method as the Germ Theory of Disease and the Atomic Theory of Matter.
quote:
So it is really a mute [sic] point to bring up the germ theory and the atom theory, they have nothing to do with ToE.
The only thing they have in common is that its science. That doesn't make one thing true or untrue.
True.
So, why do you accept the Germ theory and Atomic Theory but not Evolutionary Theory, knowing that all three use the exact same scientific method?
quote:
I do not accept the ToE because of the gaps
Why do you expect there to be no gaps? Evolutionary theory does not predict a perfect fossil record.
Do you know how rare fossilization is?
quote:
and not my religious convictions, but others non-religious convictions.
Yeah, right.
quote:
However, I remain open minded. I do not think that if the ToE was proven or the gaps were filled that it means there is no God.
Well, good, but I really think you need to read through the TalkOrigins FAQs. You really don't know very much about Evolutionary Theory, and it is painfully obvious.
It's no crime to not know something, but it is a shameful thing to remain willfully ignorant, especially when there is so much good science-based information available here.
There is a great deal you have been avoiding learning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by riVeRraT, posted 08-26-2004 11:58 AM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 588 of 591 (137238)
08-26-2004 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 578 by riVeRraT
08-26-2004 12:11 PM


Re: Back towards the topic.
Creationists propose is including religious dogma in science class where it doesn't belong.
quote:
I do not agree with that. Can you prove that is what they want?
Yep.
The following are all transcripts of court descisions in which religious people have tried to either suppress the teaching of Biology or include religious content into science curricula.
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education
Edwards v. Aguillard
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/epperson-v-arkansas.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html
Daniel v. Waters
Wright v. Houston I.S.D. (District Court)
Below is a resolution to include religion into public school science curricula prepared and promoted by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the US's most prominent Creation "science" organization.
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
The following is more regarding the ICR's push to get Creationism into the public schools:
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
Here is the second most important Creation "science" organization's efforts to replace science with religion in public school science classrooms:
August 1999 Newsletter | Answers in Genesis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 578 by riVeRraT, posted 08-26-2004 12:11 PM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 589 of 591 (137241)
08-26-2004 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 579 by riVeRraT
08-26-2004 12:16 PM


Re: Faith in the unseen
Show me an experiment I can do that does not rely on my individual experience inside my own head, or your individual experience inside your own head.
quote:
If we were doing an experiment on dreams or how I feel when I take a certain medicine, you would have to go by what I told you, thats ok, but not when it comes to religion.
Well, actually I would probably hook you up to a machine that showed me your brain activity in the dream study, and I would likely draw blood, take your pressure, heart rate, do an MRI, EEG, collect your urine, look at your pupil dilation, etc, etc, etc.
quote:
The truth is there for you to discover for yourself. It is not limited by the boundries of a "Science experiment"
Ah, but then you can make no claims that anything is happening except inside your own head.
That's the difference between SUBjective and OBjective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 579 by riVeRraT, posted 08-26-2004 12:16 PM riVeRraT has not replied

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 590 of 591 (137288)
08-27-2004 2:35 AM


Admins, please close this topic
You guys are STILL going at it?!
Admins, please shut this thing down! It's been off-topic for the last 200 posts or so! I didn't even know it was still going!!
This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 08-27-2004 01:35 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 591 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-27-2004 2:57 AM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 591 of 591 (137290)
08-27-2004 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 590 by One_Charred_Wing
08-27-2004 2:35 AM


Re: Admins, please close this topic - OK, closed
Coming up on the 600 message closing time anyway.
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 08-27-2004 2:35 AM One_Charred_Wing 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