Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Every evolutionist has a chance to win $250,000
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 106 of 211 (2186)
01-15-2002 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by redstang281
01-15-2002 9:27 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b] Of course I'm bias against evolution.
Evolution has destroyed many christians faith. And it isn't even provable. The christians whose faith was destroyed by evolution werent even aware that evolution isnt provable.
[/QUOTE]
If some Christians lost their faith because it was based upon one chapter in Genesis being literally true, then their faith wasn't based upon a firm foundation in the first place.
Don't blame science for Christians losing their faith. Blame the religious leaders for forcing people to choose between reason and logic, and blind adherence to rigid dogmatic fundamentalism that doesn't allow them to think intelligently and use their (God-given?) reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by redstang281, posted 01-15-2002 9:27 AM redstang281 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by TrueCreation, posted 01-19-2002 5:21 PM nator has not replied

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


Message 107 of 211 (2188)
01-15-2002 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by redstang281
01-15-2002 10:10 AM


[QUOTE] There may not be anyone on this board who agree's with me, but believe me there are many americans that do.[/B][/QUOTE]
1) Science isn't decided by popular vote.
2) 50% of Americans belive in Astrology, and that is more than believe in literal Genesis Creation. Another large minority of americans belive in Alien abductions. Do you think astrology and IFOlogy should be taught in public school science classrooms?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by redstang281, posted 01-15-2002 10:10 AM redstang281 has not replied

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


Message 108 of 211 (2189)
01-15-2002 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by redstang281
01-15-2002 10:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
In my oppinion one of the biggest problems with this country.

OK, let's say we repeal the Establishment Clause of the Constitution and become a Theocracy. We would join other countries with Theocracies such as Iran and Afghanistan.
Then, we would have to decide which would be the state-mandated religion.
If it can somehow be decided that Christianity would be the state-mandated religion, I propose that the Christian demomination which has the single-largest membership in the US should be chosen.
That would be Roman Catholic.
Since Catholics have no problem with the ToE (finally) and do not take the Bible literally, you wouldn't be allowed to believe in the literal Creation in Genesis any more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by redstang281, posted 01-15-2002 10:26 AM redstang281 has not replied

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


Message 109 of 211 (2192)
01-15-2002 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by redstang281
01-15-2002 10:41 AM


Wrong.
OJ wasn't found innocent. He was found not guilty.
Different concepts.
Let us also remember that he was found not guilty in the criminal trial, but not in the civil trial, where the standard requirement is "the prepondeance of the evidence."
The "prepoderance of the evidence" showed that there was enough reason to consider him responsible for the murders.
Just like "a preponderance of the evidence" is enough of a reason that ANY scientific theory, including the ToE, is provisionally accepted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by redstang281, posted 01-15-2002 10:41 AM redstang281 has not replied

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


Message 110 of 211 (2194)
01-15-2002 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by redstang281
01-15-2002 10:41 AM


quote:
Is there any evidence against the theory of gravity?
Which Theory of Gravity are you talking about? There are several. For example:
http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/node9.html
There is PLENTY of debate among physicists about Gravitational Theory.
Similarly, there is plenty of debate among Biologists about Evolutionary theory.
Just as physicists do not debate the basic facts of gravity any longer, Biologists do not debate the basic facts of evolution any longer.
Is there any evidence against evolution and every single thing brought up to try and prove evolution? yes...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by redstang281, posted 01-15-2002 10:41 AM redstang281 has not replied

hoostino
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 211 (2207)
01-15-2002 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by redstang281
01-15-2002 9:27 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b] Of course I'm bias against evolution.
Evolution has destroyed many christians faith. And it isn't even provable. The christians whose faith was destroyed by evolution werent even aware that evolution isnt provable.
[/QUOTE]
You ask for an absolute 'proof' of evolution, but first understand that absolute proof is unattainable outside of mathematics. Do you believe that you are reading these words from a computer screen? Why? Because your brain is receiving empirical evidence that suggests you are reading from a computer screen (i.e. your eyes are submitting information to your brain). But you cannot offer absolute proof that you are indeed reading from a computer monitor. Evolution (and all scientific theory) is parallel to this concept, as it has empirical evidence supporting it (from a multitude of scientific disciplines in the case of evolution), but people such as you do not accept the evidence (and in turn, the theory) because they carry a bias (usually rooted in religion) that urges them to ignore the data available (empirical evidence). You believe you are reading from a computer screen, right? There is no social nor religious pressure preventing you from believing that you're reading from a computer screen. But evolution carries such a stigma, and thus, you do not believe it. Others like you support their disbelief by construing science to mean what they want it to mean. Introducing bias such as this corrupts the data, resulting in no scientific information whatsoever. In my opinion, this fallacy is at the core of most creationism. The bias certainly can exist on both sides of the fence (and does), however (most) scientists adhere to the purest form of objectivity -- the scientific method. Science does not attempt to confirm any dogma with observable data, it is designed to form observable, consistent, and unbiased evidence in order to explain and understand our reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by redstang281, posted 01-15-2002 9:27 AM redstang281 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 112 of 211 (2209)
01-15-2002 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by nator
01-15-2002 1:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
I think that this is a fluid thing. There is no clear line, it's true. However, you must not forget that as we learn more about nature, every new discovery will either strengthen or weaken existing explanitory theories. They are constantly being tested. That's how Newton's theories were eventually shown to be lacking. Not wrong, but inaccurate under certain conditions. The ToE has been constantly tested for well over 100 years, and it has not been shown to be wrong or inaccurate. The mechanisms by which evolution occurs are disputed, but so far, the thousands upon thousands of individual tests of the theory have tended to strengthen it.
It is an extraordinarily robust theory, so why not call the occurence of evolution "fact", just as we call the occurence of gravity "fact", or the existence of atoms "fact"?

I must admit, apart from Goulds use of "fact"in his essay "Evolution As Fact & Theory", I was under the impression this was the wrong usage, & was frowned upon.
As long as the definition is defined, there is no harm done, & if this definition IS in common scientific usage, then I need to adjust.
I feel science should be as accessible & understandable as possible to laymen. We are ALL laymen in one field or another, so why not make terms as accessible to laymen (all of us) as possible, ie fact to be defined as "100% Proven"? It's what most people understand, after all. Of course, it means inventing a word that means "scientific theory with a high probability of truth", which, in your favour, is the more difficult alternative. Because you then have to get that word into common usage. But, is "strongly supported theory" so bad?
I do understand your point that it's a bit silly not to get into a plane (my example) because aerodynamics is a field that cannot, by scientific definition, be proven 100%. Planes fly, aerodynamics is close enough to 100% that we don't question it, Newtons laws of motion were good enough to get man to the moon, so must be pretty close to 100% But is evolution this robust? Admittedly, theres a COLOSSAL amount of supporting evidence that has to be explained in a different way, VERY unlikely in my view. But can it be tested to the high percentile point of Newtons laws, which have been abandoned before, albeit briefly?
Are these reasons enough to attribute the word "fact" to scientific theories are entirely workable below 100%? Is it enough?
Anyway, don't panic, I'm not wavering, just being Mr Cautious. That said, & I know you are embattled elsewhere, is there any science site link that supports your definition? Not doubting you, I just like to see things from more than one source before sticking my flag in.
Thanks,
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 1:44 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by nator, posted 01-17-2002 12:48 AM mark24 has replied

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


Message 113 of 211 (2317)
01-17-2002 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by mark24
01-15-2002 5:30 PM


Very enjoyable discussion, Mark! After some of the knee-deep crapola I have been slogging through, er, elsewhere in this forum, it is truly refreshing to have an actual back and forth exchange of ideas with someone intelligent.
If we are talking about change over time and common descent, then yes, I would readily say that the ToE is as robust a theory as Newton's.
I agree that science should be made accessable to everyone, of course. I think a great deal of the blame for why it isn't should be placed squarely on our schools' poor teaching of science. I didn't learn anything about how science really works until I took a wonderful class in college called "The Nature of Scientific Inquiry". Now, I went to a small liberal arts college and this was an elective, and I had just finished taking Biology 101 and really liked the class and the professor, so I signed up. What chance does an English or business major have of understanding science if they don't learn about it in public school and avoid it at all costs at university? Hell, a lot of science undergrads don't really understand how science is done.
We need to require more science in school, and we need to teach real science when we do so.
Here is a good explanation of what science is. There is a specific section which covers what we have been talking about. It does a good job of explaining what ideas "go through" along the path to being considered a robust theory:
http://www.skepdic.com/science.html
enjoy!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by mark24, posted 01-15-2002 5:30 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by mark24, posted 01-17-2002 3:55 AM nator has not replied
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 01-19-2002 2:28 PM nator has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 114 of 211 (2320)
01-17-2002 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by nator
01-17-2002 12:48 AM


Hi Schraf,
Thanks for the link. I bow to the weight of evidence. If science defines fact in this way, then I can't reasonably use it differently when discussing science.
Many Thanks,
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by nator, posted 01-17-2002 12:48 AM nator has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 211 (2325)
01-17-2002 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by nator
01-13-2002 10:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
What has he said that is outrageous??
"I heard a man give his testimony who manages a mental institution. He told me that the government pays him to keep 60 percent of his beds
empty."
-Dr Dino

That is a probably a good thing for Mr Hovind.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by nator, posted 01-13-2002 10:15 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by TrueCreation, posted 01-19-2002 2:38 PM joz has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 211 (2361)
01-17-2002 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by mark24
01-13-2002 7:35 PM


"Induldge me."
--http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...tionistLies-PartA.htm
--http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...tionistLies-PartB.htm
--http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...tionistLies-PartC.htm
--Mind you, some few of my views on some cosmology aspects have changed over the months since I started the response, I posted A, B, and C they are alot of space and I don't get very much bandwidth as it is.
-------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by mark24, posted 01-13-2002 7:35 PM mark24 has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 211 (2363)
01-17-2002 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by nator
01-13-2002 9:49 PM


"Hovind's whole point is that he is shady. And a nut case. And buys his PhD's from diploma mills. This is why he doesn't know anything about science."
--Why is he a nutcase, if he is so nutty?
"You have "consistently replied" to me concerning the scientific nature of Creationism, true. The problem is, you respond with non-responses, such as "Yes, it is too science". You do not SUBSTANTIVELY respond to my SPECIFIC points regarding the ways in which Creationism violates the tenets of scientific inquiry. You just say, basically, "IS TOO, IS TOO, IS TOO!!"
--I have given reasons why your assertions about creation science and your support are wrong and missunderstandings of the creation science concept, you can look somewhere else and argue with AiG or ICR beliefs all you want but it isn't going to do anything really.
"You (and others) are very difficult to pin down on specific points when asked directly, and since you (and others) do not demonstrate an understanding of what science is, and how Creationism is a clear departure from science, I have started a new topic in this regard entitled "Why Creationism isn't scientific."
--I'll have to go there, Creation science deals with the definition of science, naturalistic mechenisms.
"No, you have it backwards."
--I do?
"The "faith" in Creation "science" is the all-important, overarching concept that governs what is said, done, and concluded."
--Who did you talk to? The little skeptic again, Faith and Creation Science are differentiated among the two. There you have faith, and you have Creation science, Faith, Creation science, not the Faith of Creation science.
"The ICR's motto is, "A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry". It doesn't say anything at all about science, research, or learning. It's a MINISTRY, which clearly means that it is most interested in promoting it's CHRISTIAN RELIGION, and not in scientific inquiry."
--And your point is? Like I said earlier, you can argue with ICR all you want but it isn't going to do really anything while they arent here to discuss with you.
"Before one is accepted as a graduate student into the ICR's program, one must display, "Evidence of personal integrity, good character. and agreement with the ICR purpose, goals, and tenets." In other words, before you are even taught anything, you must agree AHEAD of time that the ICR's particular interpretation of the Bible is correct. They also require all students to be Christian, which further points out their disinterest in actually doing science, and their great interest in promoting their religious agenda."
--Ok thats great...
"Here are the tenets of this supposedly "scientific" institute, and they are fundamentally faith-based."
--um...Ok?
"From the tenets of the ICR:"
--Again?
"So, Creation "science" violates what is arguably two of the most basic and important tenets of real science; empiricism and tentativity."
--You can argue (again) with ICR and their tenants all you want, but its pointless, Creation science is consistant with the definition of science and nothing less. I'm not trying to prove this right, you are trying to prove it wrong.
(trying to catch up!
-------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by nator, posted 01-13-2002 9:49 PM nator has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 118 of 211 (2479)
01-19-2002 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by nator
01-17-2002 12:48 AM



Schraf writes:
Very enjoyable discussion, Mark! After some of the knee-deep crapola I have been slogging through, er, elsewhere in this forum, it is truly refreshing to have an actual back and forth exchange of ideas with someone intelligent.
Ahem!
--Percy (Guideline Gremlin)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by nator, posted 01-17-2002 12:48 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by nator, posted 01-22-2002 2:23 PM Percy has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 211 (2482)
01-19-2002 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by joz
01-17-2002 10:09 AM


"That is a probably a good thing for Mr Hovind....."
--I'm beginning to wonder why atleast 98% of the comments against Hovind are Jokes and not scientific credibility. (Here comes another Joke)
-------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by joz, posted 01-17-2002 10:09 AM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 01-19-2002 6:07 PM TrueCreation has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 211 (2495)
01-19-2002 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by nator
01-15-2002 1:58 PM


"Don't blame science for Christians losing their faith. Blame the religious leaders for forcing people to choose between reason and logic, and blind adherence to rigid dogmatic fundamentalism that doesn't allow them to think intelligently and use their (God-given?) reason."
--Reason and logic go together, and tie with the theological doctrine of the biblical scripture, which I will continue to propose to be astonishing. To blame science is an ignorant assertion on anyone's part, to blame the Theory of 'E'volution is opinion, and to blame the way people teach this theory is what is to blame. To teach the ToE free of bias is the realization of truth because you know what in the ToE is scientific observation, theory, fantasy, conjector, assertion and, assumption.
--------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 1:58 PM nator 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