|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Every evolutionist has a chance to win $250,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hoostino Inactive Member |
[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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: That is a probably a good thing for Mr Hovind.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Ahem! --Percy (Guideline Gremlin)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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) -------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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. --------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024