Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Top ten works in the Theory of Evolution
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 34 (336711)
07-30-2006 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by AnswersInGenitals
07-29-2006 2:53 PM


Re: Randman is right!
I think it would be fair to say that the theory of evolution, like many scientific theories, actually predates the modern scientific community and the modern incarnation of the rigorous scientific method.
The fact that evolution turned out to be right anyway, despite being born in modern science's infantcy, is a testament to Darwin's insight into the natural world. The truth is that it's impossible to operate from "assumptions" that are directly counterfactual and arrive at any kind of real results. The fact that we get results from evolution proves that the theory is essentially correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 07-29-2006 2:53 PM AnswersInGenitals has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 07-30-2006 6:10 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 18 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 07-31-2006 12:40 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 19 of 34 (336801)
07-31-2006 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
07-30-2006 6:10 PM


Re: Randman is right!
Except that we don't "get the results" since the facts keep piling up against the predictions of ToE.
Oh, come on. You know that's absolutely, 100% untrue. And I know just as well as you that, despite being asked repeatedly to tell us what those "facts" actually are you never will, because you never do.
The Egyptians had a system that worked perfectly well. Every year, this god or that god went through something, brining on spring, the rains, etc,...
Never mind, of course, that their faulty calendar kept meandering all around the year, making it all but impossible for them to accurately predict the annual flooding of the Nile.
In other words, you're completely wrong, and your example actually proves my point - the faulty assumptions underpinning the Egyptian calendar didn't work, and were pretty rapidly exposed as false when the predictions based on them simply didn't come true.
Face it, Randman, you're arguing against a point that should be immediately obvious as true. If you could get results from false models, what would be the use in having correct ones? If lies work just as well as truth, then what value does truth have?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 07-30-2006 6:10 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by randman, posted 07-31-2006 2:22 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 20 of 34 (336802)
07-31-2006 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by AnswersInGenitals
07-31-2006 12:40 AM


Thank you for expanding on your thoughts. I think you're absolutely right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 07-31-2006 12:40 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 34 (336929)
07-31-2006 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by randman
07-31-2006 2:19 AM


Re: Randman is right!
Funny how there is no peer-review works to verify evolutionary theory
None? There's millions. Every paper verifies a millionth-part of the theory, and taken in aggregate, the theory is the best-supported theory in science, bar none.
Now, there's not a single paper that verifies the entire theory. How could there be? How can one paper verify an entire scientific theory? It's nonsense to even suggest it, and you should know better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 07-31-2006 2:19 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by robinrohan, posted 07-31-2006 1:31 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 34 of 34 (337329)
08-02-2006 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by robinrohan
07-31-2006 1:31 PM


Re: Randman is right!
I've heard that before, but have never understood how that could be.
It's possible to do physics without using relativity. It's possible to do chemistry without invoking quantum electrodynamics.
It isn't possible to do biology without using evolution. You can collect animals and plants, but they can't be classified or studied absent the recognition that the origin of the diversity of life on Earth are evolutionary mechanisms. In that regard, every accomplishment in biology is one more pillar holding up the theory of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by robinrohan, posted 07-31-2006 1:31 PM robinrohan 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