|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationist/ID Education should be allowed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2087 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
My oh my, what a long word salad. It's obvious that the classic Gish Gallop hasn't passed away with him.
I see sentence after sentence of untruths. I'll comment on one of the falsehoods presented here.
One in situ fossil of an elephant in the ~3300 million year old Kromberg and Hooggenoeg Formations, Onverwacht Group, Barberton Supergroup, South Africa. We find fossils of prokaryotes in there. Solid enough for you? Edited by Pressie, : Spelling
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4018 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.4
|
Nope, never forgotten.
Yes, things change. But, if you don't like science... don't you think you should bring up your issues with the scientific method? Because that's what science is. Like religion. There's lots of political drama over priests who do inappropriate things with young boys. Do you think "religion" should be judged by this drama caused by the people who also happen to do religion? Or should we judge religion by the religious method?
Sure. So, we're back to the same point. If you have an issue with science, you should identify your issue with the scientific method.
Right, absolutely.
Actually, no. Proving ID would not falsify evolution. There are actually two different things to discuss here. 1. Falsifying a theory If ID was shown to be true, evolution would still also be true. They may meld together into some sort of strange Intelligent Evolution theory at some point, but nothing about the theory of evolution would go away... it would simply be added onto with the new knowledge of ID. Falsifying a theory involves showing that the specific theory in question is actually wrong. Evolution predicts that a cat will never give birth to a snake or anything other than a slightly different cat. Evolution predicts that organisms change over time. The point is, in order to falsify a theory you need to show that the predictions of that theory are incorrect. 2. Replacing a theory with another one A theory is only ever replaced with another one if the following is true: The new theory is able to explain all the information available better than the old theory. That's it. Falsification can be a part of replacing a theory, but it isn't necessary and doesn't actually mean anything will happen. The following is an example about how theories are falsified and replaced Let's say I see a lot of robins in spring and summer and fall. Now, someone else comes up with a competing theory. They call it Intrinsic Death. Let's say a 3rd group has another theory. They call it Create-A-Robin. Which theory scientifically explains all the information available in a better way? Obviously, we go with the natural theory. Now, we have our accepted scientific theory that robins only live during the spring and summer and fall, and die in the winter. Then we get some more information. What now? Our accepted theory is falsified. What now? Well, since our old accepted-theory still scientifically explains all the information better than the others... it's still the accepted theory! What happens is we adjust our theory to account for this new information. The theory becomes "robins live year round, but they fly south for the winter." As long as Create-A-Robin stays the same, it'll never be used in the scientific world. There's no predictions, no usefulness, no science. The theory that is always used in the scientific world is the one that explains all the information better than the others. This is generally developed by changing our theories to account for new information as our knowledge grows. If you don't like a theory, you need to show some information that it cannot account for... and then identify a new theory that does account for it, but also accounts for all the old information as well. This will make it better, and then it will replace the old theory. If you don't like the method of science... then you're free to think up a better method.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 18854 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Yes, that's the greatest strength of science, the ability to admit when you're wrong. New evidence often makes old ideas wrong. That's also the greatest weakness of creationism and its alter-ego Intelligent Design - the unshakable faith that you already know everything there is to know.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4018 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.4
|
Where did this part come from? If you can't back up your claims... then your ideas are not scientific and will never be accepted by anyone in science. It's quite possible that the media did not inform you of the scientific exposition for this or that idea. Scientific exposition can take quite a bit of education and motivation to understand. Is there anything specific you think there's no scientific exposition for? I'm sure we can go over it, if you'd like. I did a quick google on "History of Junk DNA" and came up with a bunch of websites, including this blog: quote: There's a bunch of information just in that blog alone. That's what scientific research and science-related post-university schooling is for... reading and understanding the scientific expositions behind certain principles. It can sometimes take years to get through the amount of data backing up specific ideas. That's what happened when things change in the scientific community. Someone studied a subject... realized something didn't line up... studied it harder and longer... then identified why and how to correct the issue. That's not a "problem"... that's "scientific advancement."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Skulb Junior Member (Idle past 2655 days) Posts: 4 Joined: |
"Yes, that's the greatest strength of science, the ability to admit when you're wrong. New evidence often makes old ideas wrong."
I know but that is what is not happening. Instead an illegitimate practise of consensus based paradigms has been introduced to replace it, specifically for political purposes, under which change is resisted for decade after decade because people have made their careers under the old paradigm and refuse to accept contradicting information. This is how modern science now works and although you all give wonderful presentations of how science is supposed to work it not how it actually works in the real world. We could discuss how this phenomenon affect evolutionary biology in particular but I don`t think there`s much point. Unless you catch up on science practises for the past few decades you`ll obviously not understand a word I`m saying, and to be frank the level of arrogance and self admiration in some of these posts is very unappealing. I will therefore excuse myself from the discussion and these forums. I want intelligent conversation, not scientific dogmas and an inability to think individually. Have a nice summer. Edited by Skulb, : No reason given. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : More blank lines.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 859 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
More likely you want people to ignore the scientific method and accept, uncritically, your own particular brand of woo. Sorry, try elsewhere. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16112 Joined:
|
Oh look, someone making sweeping and extraordinary claims without offering a shred of evidence to back them up is lecturing us on the scientific method. Oh, and complaining about "arrogance" while he does it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
I'd keep it with the politics where it reichtfully belongs. Love your enemies!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4018 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.4
|
Weren't you looking for intelligent conversation? From here, it appears that you came onto a forum, dropped a few points without backing them up at all, and then ran away when they were easily discarded by those who actually did back up their positions. Perhaps a nice summer would help you to relax and reflect on your ideas about what intelligent conversation actually entails. Another thing is to try and not take responses personally. Just because your first attempt at communicating your issues with science didn't go the way you planned doesn't mean anything is wrong with you. Your recent hostility should have been contained. Instead of wondering why no one saw the obvious intelligence in your remarks, you should focus on thinking of ways to make the points even more obvious. Switching to petty grumpiness only shows that you're more concerned with trying to "save face" instead of actually talking about the topic. One of the nice things about forums is that they don't disappear. You can take as much time as you need. Whenever you're ready you can come back and try again.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 18854 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
The scientific approach, if you really had any interest in the scientific approach, would be to present evidence that supports your hypothesis.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member Posts: 3197 Joined: |
And , in the UK.,, they just passed a law forbidding the teaching of creationism in schools
http://www.iflscience.com/...reationism-state-funded-schools
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021