Evolution for Dummies...*Edit*.....is for Dummies
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 10, 2007 06:19
VIEWED: 23475
PAGE 12 of 12
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Same old arguments that have been debunked time and again.
But regardless of that, there is no proper scientific argument that can end with "As we don't understand this process, God must have done it."
youre right.. which is why ours is a faith. Creationism never claimed to be science, just an alternative theory to our origins
Quote:
As even that article says, a postulate requires certain conditions to be held true:
1. The postulate must be observable.
you mean like "billions of years ago", life arose from aninamacy? and remind me which species we've personally observed 'evolve' into something quite different?
Quote:
2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
are they working on turnin apes into humans in some lab that im not familiar with??
Quote:
3. The postulate must withstand a fasifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.
well the results from carbon dating vary considerably between methods.. so how else do we disprove evolution? i guess just sit around and wait another million years.. maybe we'll have sprouted wings or seomthing by then
Quote:
Creationism matches none of these criteria.
neither does evolution. im not opposed to creation being excluded from scientific debate.. so long as real science is offered in its place. i dont see anything 'hard science' about the speculation that 'billions and billions of years ago' life originated from matter following an explosion from a void of nothingness
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
if the universe evolved itself, there should be the dead carcasses of prior evolutions in its wake, no? everyhthing on earth evolved from a single bacteria.. so where are the trillions of variations which would have occurred to lead us to this point? i see the same species there always were.. but ive never seen hybrid bacteria/fish/monkey/human fossils lying around, which would prove that we all share the same common link
That has to be the stupidest post ever on FFF.net.
Congratulations! You had some tough competition.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:God is not a theory. Denying the evidence for evolution exists doesn't mean it's not so, nor that it's not objective evidence.
Originally posted by antimason:
God is a theory, just as evolution.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
(ummm..........(scratching head)......uhhhhh.........don't want to be rude...................ummmmmm...........(scratch head one more time).......uhhhhhhhh.........wow.............................
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
That has to be the stupidest post ever on FFF.net.
Congratulations! You had some tough competition.
its only stupid, cause you guys cant answer it. you think everything we see evolved to its current state by chance, by randomness, by survival of the fittest?? ok.. then SHOW ME THE VARATIONS!? show me all these millions of examples of failed species, of mutations, of the trial and error that led us to this point?
wheres all your proof at?
i know you werent around 'billions of years ago' to witness what you claim is a certainty.. so wheres you hard science?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You have heard of the fossile record, right?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
.
its only stupid, cause you guys cant answer it. you think everything we see evolved to its current state by chance, by randomness, by survival of the fittest?? ok.. then SHOW ME THE VARATIONS!? show me all these millions of examples of failed species, of mutations, of the trial and error that led us to this point?
wheres all your proof at?
It's called the fossil record, it contains countless failed species A.K.A extinct species. Mutation to living cells is observable under a microscope when the cells are exposed to solar radiation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I point to the trilobite.
wheres all your proof at?
BTW, Anti, when you refer to god as a "theory" you're using one of the less accepted defintions of the word.
THEORY
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
model or idea that has undergone testing or validation from careful observations and can be used to make a variety of predictions of what will happen under different circumstances.
astronomy.nju.edu.cn/astron/Astronomynotes/glosst.htm
An analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another, offered to explain events.
helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/gloss_st.html
A theory is a logical explanation or model based on observation, facts hypotheses, experimentation, and reasoning that attempts to explain a range of natural phenomena. Theories are constantly subject to testing, modification, and refutation as new evidence and ideas emerge. Theories also have predictive capabilities that guide further investigation.
user.mc.net/~kwentz/eduspeak.html
an always tentative explanation of phenomena that we observe; never proven; representative of the most logical explanation based on currently available evidence; becomes stronger as more supporting evidence is gathered; provides a context for predictions.
www.ncpublicschools.org/curriculum/science/glossary.htm
A comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community but has not yet been decisively proven. See also hypothesis and scientific law.
college.hmco.com/geology/resources/geologylink/glossary/t.html
A plausible general principle or group of principles offered in terms of a model to explain phenomena
www.learnchem.net/glossary/t.shtml
Proposed explanation for the causal mechanisms responsible for a phenomenon or a set of facts. Also see hypothesis.
www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/physgeoglos/t.html
The general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art. A belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action. A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. A hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation. An unproved assumption.
www.projectauditors.com/Dictionary/T.html
A set of propositions which summarise, organise, and explain a variety of known facts, e.g. Darwin's theory of evolution. Theories are intended to logically summarise information and to give a framework for the generation of new tests and ideas on the topic.
psy.st-andrews.ac.uk/resources/glossary.shtml
A set of ideas which are formulated to explain a phenomenon.
www.fest.org.za/it/glossary.html
a set of assumptions and the conclusions derived from those assumptions put forward as an explanation for some phenomena
www.wwnorton.com/college/econ/stiglitz/glosst.htm
— a principle devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena
nasaexplores.com/lessons/02-069/5-8_glossary.html
"a supposition or system of ideas explaining something, especially one based on general principles independent on the particular things to be explained" (Oxford Canadian Dictionary).
www.yukoncollege.yk.ca/~agraham/guides/tpglossary.htm
Plausible or scientifica
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow.
Just... wow.
Where the hell is Darwin when you need him?
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whoa, did your thoughtful response on the usefulness and comfort that religion offers to the entire planet full of people just got ignored and glossed over? I completely agree that these social constructs exists to bind people together as a whole - to function as a civilization. Seems that sometimes people take it a bit too far and utilize it to harm and becomes to society at large (now and then...). But that's the nature of the beast, you can take it or leave it. Left along with absolutely no religion, people will naturally try to wonder where they came from and why things behave the way that they do around them - left without explanations, they will invent up some stuff. Having a story, a consistent story, to explain things around you builds shared ideas.
The whole entire thing with faith is that you have to start with something you believe in, some thing that you take for granted to be true without a basis of proven facts or logic - the leap of faith if you would...
Science isn't really unlike that much. Science as a system of believe exists from the understanding that nature can be observed, measured, catalogued and completely understood from its own behaviour.
The basic problem with absolutely trusting and believing without fail this very fundamental believe is two folds, there is absolutely no room for the unobservable and the unmeasurable, and when it comes time to measure and observe, and if you can't measure what you don't know how to measure - then you miss out on an entire boatload of evidence. A good scientist leaves room for humility and faith on the none science side - always wondering what it is that can't be measured, and what it is that we don't "yet" know how to measure. Instead, I see a great many "fundamentalist" scientist who shakes their fists at the world and screams "understand me or you are doomed to a life of stoopidity"
To me there is hardly any difference in the position and attitude between a fundamentalist
religious person and a fundamentalist scientist - neither will accept a different position and neither will change their minds even with actual world facts around them. It's a rigid believe in the very own basic fundamental positions.
Quote:
Originally posted by TakeMeFlying:
The fact of the matter is simply that throughout human history, people have used any number of social mechanisms to increase their own safety and survival - of themselves, their family, their property. Laws -religious or secular-, customs, norms: they are all social constructs that help separate individuals live and function together as a relatively orderly whole. One of the most easily manipulated dynamics are simply Us vs Them, and the most empowering validations of that distinction is "my God said so." It's also one of the most inflamatory and intractable, because, interpreted and written in stone by men and women just as worried and alnoe as any of us today, it requires everyone but those within "Us" to be wrong.
Spirituality, shared and private, can provide comfort, guidance, a sense of belonging, of right and wrong, a connectedness to something more than one's self. But when it solidifies into a rigid social construct that demands complete compliance from everything and everyone, it stops being anything more than a tool for the powerful and the unscrupulous. Anything one thinks, believes, loves can be turned to chains in the wrong hands, if you let them.
Believe anything you want, it is a human drive and priviledge to reach to the heavens for meaning and comfort, but water will freeze or turn to steam under consistent conditions, and that is science, and it isn't subject to faith.
Believe with all your heart, pray with every breath, see the world with the eyes of your faith - but accept that others have the same right, and there is a basic, physical reality to this world that does not require your faith or mine to exist.
Science & faith are *independent* of each other.
Like
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME