i thought it might save some trouble if everyone was on the same wavelength
science is not just a fashion word or something you can call your work any time you please
it has a couple ground rules:
a theory is objective accepted if it predicts the outcome of repeatable, empirical experiments and is confirmed by the results
a theory is rejected if it doesn’t meet one of the former conditions or is replaced by a better one
i know wikipedia isn’t the top accurate source around the globe but i did like this explanation about scientific method:
I’ve just had an absolutly brilliant idea! Why don’t y’all tell us what your idea of the theory of evolution is so that we’ll all be on the same page?
Just a thought here, if your idea of evolution is just adaptation, then where did the life that is doing the adaptations come from to begin with? Also, microevolution is true. And one definition of evolution is “organic evolution” meaning that life arose from non-living material.
Why should anyone be obligated to educate you? Why don’t you just stay out of conversations of which you have no knowledge of the subject material. Or at least stop pretending you do. You aren’t fooling anyone.
You should stick to conversations involving britany spears and justin timberlake.
That doesn’t matter to evolution. That’s like saying “you can’t possibly measure the voltage of a lightning strike without knowing what causes lightning”, which is of course silly at best.
Organic evolution is the evolution of organisms, and has nothing to do with ‘non living materials’
Please, just go away and don’t come back until you have at least a slight clue what you are talking about.
Satan, I wasn’t asking you to educate me, I was asking you to clarify you own personal definition of evolution. There’s a difference you know. Besides I don’t like Britney or Timberlake, and I never have.
Then will you admit that evolution is a religion not a science? You have to believe in it for it to be true to you, therefore it’s a religion.
As to your organic evolution arguement, an organism is a living thing. Again, where did it come from?
Will you admit computer science is a religion, not a science? After all, you have to believe in computers for them to be true to you.
Oh wait, that’s ridiculous. Nevermind.
First of all, you do need to clarify what evolution you believe in, The is a difference in a 2 different sub-species of dog will breed a better dog and a banana will eventaully breed into a cat. Macro -evolution (man to monkey) requires alot of faith not far off of believing in God. Darwin, in origin of species jumps from the observation of micro evolution( dog plus a different dog = a new type of dog) into banana plus banana equals penguin.
Second of all, you are trying to prove that theistic science is not science from a scientist standpoint. you can’t do that. methodical naturalism by definition is science, correct, but to debate whether or not theistical science is a science you cannot look at it from the science standpoint. Science is the subject in reference and therefore must be viewed from a standpoint of philosophy. if you comment on the debate between whether or not theistical science is a science you do so as a philosopher and not a scientist.
by the way dr. satanical, your signature completely contradicts your standpoint on evolution. you are not in fact testing evolution but you are believing what other people say about it. just to let you know.
I hear you on not having time to research and validate and attempting to rebut every point of such a lengthy article. You are correct, as well, in suggesting that I am not likely to perform said exercise either.
However, the method you described using to study it and the effort you did put forth are impressive.
It is interesting that you determined that the article was internally cohesive, that was encouraging. I must, however, take execption to your characterization of the author’s use of quotations from Dawkins book . This one, for example, " The problem of the early evolution of life and the unfounded optimism of scientists was well put by Dawkins. He concluded that Earth’s chemistry was different on our early, lifeless, planet, and that at this time there existed
…no life, no biology, only physics and chemistry, and the details of the Earth’s chemistry were very different. Most, though not all, of the informed speculation begins in what has been called the primeval soup, a weak broth of simple organic chemicals in the sea. Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying—a replicator. This may seem like a big stroke of luck… Freakish or not, this kind of luck does happen… [and] it had to happen only once… What is more, as far as we know, it may have happened on only one planet out of a billion billion planets in the universe. Of course many people think that it actually happened on lots and lots of planets, but we only have evidence that it happened on one planet, after a lapse of half a billion to a billion years. So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year. If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet—because here we are talking about it (Dawkins, 1996, pp. 282–283, emphasis in original). is merely Dawkins’ description of the odds.
Was Dawkins’ description incorrect in some way? I didn’t see where he misrepresented D’s position. The use of his other quotes, likewise, serve as illustrations of problems with the theory that Dawkins does a fine job of describing. No doubt Dawkins finds a way to have faith that these obstacles are overcome in other parts of his book, I mean, it is called, “Climbing mount improbable”, or some such, but I don’t see any misuse or misrepresentation, as you claim.
In short, I find the claim of ‘egregious misquotation’, to be unfounded, and dismissal of this ‘internally cohesive’ article, on these grounds, to be uncalled for.
Dude, computer science is a a fact, there isn’t a forum asking whether or not computer science is true, it’s asking if evolution is true. Why do you keep coming up with such irrevelant and idiotic analogies? Besides the fact that anyone can see and touch and use a computer. Not so with evolution. You catchin’ my drift yet?
And if you want to be that way, why don’t you go join that group that doesn’t even believe we are real?
There is no reason to think there is a difference between macro and micro evolution. Your assertion that macro-evolution has not been observed is patently false, as speciation has been observed in fruit flies, among other species.
It may interest you to know that we share 70% of our genetic material with a banana.
A science is something that follows the scientific method. If it does not, it is’t science. There is no such thing as ‘theistic science’
I have seen actual data produced in a reasonable fashion via scientific peer based scrutiny in the field of evolution, though. Can you say the same of creationism, or any counter theory to evolution?
I have the book from which the quotation is taken at home, and I’ll give you a more authoritative statement on the context when I’ve got it in my hand. Generally speaking, however, Dawkins is setting up the absolute minimums from which he spend the entire book explaining that the odds are indeed a great deal better than those minimums. This paragraph is very far from being representative of Dawkins’ views. Incidentally, the book is “The Blind Watchmaker”- quite likely you’ve heard of it, it’s a very good read.
To add another collateral, look at the title of the TrueOrigins article we’re discussing. “Why Abiogenesis is Impossible”. That’s not a title that would be chosen by someone trying to cast legitimate doubt on a theory, that’s grandstanding. For starters, nobody knows enough about the conditions on earth 1.5 billion years ago to definitively state that, and at best the article only casts doubt upon the liklihood of Abiogenesis. But it’s worse than that- there is no possibility that anyone of a scientific mindset would be impressed by such a title. Ergo, the article was not written for a scientific audience- it was written to convince those who wish to be convinced.
Anyway, all this could be justifiably accused of being superficial. Suffice it to say, the article has set off my baloney detectors in a pretty big way.
To be honest, I think this discussion is a little moot. The public (that’s us) will sway one way or another precisely because we’re unable or unwilling to check our facts. The scientific community at large will not be swayed by it because unlike us, they do have to check against reality. Evolution or ID, the public furore is irrelevant.
doctor and inkey… read my previous post on science method please, and try to think what it might mean
this debate is quite useless otherwise
imho
philosophy should not be about the details of evolution theory or whatever
there are empirical scientists who are much and much better at it than any philosopher
the job philosophy might have in this context is the discussion on a far more basic and abstract level
dr. satanical stated:
“There is no reason to think there is a difference between macro and micro evolution. Your assertion that macro-evolution has not been observed is patently false, as speciation has been observed in fruit flies, among other species.
It may interest you to know that we share 70% of our genetic material with a banana.”
Yes we do share genetic information with a banana because if we didn’t we wouldn’t be able to digest. there is more than one reason for something and it is pretty idiotic to assume that the reason we share genetic information with a banana is because we come rom them, It is simply because we have to be able to digest food, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to get nutrition because I can’t creat my own food from sunlight and CO2. There is a huge difference between interbreeding between a sub species and two completely different species. I have yet to see scientist cross a horse and a cat or a tomato and a pickle. if you are really ignorant enough to believe that you can cross a tomato and a pickle then you should really go get into a discussion on something you actually know something about.
You are completely in meta-physical science which declares there is no god. Methological Naturalism science is the science purely on the natural world that does not declare there is no god it just states that it is the study of the physical world. for example, they take a vote a club meeting, the physical part is a person raising their hand to vote, but the part you can’t put science to is the actual reason they voted. you could argue that there are mental reason that they voted that way but mental is not actually physical.
I’d like the name of the scientist that claims humans evolved from bananas. If you truely believe that to be the case, I really have nothing further to say to you.
The time that would be required to educate you to a level of understanding that would qualify you to be even having this discussion would be a complete waste of my time, if even possible.I’m done.
Feel free to believe in whatever fairy tale creation story that suits your fancy.
where did you get that idea?
anyway… so bananas are here to suit us? i assume you’re a hardcore christian who puts faith in the word of genesis?
actually the things you mention there:
are not so strange nowadays
gmo’s often carry dna of species that are totally different…
vegetables get modified with genes of arctic fish to withstand cold better and such… not strange at all
i really think, doctor, you should reconsider what you think you know of the subject
What was the point of this? Whenever I have reason to laugh at you I don’t waste your time and mine trying write it down. I can more easily convey my own derision for you in more simplistic ways then using up other peoples time looking at your weird sounds. And my way sounds more intelligent than the monkey talk. The effort you must have put into this would have been better spent reading a book.
Satan, if you were so clearly wasting your time than it was utterly stupid of you to waste even more of your time saying that. And as to what Doctor said about your signiture, I would suggest that you find a better motto if you can’t even live by this one. And the difference between micro and macro is quite simple. Micro-small changes like a small dog and a big dog; still a dog. Macro-big changes like dog into a cat; impossible. And from what I’ve seen of the whole fruit fly stuff it would fall under microevolution. Not macro. And I would say that theistic science would be another way of saying Creationalism, Intelligent Design, science with God in mind… you see what I’m saying?
Phaelix, I do check my facts when I have the chance, but when have you picked up a Bible to try to understand what we are saying? I’ve looked at all kinds of evolution-based material, but all I need to know in order to see the faults with what they say is the Bible which I read everyday.
let’s see. I’ve wasted more than enough of my time listening unwillingly to science based on evolution, why don’t you try going to a church and sitting quietly to see what the Preacher says? Think of it as education. That’s what I have to do. But it’s up to you of course, unlike me and school, you can’t be forced into it. whatever. It’s your soul you’re endangering for all eternity, not mine. Mine is safe and sound.
Willem said
“are not so strange nowadays
gmo’s often carry dna of species that are totally different…
vegetables get modified with genes of arctic fish to withstand cold better and such… not strange at all”
Your key word is modified. Now you are talking about biotechnology and actually engineering an organism to have certain DNA which (if you don’t know about biotechnology) is put there by human methods. Biotechnolgy and Genetic engineering are a completely different subject, so please if you don’t even know the difference between two areas of science then don’t even bother posting in this thread.
And as to what Doctor said about your signiture, I would suggest that you find a better motto if you can’t even live by this one. And the difference between micro and macro is quite simple. Micro-small changes like a small dog and a big dog; still a dog. Macro-big changes like dog into a cat; impossible. And from what I’ve seen of the whole fruit fly stuff it would fall under 