|
On December 13 2007 01:51 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2007 01:44 fight_or_flight wrote:On December 13 2007 01:30 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:
fight_or_flight, I suggest you stop starting petty superficial arguments based on the definitions of words and actually discuss something of substance. There is more to a subject than percentages. I used one pseudo-percentage in 10 pages. Anyway, I feel that scientific dogma is very bad, and when it occurs its bad for everybody. Scientific dogma is an oxymoron. If someone is actually being scientific they will never be dogmatic. Science is based off evidence. Dogma plays no role in science.
Exactly, thats why its so bad.
Oh, and pseudo-percentage is an interesting way of saying "something I completely made up with no reasoning or solid grounds to back it up with".
Ah, I see you have a pet-peeve as well. Haha, now you know how i feel. Now what if I said to you that 92% of the posters in this thread only understand about 12% of what a theory is?
|
I'd say you're still an idiot who has offered not a single good reply to the long list of things I pointed out as complete bullshit in your statements. Cheers.
|
To answer your long list, a fact is not a well tested theory. Also, any theory that isn't "current" has been discarded. Which include all previous theories.
On a side note, ad hominem attacks are very bad for science as well.
|
Why is a fact not a well tested theory? Any theory that isn't current has not been "discarded" in many cases those theories are just simplified or incomplete versions of the current theory. Either way, if you would recall your statement, you said that "every theory has been wrong so far". Ad Hominem attacks are find if coupled with logical arguements because frankly you deserve the flames.
You are not answering my critiques, you are simply restating your opinion without evidence. Just as you have been doing all along.
|
On December 13 2007 02:45 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:
Why is a fact not a well tested theory? Well a fact is more of an observation, while a theory is more of an interpretation.Any theory that isn't current has not been "discarded" in many cases those theories are just simplified or incomplete versions of the current theory. Either way, if you would recall your statement, you said that "every theory has been wrong so far". Well some theories are known to be wrong but still very useful. But they certainly aren't facts.You are not answering my critiques, you are simply restating your opinion without evidence. Just as you have been doing all along. Sorry, I've been writing too much in this thread, I think I'll stop soon.
|
A fact is a mere measurement, an experimental observation.
A theory is an understanding of an entire process and it contains within itself several laws.
|
On December 13 2007 03:06 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2007 02:45 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:
Why is a fact not a well tested theory? Well a fact is more of an observation, while a theory is more of an interpretation. Show nested quote +Any theory that isn't current has not been "discarded" in many cases those theories are just simplified or incomplete versions of the current theory. Either way, if you would recall your statement, you said that "every theory has been wrong so far". Well some theories are known to be wrong but still very useful. But they certainly aren't facts. Show nested quote +You are not answering my critiques, you are simply restating your opinion without evidence. Just as you have been doing all along. Sorry, I've been writing too much in this thread, I think I'll stop soon.
Well everything you've written was interesting so far.
I take back my first statement about people flaming creationism without backing themselves up with reason.
Fact is truth. Truth is fidelity to the original (according to the dictionary).
|
When do people learn? Stop fucking believing in anything, you dumbfucks!
P.S Im not a troll.
|
I hadn't noticed this thread till now, but wow...
All other theories in the past have been wrong. All of them.
No, actually that is incorrect. All? Oh really? How many scientific theories have been overturned? Very very very few.
Let me tell you something about gravity. Its a theory. And its probably 90% wrong.
As opposed to Bell's theory of quantum mechanics which is 57.4% wrong? And could you kindly point out some holes in the theory of gravity? On what basis can you possibly say it is "probably 90% wrong".
Remember, 100 years ago gravity was a 'force'. Now its not
Umm... yes it is. How much has changed? Einstein refined the definition of gravity but that was about it. And before Einstein there was no theory defining gravity. Newton admitted that he had no idea what gravity was, only how it operated.
You are not answering my critiques, you are simply restating your opinion without evidence. Just as you have been doing all along.
qft
Honestly, attempting to argue against evolution is a massive waste of time. Evidence, or STFU. And since evidence is so titanically on the side of evolution it is really rather silly. There was a court case a couple years ago on whether intelligent design was science. Here are some quotes:
+ Show Spoiler +Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community...
However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that
while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no
position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one
of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1)
ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting
supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID,
employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation
science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted
by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is
additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific
community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the
subject of testing and research.
etc. etc. etc.
|
triangle; actually the lot of scientific theories have been overturned. But that's the beauty of science.
The current understanding of gravity is probably wrong. But it's certainly "good enough" so to speak. Newton was wrong; but we still use his equations because they are so close to being correct that it doesn't matter. In the future, maybe Einstein will be proven wrong; but I don't think his equations will be considered obsolete because of that; because they are even closer than Newton's to being correct.
|
Despite the fact that some of our understanding of gravity is wrong, it doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist. Particles are attracted to eachother -- this is fact, as is defined by BlackStar earlier:
A fact is a mere measurement, an experimental observation.
Despite the fact that we don't understand completely how it works doesn't change the fact that the attraction of particles exist.
Here is another fact:
Over time, populations adapt to their environment. or populations continuously genetically adapt to environmental change
We know that this happens. If it didn't, we easily wipe out every disease known to man. Bacteria would never develop resistance to our drugs, viruses (disputably alive, I admit) would be wiped out by our immune systems once and never be able to grab hold again, because they would not be able to change in order to attack again.
All people on the planet would be the same color, as it would be impossible for fairer skin to triumph in the northern climates, thus increasing Vitamin D production. All humans, sans special equipment, would live in equatorial climates only.
We KNOW these changes occur. The fact that genetic traits are passed on from generation to generation, and that successful traits are extended into the general population IS FACT, easily observed FACT.
All of the mechanisms that make it occur are much more complex, and that is why there is evolutionary theory. An entire branch of science is dedicated to it.
Also, I would agree that many scientific theories of the past have been rejected, with the caveat that all true modern theories (testable, observable, falsifiable), since the advent of modern scientific method from Popper & Kuhn, are extremely solid and are generally not challenged but modified. We are always making changes to the theory of evolution. But theory of evolution is how evolution works. This does not change the fact that evolution is an observable fact.
[edit: changed "modern scientific theory" to "modern scientific method", last paragraph]
|
actually the lot of scientific theories have been overturned.
Which ones? Theories may be modified, very rarely are they overturned. It takes a lot to be called a theory, that's a significant accomplishment.
The current understanding of gravity is probably wrong.
Not wrong, incomplete.
Newton was wrong; but we still use his equations because they are so close to being correct that it doesn't matter.
Again, Newton wasn't "wrong". His equations are perfectly valid in normal situations. Einstein more provided an "exceptions to the rule" than anything else. To say Newtonian theory was "wrong" is incorrect. It was just incomplete. The basic equations were sound.
In the case of evolution, there may be elements missing. But the underlying idea will probably never be overturned.
|
I can't say I've read much of this but I think it's the trend in science now to not call anything a law. Nothing can be proven, only further supported. This keeps science evolving and stops people from saying OMGZ YOUR LAWS ARE WRONG as a justification for beliefs that don't have much evidence. Everything is provisional... sometimes they become so well supported that it's almost a law just the same, but that technicality should keep science from becoming dogmatic.
|
On December 14 2007 07:44 Vi)Chris wrote:
I can't say I've read much of this but I think it's the trend in science now to not call anything a law. Nothing can be proven, only further supported. This keeps science evolving and stops people from saying OMGZ YOUR LAWS ARE WRONG as a justification for beliefs that don't have much evidence. Everything is provisional... sometimes they become so well supported that it's almost a law just the same, but that technicality should keep science from becoming dogmatic.
That's the point, science isn't about absolute proof, it's always provisional, and contingent on new findings. That's why they have different definitions for "scientific law", "scientific fact", "scientific theory" than any of those words mean in plain speech. When people mix the two they betray an utter lack of familiarity with science and what it is and isn't. In science, for instance, a law doesn't mean something unbreakable. It means something that, every time it has been tested, has always been observed to be true, and has stood some test of time etc. etc. It doesn't mean one day it won't be overturned, modified, redefined when observations make it necessary.
|
Theories can be modified. If we saw something fall up, we wouldn't toss out General Relativity. We would simply search for the problem, and rework it. Evolution is the same. If we find something that conflicts with evolution, we will find the problem, and rework the theory.
|
nowhere in the article does it say he refused to do his job. he simply disagreed with the theory. i can disagree with something, but still do the job that it encompasses.
so people like mindcrime posting stuff like:-
Refusing to do a portion of the work that you were hired to do because of that lack of belief certainly makes you unfit."
are wrong in using that argument.
"Abraham, who was dismissed eight months after he was hired, said he was willing to do research using evolutionary concepts but that he had been required to accept Darwin's theory of evolution as scientific fact or lose his job."
edit: and i hope he wins 
|
On December 11 2007 06:44 BlackStar wrote:
You can't be a commercial airline pilot while believing the earth is flat. Same for this guy.
why not? if you can get the plane from A to B safely who gives a fuck what the pilot thinks? i don't.
your argument is the same thing as saying "you can't be a sailor while believing the earth is flat", oh wait.....
|
On December 11 2007 06:10 vGl-CoW wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 06:07 HnR)hT wrote:On December 11 2007 05:53 Aepplet wrote:
not believing in evolution obviously made him unfit for the job. this is no different from any other firing. How can belief in a proposition or lack thereof make someone unfit for any job? how can you be fit for a job in a field where you completely reject one of its main paradigms as long as you do the work in an unbiased fashion does it matter what you accept/reject?
|
On December 11 2007 09:47 boghat wrote:
If you're a biologist and don't believe in evolution you aren't a biologist... evolution is the fundamental central theme to all of biology. This is ridiculous that this is even a topic or an argument.
How can you take all those biology courses to become a biologist and not believe in evolution when every single course requires you to accept evolution? I don't understand why someone would want to do that.
actually no, evolution isnt the fundamental central theme to all of biology.
the central dogma of biology is:
dna -> rna -> protein
|
On December 11 2007 10:05 HonkHonkBeep wrote:
How do you go into a field when your religious belief system denies the very core dogma of the field...?
evo is not the core/dogma of bio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
