Australian Politics Forum - EVOLUTION VS RELIGION

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #285 - Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 11:26am

tallowood wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 11:11am:

muso wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 11:04am:

tallowood wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 10:57am:

Anyway can you point out the fundamental flaw that you claim you can see?

Yeah. I'd only be too glad to do so if you could point out the minute imperfections in this picture of a cat?

Maybe the eyes are not quite right?

That is very scientific way to argue. I can see now that you are a real scientist, muso. I think it will be cool to use such argument against environmental dangers of green gases. Cheesy

Good try.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48857
At my desk.

Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #286 - Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 12:29pm

tallowood wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 10:51pm:

Quote:

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
...
Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

That is complete crap Tallow. It does not reflect the reality of science at all. Thomas Kuhn is currently the most respected philospher of science. If you want to get an udnerstanding of how science really works, read his book 'The nature of scientific revolution'. It is pretty much the opposite of how that copy and paste describes it.

Quote:

Mutation is not a major factor.

Not a major factor? It is the source of all biological diversity. It is the ultimate source of all life on earth.

Quote:

The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:

None of those predictions are in the context of an experiment. None of them are scientific. None of them are repeatable. Predicting your wife will have dinner on the table when you get home does not mean wife theory is scientific.

Quote:

The point is not that these prove evolution right.

Yet it is nothing to do with what I am arguing.

Quote:

Usually when I see people splitting hairs about the evolutionary process like in this thread, they have a hidden agenda, and they have an endless arsenal of disembodied facts that can be used against any science based assertion. They generally don't understand the points , but are quite happy to cut and paste. The arguments on dating are the most absurd, expecially considering how the fossil record neatly falls into place, complete with lineages.

Who here is making those arguments? You seem to be fighting strawmen Muso. I have pointed out a number of times that what you are saying has nothing to do with my argument. Are you directing it at someone else? You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what we are discussing, and not bothering to check if they are correct.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 12:37pm by freediver »

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

tallowood Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6048	Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION Reply #287 - Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 1:00pm freediver wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 12:29pm: ... That is complete crap Tallow. It does not reflect the reality of science at all. Thomas Kuhn is currently the most respected philospher of science. ... Did Thomas say crap? Is his saying falsifiable?
Back to top	ישראל חיה ערבים לערבים IP Logged

tallowood

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6048

Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #288 - Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 1:01pm

muso wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 11:26am:

tallowood wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 11:11am:

muso wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 11:04am:

tallowood wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 10:57am:

Anyway can you point out the fundamental flaw that you claim you can see?

Yeah. I'd only be too glad to do so if you could point out the minute imperfections in this picture of a cat?

Maybe the eyes are not quite right?

That is very scientific way to argue. I can see now that you are a real scientist, muso. I think it will be cool to use such argument against environmental dangers of green gases. Cheesy

Good try.

Too easy

Back to top

ישראל חיה ערבים לערבים

IP Logged

locutius

Gold Member

Offline

You can't fight in here!
It's the War Room

Posts: 1817
Queensland
Gender: male

Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #289 - Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 1:01pm

Maybe true predictions based on experiments involve timescales that we are unable to accomodate. That is why we are limited to viruses vs antibiotics in jellyjars. Those are experiments that involve predictions.

Eg, some of the virus has survived exposure to the antibiotic. The next generation of that virus should be more resistant ie lose less of the tested population than the previous test. time and time again that experiment verifies prediction.

Back to top

I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48857
At my desk.

Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #290 - Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 1:09pm

Quote:

Maybe true predictions based on experiments involve timescales that we are unable to accomodate. That is why we are limited to viruses vs antibiotics in jellyjars. Those are experiments that involve predictions.

Yes, that is the crux of the issue. However, even with viruses the theory is still not falsifiable. Suppose you set up an experiment and the viruses failed to mutate in a beneficial manner. Would you have disproved anything? Would there ever come a time where repeated failures constitute disproof?

Quote:

Eg, some of the virus has survived exposure to the antibiotic. The next generation of that virus should be more resistant ie lose less of the tested population than the previous test. time and time again that experiment verifies prediction.

That is natural selection. The traits are pre-existing.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #291 - Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 2:23pm

freediver wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 12:29pm:

Who here is making those arguments? You seem to be fighting strawmen Muso. I have pointed out a number of times that what you are saying has nothing to do with my argument. Are you directing it at someone else? You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what we are discussing, and not bothering to check if they are correct.

Once bitten, twice shy. I've been dragged into these arguments before and wasted a lot of time. It just seems suspicious when you strenuously avoid answering simples questions about the age of the Solar System.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48857 At my desk.	Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION Reply #292 - Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 2:47pm I didn't avoid them. I answered them. Even though they were off topic. There's a difference between trying to avoid being dragged in and posting rebuttals to arguments that no-one has made. You can't just assume someone is actually making a different argument just because you can't rebut the one they are making.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

locutius Gold Member Offline You can't fight in here! It's the War Room Posts: 1817 Queensland Gender:	Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION Reply #293 - Dec 5^th, 2008 at 1:24pm relevant to the discussion http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1228280534/15
Back to top	I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives. IP Logged

locutius

Gold Member

Offline

You can't fight in here!
It's the War Room

Posts: 1817
Queensland
Gender: male

Re: SBS - Evolution vs Intelligent Design
Reply #294 - Dec 8^th, 2008 at 2:28pm

Did anyone else watch this last night? What did you think?

In a nutshell. I think it is simply a case of some people's belief that humans are super super super special and just can't let go of that idea. It is their security blanket.

The little tantrum thrown by William Buckingham near the end was just hilarious. Thank god for the athiest founding fathers of the U.S.A.

Back to top

I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48857
At my desk.

Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #295 - Dec 8^th, 2008 at 2:36pm

I thought it was interesting when they got onto the definition of science used by the ID group, and pointed out that it would allow astrology. This is the same style of argument I was using to show that evolution is not a scientific theory. It would be good to know the details of the competing definitions and the arguments used.

I also suspect that the graphics were a bit misleading with the tail motor thing and the virus needle thing. The coloured graphics showed them to be identical, but with the needle missing parts, but the electron microscopy showed them to be different structures.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

locutius

Gold Member

Offline

You can't fight in here!
It's the War Room

Posts: 1817
Queensland
Gender: male

Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #296 - Dec 8^th, 2008 at 5:41pm

It was interesting. I have been to several sites concerning Evolution now and have found consistantly Evolution described as both fact AND theory. That scientists consider Evolution as a FACT. Quote:

It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.................

Evolutionary biology is a strong and vigorous field of science. A theoretical framework that encompasses several basic mechanisms is consistent with the patterns seen in nature; and there is abundant evidence demonstrating the action of these mechanisms as well as their contributions to nature. Hence, evolution is both a theory and a set of established facts that the theory explains...........................

Like every other science, there is scientific debate about some aspects of evolution, but none of these debates appear likely to shake the foundations of this field. There exists no other scientific explanation that can account for all the patterns in nature, only non-scientific explanations that require a miraculous force, like a creator. Such super-natural explanations lie outside of science, which can neither prove nor disprove miracles. Science provides us with a compelling account and explanation of the changing life on Earth. It should also remind us of our good fortune to have come into being and our great responsibility to ensure the continuity of life

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

The theory side of Evolution has to do with the competing ideas concerning the mechanisms of Evolution. What they are. What they do. The power of their influence.

Back to top

I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48857
At my desk.

Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #297 - Dec 8^th, 2008 at 6:57pm

The concept of evolution as fact has nothing to do with science. In fact it is evidence that it isn't scientific, as the term is not used in science. It points to history. The term fact is only thrown around as a response to creationism and attacks on the theory along the lines of 'well it's only a theory'. It is intellectual laziness. Rather than trying to point out the subtleties of the term theory, or the evidence in support of evolution, they make something up that sounds convincing. One extreme inevitably creates the other extreme. A scientist who understands the context of his work would not descrine a scientific theory as a fact, because that would imply that it cannot be wrong. The term 'fact' only comes into play when you leave science for the battle with creationism.

Note also that your quote claims that something lies outside of science. Do they justify this claim or give a definition of science that justifies it?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #298 - Dec 8^th, 2008 at 10:57pm

Are you a "creationist" FD?

Do you give 'any' credence to creationist arguments?

I have seen your existential approach, to scientific theories, applied a few times here, where you seem to extrapolate that one thing that is not perfect and finite in our understanding of it, is therefore deserving of no greater respect than some hare brained gobbledy gook derived for the sole purpose of trying to validate one particular branch of religious fiction.

So, if you can answer the question of whether or not you actually 'believe' in creationism, we could then have at least one fact to work with.

This is a serious question and I would appreciate a serious response.

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48857
At my desk.

Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #299 - Dec 9^th, 2008 at 9:12am

I'm not a young earth creationist.

Quote:

I have seen your existential approach, to scientific theories, applied a few times here, where you seem to extrapolate that one thing that is not perfect and finite in our understanding of it, is therefore deserving of no greater respect than some hare brained gobbledy gook derived for the sole purpose of trying to validate one particular branch of religious fiction.

I just said it wasn't scientific, that's all. Just because something isn't scientific doesn't mean it is of no value. You are playing into the propaganda by reinforcing this notion.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged