Poll: Evolution and the other side
- Thread starter AlexNora
- Start date
It was a dick move to make this thread, I'm not exactly in love with the other evolution topics but this is just ridiculous. Have we ever listened to creation scientists, but not ones who have said they're wrong?
Listen, I'm not going to bullshit and say that I'm well endowed in scientific knowledge or any of that, but I will say what I do know. The basis of scientific theories is that they are discovered, not made beforehand and then set out to find supportive evidence. The other point is that all scientific theories are made to be challenged and can be challenged by anyone if their argument is good enough. So if a scientist researches for one aim, and then realizes they were wrong, you're saying, their findings aren't valid.
Science is not a game of politics, stop treating it as such. Anyone who looks to find any evidence to support a book that's thousands of years old is not a scientist.
Listen, I'm not going to bullshit and say that I'm well endowed in scientific knowledge or any of that, but I will say what I do know. The basis of scientific theories is that they are discovered, not made beforehand and then set out to find supportive evidence. The other point is that all scientific theories are made to be challenged and can be challenged by anyone if their argument is good enough. So if a scientist researches for one aim, and then realizes they were wrong, you're saying, their findings aren't valid.
Science is not a game of politics, stop treating it as such. Anyone who looks to find any evidence to support a book that's thousands of years old is not a scientist.
It's based on basic observation of how science functions. Show me any scientific theory or hypothesis that would survive as a meaningful description of anything at all if it didn't follow a consistent set of rules.Cowabungaa said:
I'm not talking about meta-rules here; Like maybe it's possible to 'break' the first law of thermodynamics using some known, predictable process.
If you think science is about change, I doubt you've dealt much with physics.
Yes, I did come across some interesting speculation once that implied there was some evidence some of the fundamental constants were different in the past.
But that's still quite different from saying one day the laws of gravity work by one set of rules, and the next, they suddenly have totally different rules. Then they change back again for no apparent reason.
Sure, you can try to deduce scientifically what the cause of this change is. But in so doing you are presuming there is some pattern to this change.
(In other words, you are pre-supposing there is a rule that shows why things change. If no such rule can be found, the scientist is unlikely to conclude no such rule exists. Merely that they cannot identify what it is.)
I have literally never come across any scientific theory, law, hypothesis, or even idle speculation that didn't depend on the idea that there is (at least in theory) some identifiable rule or pattern underlying whatever the idea relates to.
Change is still a pattern if you can define a rule that describes it. I'm sure you'd find that if any scientific laws did just change randomly, scientists would try and deduce why - In other words, they'd be looking for a pattern or rule that describes how these changes come about.
It's the predictive power of these patterns and rules that dictates the utility of science.
(It also means you could apply the scientific method to 'magic' - if it existed. As long as that 'magic' obeyed any kind of consistent set of rules, the scientific method would be useful in studying it. On the other hand, one of the most problematic possible concepts would be belief-based reality. Which is the idea that whatever you believe to be true is what is true. - Evidence shows this isn't the case (that we know of), but the consequences of such a situation would make reality subjective. And subjectivity is something science is extraordinary bad at dealing with because it's almost impossible to measure in any way that produces any real consistency. - It lacks stable rules, and whatever rules it does have cannot really be verified independently.)
Anyway, I'm not sure that's made it any clearer what I mean, but I'm afraid it's a very difficult concept to describe. Think of it in terms of the difference between true randomness, and a very complicated, yet ultimately predictable pattern.
If the world was random, you could use the scientific method, but it would be no more useful than any other philosophy.
Yet, where there is a predictable pattern, no matter how complicated it might be, science gives you the tools to identify and describe the pattern.
If the pattern changes without warning, the innate assumption implicit in science is not that there was no reason for the change, but rather that the pre-existing models are incomplete, and that this change was the result of a previously unknown rule of some kind.
Cause and effect is implicit in science's understanding of change.
Now, having said all that, this isn't to say there's anything at all wrong with science. In fact, all the evidence shows the presumptions science makes are perfectly valid.
But then, while it's possible to identify what some of those assumptions are, it's incredibly difficult to actually conceive of what reality would look like if those assumptions were false.
What you were suggesting just doesn't even begin to describe it.
Well, I could keep going here, but I don't think that'll help. Unfortunately, this problem goes deeper than science alone. It partially clashes with logic itself. And since language is also dependent on logic to remain comprehensible...
So I visit a bunch of conspiracy sites and they are all about creation. ALIEN CREATION. That the aliens are the ones in charge of altering our DNA. I seem to also remember a Johnny Quest episode back in the 90's explaining Easter Island pretty much doing the same thing.
Spend a week or two looking at creationism? It doesn't take that long, you can read about all the major arguments, and see them debunked, in the space of an afternoon, compared to evolution it is a very, very small field.
Creationism is not science regardless of how much frauds like the discovery institute and Ken Ham try to pretty it up, it is still, after thousands of years, nothing more than unproven speculation.
Frankly DNA evidence killed this argument deader than the Stegosaurus years ago, not that creationists had anything to offer earlier than that it just got to the point of being as close to a sure thing as science can ever come.
Creationism is not science regardless of how much frauds like the discovery institute and Ken Ham try to pretty it up, it is still, after thousands of years, nothing more than unproven speculation.
Frankly DNA evidence killed this argument deader than the Stegosaurus years ago, not that creationists had anything to offer earlier than that it just got to the point of being as close to a sure thing as science can ever come.
Atheist evolutionists would be skeptical of any argument on behalf of creationism, as would anyone who doubts the existence of god. I think the makers of that video are biased as they say "the incredible hostility the liberals show when someone challenges their evolution world-view". This takes away from the argument in my opinion because it seems that flaws in the argument being pointed out are being taken as a refusal to listen. The video's makers say the liberals were hostile but I would be prepared to bet that they would react in a hostile manner if an evolutionist came along and pointed out evidence that what they believe is wrong.
The guy brings up a legitimate point.AlexNora said:
You say 'I don't believe in evolution cause of all the flaws I found in it... but I won't tell you what 'flaws' i'm referring to'.
Doesn't that sound sus to you when you read it yourself?
I will also sincerely hope that when you said 'I don't believe in evolution' that what you actually meant was 'I don't believe in natural selection'. Otherwise all pretense credibility you had just went flying out the window like a rocket on steroids. That's more misinformed than thinking people actually evolved from modern day apes somehow.
So, I really hope my concerns are unfounded and this is completely unnecessary but:
'Evolution is not the scientific theory, 'Darwin's Theoy of Evolution by Natural Selection' is the scientific theory. Evolution itself is what's called a fact, much like Gravity is a fact.
Saying you 'don't believe in evolution' sounds as stupid as saying you don't believe in light or gravity.
Consistent rules of what? The theory itself? Science itself?CrystalShadow said:
All what I was trying to say is that, if empirical evidence shows that, then the scientific community will descend upon it like hungry hounds. Science does not state that the laws of gravity are fixed rules, science says that those rules are verified by repeated and constant observation. If, however, the observation changes (assuming it's constant and correct etc etc), then the scientific community is forced to revise the theory of gravity.
That's what I meant with change. Hypothesis and theories are constantly tested, and if they stop matching with repeated, empirical observation scientists are forced to change their hypothesis. And like that, theories get more and more refined, thanks to change.
No, rules and laws are formulated later on, they don't come first. Becoming a law, like the law of gravity, is like a Pokemon's last evolutionary stage. But that doesn't mean it can't change. Well it can't in Pokemon, but you get my point.
You're viewing it the other way around; repeated observation has established a pattern in something, afterwards scientists try to explain what that pattern is all about.
Change is still a pattern if you can define a rule that describes it. I'm sure you'd find that if any scientific laws did just change randomly, scientists would try and deduce why - In other words, they'd be looking for a pattern or rule that describes how these changes come about.
Only if a pattern is observed and survives constant testing. If it does then yes, one can build models upon it. But only if it survives the rigor of the scientific method. Ideally, of course.
I think I know what you're getting at here, but it's a logical contradiction. No philosophy is devoid of assumptions.Joccaren said:
I may have phrased that badly, making it misleading, but science most definitely isn't devoid of presumptions about the world.
Trying to destroy established theory is indeed a basic part of the scientific process. Don't presume the existing models of reality are accurate.
But to conclude that science fundamentally says not to make any assumptions at all is nonsensical.
How do you go about proving or disproving a scientific theory exactly? What is a scientific theory?
To prove, or disprove something is inherently dependent on the notion that whatever you are trying to determine some kind of 'truth' about is a stable concept.
When I said that there is an underlying set of rules that do not change, I didn't mean that these are the 'rules' science already has. - Those are just models. Our best attempt at trying to figure out what the rules are.
But it remains the case that the whole system still pre-supposes that there are rules of some kind to begin with.
You seem to be implying I don't understand science... Yet I think it's more probable that I'm just not effectively communicating what I actually mean, and you are therefore presuming I'm saying something far more superficial than what I'm actually referring to.
I think we're talking past eachother slightly. And also getting a little caught up in the varying definitions of a word.
(Like 'rule' and 'law' and such which have specific scientific meanings, but also more general meanings that are difficult to describe in other, less ambiguous terms.)
what I meant in unambiguous terms.
Hypothesis and theory in the scientific sense are models of reality based on whatever evidence and observation has shown to be true up to that point.
Change in that sense means changing the model to better reflect observation.
But can you say that any such model can do anything useful without being based on a consistent, logical set of rules?
The fact that a scientific 'law' can change is neither here nor there, and has little to do with the point I've been trying to make, which is that a 'law' is a rule that defines some specific pattern observed.
Yes, science begins with observation, but tell me, what happens when the data seems to show a completely random result with no identifiable pattern at all?
(Granted, if later evidence shows it was just a freak coincidence, that's likely to result in reinterpreting what the results mean.)
... Yes.
You know, I think I've deduced the real problem here. And you're more or less correct, it's at my end.
It's an easy thing to miss, and really I should know better (what with having been a physics student), but yes, I think I've deduced what I've done here...
There's two issues:
Firstly, I was (partially) dealing with the philosophical problems involved with deductive logic. (And since deductive logic is a significant portion of what science depends on, that means the inherent problems associated with it also have implications for science.)
- If you've ever looked at math sufficiently to deal with what an axiom is, you might also have a better understanding of the kind of problem I was referring to.
(for those of you unfamiliar with an axiom, it is basically the foundation of mathematics.
While you can 'prove' mathematical statements by reference to other mathematical statements, an axiom cannot really be proven. - This is muddled somewhat by the fact that not all axioms are fundamental axioms, and thus can be broken apart into other mathematical statements, but ultimately an axiom is just something that's presumed to be true.
Thus, math takes the form of: Suppose axiom X and Y are true. Therefore...)
Secondly, I've managed to create added confusion due to tangential influences.
(Specifically, I'm somewhat confusing the beliefs held by many scientists with science itself).
The worst offenders in terms of causing this kind of confusion are the widely held notion of physicists that the rules of the universe should be 'beautiful' - (In other words, as simple as possible.)
This gets much, much worse when you hear a physicist describe anything to do with the 'creation' of the universe (like the big bang, or several other principles. - Don't even start on string theory - which, to date can't actually even be termed a scientific theory.)
Occam's razor also seems to be used to support statements in a way that makes some serious assumptions about the nature of reality.
(For one thing, it leads to people that somehow think that the simplest model is reality, when in fact the preference for simplicity expressed by Occam's razor is a pragmatic issue to do with practical considerations rather than any dictate about which model of reality is 'true'.)
There are an overwhelming amount of statements made by large numbers of scientists which suggest they think of the rules and mathematics they are working with somehow reflect some inherent truth about the universe itself, rather than simply being models that happen to coincide with what happens around them sufficiently to be useful in making predictions.
But... What I've done here, clearly, (issues to do with logic itself aside), is somehow internalised the incorrect notion that:
"The beliefs held by scientists = science".
Which, while it might sort of make sense, isn't really all that accurate.
(Like 'rule' and 'law' and such which have specific scientific meanings, but also more general meanings that are difficult to describe in other, less ambiguous terms.)
Think more fundamental than that. Think about what math and logic itself depends on.Cowabungaa said:
I do understand what you meant by change. Unfortunately, I'm struggling to clearly describe
what I meant in unambiguous terms.
Hypothesis and theory in the scientific sense are models of reality based on whatever evidence and observation has shown to be true up to that point.
Change in that sense means changing the model to better reflect observation.
But can you say that any such model can do anything useful without being based on a consistent, logical set of rules?
But do you get my point? Clearly not. You're referring to a 'law' in the scientific sense of the word. I specifically refer to 'rules' because this is a word not commonly holding any specific meaning in a scientific sense.
The fact that a scientific 'law' can change is neither here nor there, and has little to do with the point I've been trying to make, which is that a 'law' is a rule that defines some specific pattern observed.
Yes, science begins with observation, but tell me, what happens when the data seems to show a completely random result with no identifiable pattern at all?
Yes, but the over-riding assumptions is nonetheless that data which displays a pattern actually has a pattern, and isn't just a freak coincidence.
(Granted, if later evidence shows it was just a freak coincidence, that's likely to result in reinterpreting what the results mean.)
[/quote]
... Yes.
You know, I think I've deduced the real problem here. And you're more or less correct, it's at my end.
It's an easy thing to miss, and really I should know better (what with having been a physics student), but yes, I think I've deduced what I've done here...
There's two issues:
Firstly, I was (partially) dealing with the philosophical problems involved with deductive logic. (And since deductive logic is a significant portion of what science depends on, that means the inherent problems associated with it also have implications for science.)
- If you've ever looked at math sufficiently to deal with what an axiom is, you might also have a better understanding of the kind of problem I was referring to.
(for those of you unfamiliar with an axiom, it is basically the foundation of mathematics.
While you can 'prove' mathematical statements by reference to other mathematical statements, an axiom cannot really be proven. - This is muddled somewhat by the fact that not all axioms are fundamental axioms, and thus can be broken apart into other mathematical statements, but ultimately an axiom is just something that's presumed to be true.
Thus, math takes the form of: Suppose axiom X and Y are true. Therefore...)
Secondly, I've managed to create added confusion due to tangential influences.
(Specifically, I'm somewhat confusing the beliefs held by many scientists with science itself).
The worst offenders in terms of causing this kind of confusion are the widely held notion of physicists that the rules of the universe should be 'beautiful' - (In other words, as simple as possible.)
This gets much, much worse when you hear a physicist describe anything to do with the 'creation' of the universe (like the big bang, or several other principles. - Don't even start on string theory - which, to date can't actually even be termed a scientific theory.)
Occam's razor also seems to be used to support statements in a way that makes some serious assumptions about the nature of reality.
(For one thing, it leads to people that somehow think that the simplest model is reality, when in fact the preference for simplicity expressed by Occam's razor is a pragmatic issue to do with practical considerations rather than any dictate about which model of reality is 'true'.)
There are an overwhelming amount of statements made by large numbers of scientists which suggest they think of the rules and mathematics they are working with somehow reflect some inherent truth about the universe itself, rather than simply being models that happen to coincide with what happens around them sufficiently to be useful in making predictions.
But... What I've done here, clearly, (issues to do with logic itself aside), is somehow internalised the incorrect notion that:
"The beliefs held by scientists = science".
Which, while it might sort of make sense, isn't really all that accurate.
Oh this so many times.lotr rocks 0 said:
I went to a very christian school. As soon as I heard about the idea of evolution I stuck with it as it... you know... made sense. I was never what you would call devout, I kept worrying... It was a closed community within a huge city that had this very religious mentality. When I heard about atheism I actually thought about it, about how many doubts I had about religion, and by the time I was 13 I had left christianity altogether.
I heard too much from the bible, people being turned to salt, the blatantly unscientific nonsense... it hurt my brain, so I buggered off.
So yes OP, I have seen the other side, I remember full well being a christian, and a creationist until the moment I heard about the scientific theory of evolution. Knowing the other side has made me very happy I am not there any more.
Started watching the video but gave up when the guy obviously didn't understand the theory of evolution. There is nothing in the theory about the origin of life. Likewise he pulls out wild assumptions that back his own pre-conceived notions rather than looking at facts and develloping a hypothesis based on it.
Thats why Creationism isn't scientific, they come to the experiment with their conclusion already made, ignoring anything that might counter their established conclusion.
Thats why Creationism isn't scientific, they come to the experiment with their conclusion already made, ignoring anything that might counter their established conclusion.
There is no scientific evidence for creation. It is just a bible literalist's last defense against reality
The problem is that "creation science" never does hold up to scrutiny, as you said. A story often sounds true until you hear the other side. Usually once you get into a debate you hear things like "this painting shows men hunting dinosaurs" or "Laminin looks like a cross." I guess it kinda does if you think the cross was made out of cooked spaghetti, it just always breaks down under scrutiny.
Personally i see no reason why evolution couldn't be the work of a god, other than the 6000 year thing some Christians around here believe, I just think its arrogant to assume on faith that we can see the mind of a god. Personally i just can't believe any of our organized religions.
Personally i see no reason why evolution couldn't be the work of a god, other than the 6000 year thing some Christians around here believe, I just think its arrogant to assume on faith that we can see the mind of a god. Personally i just can't believe any of our organized religions.
Well the problem with researching creationism is that to do so you must first prove the existence of God. All other claims made by creationists like Ken Ham or Ray Comfort or Eric "My Father is a Tax Dodger with a False PHD so you Know you can Trust Me" Hovind only attempt to disprove Evolution or prove certain bible stories to be true and they don't even succeed at that. Even if you proved Noah's flood to have really happened (which would still be a very dubious victory as many cultures have some story of a great flood) that would not prove the existence of a God. The only way to prove God is for Him to reveal himself to the world which he apparently won't do unless you believe in Him already so it can't be accepted as proof. The problem with Creationism is it spawns from religion which requires faith which can only exist due to a lack of proof and that is why creationism cannot be proven, it relies on faith.AlexNora said:
But to answer the initial question, yes I did do a measure of research and I was not impressed.
He is clearly an atheist who does not believe in creationism.Samurai Silhouette said:It just doesn't support God and religious beliefs. So in their eyes, it's wrong until they can find some way to impregnate their religious explanations into science. Why? Because it unintentionally threatens their religion.Astoria said:
Wait wtf, which side are you on? lolCowabungaa said:Sadly, I have. There just wasn't much science to speak off. Actually, there wasn't any, just a whole lot of bullshit. That Dr Dino crap...
Also, the amount of people in this thread who say that we involved from monkeys or apes make me sad. Just...*sigh* I give up.
Your confusion is exactly the type of thing he is getting angry about (also a common misconception that makes me angry too).
He states that humans did not evolve from monkeys or apes, and you suddenly assume he is against evolution, when in fact he is perfectly correct. We did not evolve from monkeys or apes at all, but rather we share a common ancestor with monkeys.
Umm, evolution is happening right now. For example, the finches on the Galapagos Islands are still changing in order to adapt to their environment. That is evolution. Is there some reason I should consider that "Goddidit" would be better?AlexNora said:
And linking to Kent Hovind to support creationism is akin to committing intellectual seppuku. Even Ken Ham, another rabid Young Earth Creationist devoted an entire webpage to discrediting "Doctor" Hovind's information.
This is exactly what this guy was asking about:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.312141-Poll-Are-we-being-trolled
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.312141-Poll-Are-we-being-trolled