when did scientific discussion become a troll off?

Halceon

New member
Jan 31, 2009
820
0
0
Lord Legion said:
Jordi said:
There is so much misunderstanding here...

A scientific theory is not indisputable. Ideas and hypotheses do not "graduate" into being theories/facts. Some theories can be proven, but most can not. Just because one unprovable theory (gravity) is pretty much undisputed, doesn't mean that all theories are.

The theory of evolution is disputed because the evidence is not nearly conclusive (far less conclusive than the evidence for gravity for instance). Evolution as a mechanism for global search has been proven in the abstract, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was also the mechanism by which life has changed throughout the ages. It means that it could be. There are of course many clues that are consistent with this view (some people like to call this evidence).
To be honest I think the primary reason that so many people believe in evolution is that there is no real scientific, alternative explanation. That doesn't mean that all criticism is invalid though. For instance, even evolutionists admit there is a "missing link". But a far more significant criticism in my opinion is that people are disputing that the preconditions for evolution are met by the building blocks of life. The argument is basically that the fraction of configurations of amino acids that are viable for life is so small that it would take many times the lifetime of the universe to get one by random mutations. It follows from this that only decreases in complexity and variety are plausible, so we couldn't have evolved from single cell organisms. At most we could have (d)evolved from slightly more complex proto-humans (and dogs from proto-dogs, etc.), which is nicely consistent with the intelligent design view.
I personally still believe that the evolution theory is probably true, but I haven't been able to come up with a convincing counter-argument for this yet. If anyone does, I'd be interested in hearing it. But if you can't, maybe you shouldn't be claiming that the theory of evolution is indisputable, and you should instead keep an open mind like the OP suggests.

On the other hand, as some people pointed out, this is the internet. And on a forum like this, with high school kids and anonymity, you are bound to get discussions that are less than scientific. I was a lot more surprised to see that this phenomenon also occurs with real scientists who are posting under their real names in LinkedIn groups.
I agree most(ly) whole-heartedly... it is certainly the most viable scientific explanation, but that doesn't mean it can fill in all the gaps. And, there are some awfully big gaps in evolutionary theory. Take for instance irreducibly complex systems, such as the eye... for this to come about there would have to have been creatures lugging around useless half formed tumors that had not yet gained any function or value. Survival of the fittest would have excluded them... in fact, in survival of the fittest, it is often the simplest organism that succeeds, and that begs the question as to why life got more complex in the first place.

It still works for me tho.
There are no irreducibly complex systems. Or rather, we haven't yet discovered ones. The eye is possibly the best item to explain with. Sight is a matter of having optical receptors, the rest of the eye is just fancy addons. A simple organism develops light-sensitive cells in arbitrary places on its body, so it can tell general lighting conditions. An organism with more of those is better at gauging whether it is in light and whether something is casting a shadow on it. An organism with groups of these cells in specific spots on its body achieves the same effect with less energy spent. If these spots become concave, the precision of the proto-sight improves until at some point the opening becomes small enough to function as a camera obscura. After that it's a matter of developing a protective film so that the eye doesn't fill up with dirt. And some further refinements. And every step of the way it is a functional organ slightly better than the previous one.
 

DeathStreamer

New member
Jan 9, 2011
33
0
0
tobi the good boy said:
austincharlesbond said:
Buddy, your idea of scientific discussion has never existed. Sorry, people have been trolling since the dawn of time.

BTW if anyone can prove god exists I'll give them my leg
My Piano ... and my wife.

OT: Trolls have been here since the internet began you can't really stop them and scientific discussion still occurs, just not on gaming website. they occur on websites related to the scientific topics. check them out.
Firstly, that is not "proof", that is a "belief". Although it may be proof to you as an individual that god exists, it does not prove to anyone other than yourself that god is existent.

Secondly, trolls have been around since the existence of discussion. For us humans that would mean since FOREVER.
 

Stalk3rchief

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,010
0
0
I'm kind of one of the people that ends up in arguments over this, and I guess I'll put in my input as to why it happens to me.
It's always that I approve of theories over (This is my usual debate) religious views, which have little to no facts at all behind them. When ever I point out that the bible is just stories that are all unconfirmed and that scientific theory and genuine human discovery can, at the very least, put out more evidence to support their theories, other people tend to get offended.
And I'm kind of a sucker for trollfights. When someone starts a flame war with me, even if I end up looking like an idiot, I'll answer their challenge.
 

Jumpingbean3

New member
May 3, 2009
484
0
0
A theory is an explanation of facts. Evolution is a proven fact, the theory is in place to explain how it works. Atomic theory and the theroy of gravity have never been "proven" either but we can say with certainty that the processes those theories explain do indeed happen.

This guy explains it best:


PLEASE WATCH BOTH VIDEOS TO THE END BEFORE JUDGING THEM.
 

Da_Vane

New member
Dec 31, 2007
195
0
0
luvva said:
Science and religion are entirely different concepts, but unfortunately there will always be those who confuse the two.

Science is based on fact, not text. It is the outcome of minds collaborating to form ideas of why and how the world works. As more information becomes available, Science changes its own views. When proven wrong, science accommodates.

Religion is based on faith, not experiment. It is a way to explain unanswered questions, and to justify moral code. As more information becomes available, religion does not change, rather, some parts become redundant, whereas others are emphasised.

Unfortunately, by confusing science and religion, this notion of 'scientific discussion' is hijacked by the notion of faith. I know many scientists who are religious- they are NOT incompatible.

Secondly, target audience matters. I had a lovely scientific discussion with a friend of mine on the concept of a 'perfect vacuum', of which I claimed (as someone who has studied physics), that there is no such thing abiding by the same fundamental laws as this universe. He tried to come up with counter examples, but then I explained why such counter examples did not work, using my own knowledge. On the internet your target audience ranges from those completely ignorant of the subject to those who know the subject like the back of their hand. Aiming your arguments at such a range is extremely difficult, nigh impossible, which goes somewhat to explaining why these threads don't lead to depth very often.

with reference to the quote: Science itself is entirely reasoned, but arguing faith in a theory without knowing why is idiotic.
Faith, and matters of faith, can be argued in a reasoned and logical manner - that is called Theology and Philosophy. You may have heard of those subjects. In fact, the study of the Scientific Method, which itself defines what Science is, comes under Epistemology, which is a branch of Philosophy.

Likewise, science itself can become religious - when the theories of Albert Einstein can be taken as being correct simply because they were proposed by Albert Einstein, rather than on the merit of the theories themselves. If we are not constantly re-evaluating the texts and theories of sciences and taking them for granted simply because they are science, they become dogma, and that is no different from the way religion treats their texts and their preachers.

On both sides - for religion and science, you will get those who will question and those who do not. This is the difference. It is not one about whether it is religion or science - but whether it is the willingness to question and seek answers, whether those answers come from reasoned thinking and observation of the universe, or from personal introspective and reflection on one's spiritual faith. Those who do not question are ignorant - be it in science or faith.

It's not about trolling for who is superior, and you should forgot those who think that it is, whether it's for religion or science. Neither are superior to the other - they are both as important in our lives as we choose to make them. Any true scientist would know this - but what is happening is that many scientists are letting their anti-religious sentiments get the better of them. That is not reason. That is rationalization, which is a completely different thing.

When it comes to whether there is or isn't a divine being in the universe, there is no science, there is only religion. You either believe or you don't.