General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Greg View Post
How so? I said that such a belief is not one to warrant him slander, because it's something that cannot be disproved, and that I believe in the opposite anyways.

No, you wrote a bull shit editorial that belongs in the middle age because your posterboy seems to have some ideas that date there. There really is a difference
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 01-01-2008, 12:32 PM Straw Man is offline  
Reply With Quote
#136  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Xayd
 
it can be disproven (disproved ).

it's , there, i just proved it false. by your logic anything i say that you can't prove different is automatically credible. so i say ron paul is a nutcase and we all evolved from minnows.

since you can't prove otherwise it is automatically true.
Old 01-01-2008, 12:39 PM Xayd is offline  
Reply With Quote
#137  

ry_goody
 
ry_goody's Avatar
 
you guys are stupid
__________________
SOMEONE ELSE GAVE ME THIS AVATAR
Old 01-02-2008, 05:45 AM ry_goody is offline  
Reply With Quote
#138  

loner
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renork View Post

Quote:
Quote:
You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!

* 1 Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. American Heritage Dictionary
* 2 Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science - National Academy Press
* 3 A standard, scientific definition of evolution is: In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Biology - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, W H Freeman
* 4 Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution. Evolution as Fact and Theory
* 5 The Cobb County School Board required a sticker with the following text to be placed on all biology textbooks: This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. Decision of the Court Striking Down the Cobb County Evolution Disclaimer
Not to refute this at all, but in the scientific spirit of poking holes (as in, if this were a dissertation, the professors would do this and the writer of the paper would have to defend it, so don't get all pissed that someone found holes in the argument), let's compare.

There is both a law and theory of gravity. According to the quote, the law describes gravity and the theory explains how gravity does what it does.

According to the quote, there is a theory of evolution and a "fact" of evolution. Ok, so the theory evolution explains how evolution does what it does, but if we know that evolution (the change from one generation to the next) exists, then why haven't we also created the law of evolution?

Not saying I don't entirely, 100% agree with the quote. Just poking holes.
Old 01-02-2008, 06:23 AM loner is offline  
Reply With Quote
#139  

Sarcasmo
This is my Haiku
 
Sarcasmo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike27 View Post
No, you can't

Also, your concept of time is misled and meaningless


Are you retarded?

If I show you a newspaper dated 1906, or some historical photographs, or just introduce you to my great grandparents, it still doesn't prove the universe was created some time before 1907?

Jesus Christ. I know you think you have some great and profound point, but ultimately you're just being ridiculously idiotic.
__________________
The universe could very well have been created 10,000 years ago (or 100 years ago, for that matter). - Mike27
Old 01-02-2008, 08:35 AM Sarcasmo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#140  

SnakeIRye
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by loner View Post
According to the quote, there is a theory of evolution and a "fact" of evolution. Ok, so the theory evolution explains how evolution does what it does, but if we know that evolution (the change from one generation to the next) exists, then why haven't we also created the law of evolution?

Not saying I don't entirely, 100% agree with the quote. Just poking holes.

IIRC a law is basically a math formula. Scientists are still trying to figure out how fast organisms evolve, random mutation rates, etc... I doubt we'll have a formula for a long time.
__________________
Remember kids: Don't do school, stay in milk and drink your drugs!
Darth Snake, Evil Jedi Motherfucker Overlord of the Executor
Old 01-02-2008, 09:48 AM SnakeIRye is offline  
Reply With Quote
#141  

Mr. Greg
I'm obsessed with DHermit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathlete View Post
It's not slander to deride someone for ignoring overwhelming evidence in favor of an idea with no evidence.

Then everyone who believes in a God shouldn't complain when people deride them for their belief...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Morrison View Post
I said fossils being scattered and hard to find was a predictable outcome of natural processes, it's not a prediction that evolution makes. At any rate evidence shows evolution is clearly the cause of organism diversity and change.

clearly the cause or a very likely cause?

Quote:
There isn't any room for creationism because the diversity of life is already perfectly explained by evolution.
Perfectly, eh? Please, direct me to the Law of Evolution.

Quote:
When a ball falls off a desk and hits a floor people don't think God showed up in the middle of the ball falling and gave it an extra nudge for some enigmatic reason, all the reasons the ball fell is already perfectly explained by gravity and physics. Anything else is just wishful thinking/willful ignorance
We would of witnessed that ball falling though, and used the scientific process, as well as repeating the experiment, to discover the cause of the event. We can't perform the entire process of evolution with every species in the world in a lab, we can only make predictions on what would happen based upon certain clues found in the earth, and of what happens with species we can perform experiments in the lab with (IE, Fruit Flies).

Quote:
I got tired of arguing with you about it.
That's why KKK rallies end, the people supporting racial discrimination get tired of rallying for their cause and retreat into hiding.
__________________
Moose's brother.

Louis Potgieter (1951-1996) NEVER FORGET
Old 01-02-2008, 02:52 PM Mr. Greg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#142  

mathlete
I'm the cheapest person on this planet, maybe the universe.
 
mathlete's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Greg View Post
Then everyone who believes in a God shouldn't complain when people deride them for their belief...

While I am an atheist and find a belief in god silly and unnecessary, there is at least no contradictory theory supported by lots of evidence. Therefore, it's not so much willful ignorance on their part as just a lot of optimism.
__________________
"Sex and physics are a lot alike; they both give practical results but that's not why we do them."
Richard Feynman - physicist, bongo drummer

4/7/2009 mathlete became Dr. mathlete
Old 01-02-2008, 03:20 PM mathlete is offline  
Reply With Quote
#143  

Mr. Greg
I'm obsessed with DHermit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathlete View Post
While I am an atheist and find a belief in god silly and unnecessary, there is at least no contradictory theory supported by lots of evidence. Therefore, it's not so much willful ignorance on their part as just a lot of optimism.

Uh...wouldn't a contradictory theory be that supernatural things are not possible?
__________________
Moose's brother.

Louis Potgieter (1951-1996) NEVER FORGET
Old 01-02-2008, 04:09 PM Mr. Greg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#144  

mathlete
I'm the cheapest person on this planet, maybe the universe.
 
mathlete's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Greg View Post
Uh...wouldn't a contradictory theory be that supernatural things are not possible?

God is a special kind of supernatural, and in any case, could be perfectly natural in the right context. I also qualified my statement with "supported by lots of evidence" which evolution is. God is only contradicted by a lack of evidence.

You're getting ever more ridiculous attempting to defend what you wrote before. Just give up.
__________________
"Sex and physics are a lot alike; they both give practical results but that's not why we do them."
Richard Feynman - physicist, bongo drummer

4/7/2009 mathlete became Dr. mathlete
Old 01-02-2008, 05:04 PM mathlete is offline  
Reply With Quote
#145  

Mr. Greg
I'm obsessed with DHermit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathlete View Post
I also qualified my statement with "supported by lots of evidence" which evolution is. God is only contradicted by a lack of evidence.

But God cannot be disproved, therefore making Creationism possible, since Creationism cannot be completely disproved by Evolution, which is a theory with tons of evidence, not a fact. That's all I'm trying to say here.
__________________
Moose's brother.

Louis Potgieter (1951-1996) NEVER FORGET
Old 01-02-2008, 07:46 PM Mr. Greg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#146  

Renork
 
Renork's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Greg View Post
But God cannot be disproved, therefore making Creationism possible, since Creationism cannot be completely disproved by Evolution, which is a theory with tons of evidence, not a fact. That's all I'm trying to say here.

Just as you can not disprove a claim that a cosmic obese green dragon with pink glittering wings shit out our universe in a drunken rage.

It can not be disproved but deserves absolutely ZERO intellectual and scientific consideration.
__________________
.
Old 01-02-2008, 07:52 PM Renork is offline  
Reply With Quote
#147  

Renork
 
Renork's Avatar
 
Also,

http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Quote:
The Dragon In My Garage
by
Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
__________________
.
Old 01-02-2008, 07:57 PM Renork is offline  
Reply With Quote
#148  

Mr. Greg
I'm obsessed with DHermit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renork View Post
Just as you can not disprove a claim that a cosmic obese green dragon with pink glittering wings shit out our universe in a drunken rage.

It can not be disproved but deserves absolutely ZERO intellectual and scientific consideration.

Well, yeah, it shouldn't be considered scientific or be researched at all, but there is a possibility that it could of happened, since nothing has come along that has without any holes proven wrong the idea, therefore people who believe in it shouldn't be considered complete idiots, just people who choose to believe something that has absolutely no evidence to it. Bully for them, but as long as that belief doesn't interfere with their work, it's a non-issue.
__________________
Moose's brother.

Louis Potgieter (1951-1996) NEVER FORGET
Old 01-02-2008, 08:22 PM Mr. Greg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#149  

Renork
 
Renork's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Greg View Post
but there is a possibility that it could of happened, since nothing has come along that has without any holes proven wrong the idea, therefore people who believe in it shouldn't be considered complete idiots

You are right, they should not be considered idiots, they should be considered delusional, there is a difference.
__________________
.
Old 01-02-2008, 08:28 PM Renork is offline  
Reply With Quote
#150  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:52 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.