seifer wrote:This is part of the reason why I wanted to leave the internet entirely: narrow-viewed people who think they know the way things work inside and out.
Me wrote:Unfalsafied and unprovable? Well guess what? That's just like every other theory in science. Only creationism isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis or wild-ass-guess.
And the theory of evolution wasn't a wild-ass-guess at first? Why, it sure was. Nobody knew why things were the way they were (aside from the explaination given by the Bible) until Darwin or some-odd scientist thought, hey, I don't think these damned turtles were this big a thousand years ago! Someone else caught on to his idea, spread it along, and atheists picked it up as their national anthem. Darwin had no evidence or proof or ANYTHING aside from his personal observations that anything evolved from anything. In this light, evolution was a wild-ass-guess that turned into a big fiasco.
Max wrote:Nothing is completely provable save outside of mathematics. Gravity isn't a fact, it's a theory (Gravity is the theory that all things attract all other things. It is a law, but it is also a theory and it has not been proven 100%. Nothing is ever proven in science really.) Although we're darn sure it works. We don't know that the clouds in the sky aren't really cloaked alien battleships, but we're DARN SURE they're not to the point of .9999999999999 (out of 1). Same with Evolution, you don't require PROOF to consider something effectively a fact. You can't get proof of anything. You require sufficient evidence.
So what you're saying is, if you have "sufficient evidence" that aliens are about to attack our planet, it's a fact? You should be more limited in your use of "sufficient evidence" without first stating what "sufficient evidence" is. For all we know, it could be that you've seen a round object floating around in the sky. If that's "sufficient evidence", then we're ****ed as to whether evolution is right or not.
Max wrote:Also, again. Scientific use of 'theory' is different from Laymans.
That's just dumb.
Max wrote:Scientific use of 'theory' is different from Laymans. A scientific theory has been thoroughly attacked and defended, and has reproducable results. Evolution has no mention or even any RELATION to religion. And plus, things have moved a LONG LONG way from Darwin's day.
Okay, and this matters how? Sure, things have come a LONG LONG way from Darwin's day (that rhymes, by the way), but since when did that matter? Religion has not died out since Darwin's day. It continues to grow. How come, that since Darwin first introduced the idea of evolution and lots of people liked it, religious folks haven't quite turned to evolution as the answer?
Max wrote:I don't know why you keep going on about North Korea. Science is done by educated people for a reason. You don't get John Q. Everyman to go and build a nuclear reactor, or solve genetic disorders.
North Korea is a severely dictative Communist country. The government controls everything directly, and the people have no choices whatsoever. Your opinion that scientists should be allowed to determine for the world that evolution is right or wrong is just like the ideas the North Korean government holds. Hence, you're trying to give scientists a dictatorship. We don't want John Q. Everyman to build a nuclear reactor, we want him to have the choice for himself to decide what path to follow.
Max wrote:This statement makes it not have a place in science.
A scientific definition by definition must be falsifiable. If there is no observation which can disprove it, then it is a meaningless theory.
Though, Biblical creationism actually is a theory. It makes a prediction which can be falsified: according to it, no new species can ever come from another. If we observe a new species arise from a fork in another (which we have) it disproves the theory.
I don't quite recall anything in the Bible that says no species can spawn from a previous one. Prove me wrong, but I don't believe there is a single passage that has
anything to do with evolution. Therefore, Biblical creationism doesn't say that no new species can ever come from another. That's a man-made theory.
Max wrote:Basically, you are simply arguing that the scientific method is as you describe it, and not as scientists describe it. In short, it's not an argument so much as a completely false claim, buttressed only by your (nonexistent) personal authority.
I said that the scientific method is used for proving or disproving theories using research, testing, and evidence. Miram-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines the "scientific method" as being:
"
scientific method n (c.a. 1810) : principles and procedures for the
systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formaltion of a problem, the
collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and
testing of hypotheses."
So yes, my idea of the scientific method is that of the scientists'. Miriam-Webster's Dictionary just kicked your ass.
Max wrote:You don't even know what a "fact" is, for Christ's sake. It's not something you have to prove; it's something you observe.
Dead wrong. Time to whip out the dictionary again. Miriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines a "fact" as:
"
fact \'fakt\
n (15c) 1: a thing done 2: performance, doing 3: the quality of being actual 4a: something that has actual existance 4b: an actual occurrence"
First of all, you're right about it not being something that needs to be proven, it's something that's already proven. "something that has actual existance" Second, it is something you observe, for it is already proven, it exists, and everyone acknowledges that the proof is there and sufficient. Evolution is not a fact because, a) there is no proof of it being done, b) there is no proof that it is being done, c) it has no quality of being actual, because there is no proof, d) there is no proof of it having actual existance, and e) there is no proof of it being an actual occurrence. There is no proof of evolution, so I am correct in saying that it is not a fact.
Max wrote:Nothing's true beyond all belief. I don't know you're using a computer. I don't know you're not an alien. By your definition of fact, your own existance isn't even a fact. This means that all beleifs obviously aren't equal. Some are more likely then others.
By definition of fact, I do exist. I have actual existance.
Max wrote:For instance, your existance is more likely then the notion that I made you up, primarily because I have no history of making people and things up, and because I do have a history of meeting stupid people who defend stupid arguments.
When you've been reduced to calling names, it tells me that you've lost already.
Max wrote:No. This sentince is a tribute to your ignorance. Theories WERE things that some scientist thought was right, but that have been varified through repeated experimentation, and have not been refuted despite many efforts. Considering how controversial evolution is as a theory, the fact that it's survived as long as it has without anyone proving it wrong should be quite an indication of it's reality.
The theory of creation has been around several thousand years before evolution was even concieved. Nobody's been able to prove it wrong. By your words, creation is real because of how long it's survived without anyone proving it wrong.
Max wrote:How would you explain the increase in complexity and order among living things over time?
I never said evolution was false: I juse said it wasn't a fact. Evolution does fill in the missing link of how beings came about after God created them, but there's no proof that they evolved or just poofed out of thin air.
Max wrote:No, I could GUESS that you're using a keyboard, hypothesize. Theorizing is devising a set of statements or principles 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. In this case, guessing that you are using a keyboard doesn't quite fit the bill.
Miriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary once again defines a "theory" as:
"
the-o-ry (1592) 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another"
Here's some facts: I'm typing a message, I don't like the idea of voice recognition software because it's too messy, and I have hands. By those facts, two of which you already knew, you could in fact theorize that I'm using a keyboard. A pointless argument on both sides, sure, but whatever works.
Max wrote:Try arguing with a solipsist some time, and you'll understand that there may be no such thing as proof. A fact is a fact because it fits almost all observations. You can have evidence, but not proof.
For the fourth time, Miriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines "evidence" as:
"
ev-i-dence (14c) 1 a: an outward sign b: something that furnishes
proof"
Oh no! A slightly thick book with a red cover just kicked your ass AGAIN! Hallelujah! Evidence IS proof, mate. Hence, saying you can have evidence, but not proof, is much akin to saying you can have ten fingers attached to your body naturally, but no hands.
Max wrote:There's also evidence that the heat from the sun is generated by a fusion process of light elements, but have you ever seen it happen? Evidence is all we have, and even you would be hard-pressed to find any evidence at all of intelligent design.
Look at yourself. There's proof of intelligent design.
Max wrote:No. Will you say the same about elephants a long time from now, when poaching drives them to essentially not have tusks anymore? Will you claim that there's no evidence at all that this new,
tuskless elephant is related to the elephants we all know and love?
The idea that things evolve simply on a whim is rediculous. Just because we hunt them for our tusks, a Chinese elephant develops no tusks? I don't think so. We hunt elephants in Africa far more than China, and African elephants still have great tusks. Maybe if the climate becomes as to where they don't need their tusks, they may shed them over thousands and thousands of years, but just because humans want those tusks? Certainly not.
Max wrote:Way to show ignorance of what the process of evolution actually is. It's a slow, subtle process, not a sudden thing. Your statement says nothing about evolution at all. Typical strawman.
Nice name calling, again. Your statement just showed how ignorant
you are of sarcasm. I know damn well that monkeys didn't jump up and build pyramids. I doubt there is a single man on earth that believes that. Typical bigot.
Max wrote:You've got it backwards, buddy. Evolution is a process. God is a figment of your imagination, just as there was no Aphrodite, Odin, Fenrir, or Ra. All are just personifications of nature;yours is a personification of the world itself. God is something man imagined to help him try and understand the world, but there is no evidence at all for the existance of such a being.
Evolution is not a process because it lacks evidence or proof that it occurs. Evolution is a theory. You even said so yourself.
Max wrote:evolution is as a theory
There are animals. There are bones other animals that seem like animals we have today. Those are facts that lead to the theory of evolution. It is no process except in theory. It is only something a man imagined to try to understand the world, but there is no evidence at all for the existance of such a process.
