porchrat
Honorary Master
Yea. As I said of course it cannot be discounted as a possibility. Again that doesn't make it valid science just like pixies and unicorns.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you ever been to an airshow?
Rejecting evolution with science...
- Thread starter DJ...
- Start date
porchrat
Honorary Master
This isn't even ignorance about the theory of evolution. The man is ignorant of the fundamental workings of science.
porchrat
Honorary Master
Ekstasis answer me honestly now, no dodging please:
Do you reject the theory of evolution based largely on your stance as a biblical literalist?
Do you reject the theory of evolution based largely on your stance as a biblical literalist?
copacetic
King of the Hippies
I am sorry Ekstasis, but these guys are quite correct - Your scientific illiteracy is almost unimaginably comprehensive.
I think it is also true that most of it is self imposed; As to understand that which you rail against would render the vast majority of your arguments and points irrelevant, and insensible (which they are, believe me, you just cannot see it, as it is a danger to your faith based beliefs).
I used to enjoy these sorts of discussions, but having read through this thread, I just don't have it in me any more. All I really want to do is resort to insults, since evidence, explanation and logic don't seem to make a dent, but hurling insults would achieve nothing in any case.
I speak of insults, but my comment on your lack of scientific understanding is not a jibe at you at all. It really is something you can remedy, and it is going to continue to be a very profound impediment to your ability to truly grasp what is being spoken about in science based threads, such as this one.
I think it is also true that most of it is self imposed; As to understand that which you rail against would render the vast majority of your arguments and points irrelevant, and insensible (which they are, believe me, you just cannot see it, as it is a danger to your faith based beliefs).
I used to enjoy these sorts of discussions, but having read through this thread, I just don't have it in me any more. All I really want to do is resort to insults, since evidence, explanation and logic don't seem to make a dent, but hurling insults would achieve nothing in any case.
I speak of insults, but my comment on your lack of scientific understanding is not a jibe at you at all. It really is something you can remedy, and it is going to continue to be a very profound impediment to your ability to truly grasp what is being spoken about in science based threads, such as this one.
Like your ad hominems absolutely nothing. See how it is when someone pulls a RiaX.
RiaX
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2012
- Messages
- 8,180
- Reaction score
- 4,501
No. Evolution is a very simple theory to break. They have tried very hard. Though you must be careful when you speak of evolution. Most people (religious especially) assume the theory of evolution is the same as the concept of evolution.
evolution is simple change with no direction. A change in a genome or a cell or living part is evolution (one could argue changes in behavior of teenager to adult is an evolutionary psychological change - as it would be dependent on your environment and life experiences). How creatures change from adaptation (a positive evolutionary change), bacterial resistance where the actual DNA code itself will change and you will see in real time with subsequent generations the formation of new organelles like p-glycoprotein based efflux channels. These aspects are not debatable AT ALL. They are observational fact. They are seen in micro-organisms and multi-cellular organisms such as reptiles who have changed to give live birth and formation of new jaw like structures and stomachs due to diet change as they are alien species introduced by man into an ecosystem.... this evolution is not debatable.
What is debatable is the theory of evolution. Which is basically can life begin to evolve and diversify after the process of abiogenesis (formation of life from organic chemistry) - this is where the whole primordial soup etc comes in. Though this is more or less close to being solid fact however even though you can extrapolate results, within the practice of science extrapolation does not equate as proof for fact. Also since you cant find a primordial soup in reality today (conditions on earth were much different then) it wont be fact but just a strong theory. However that said very few concepts in science are factual (even gravity is a theory, how ever its OBSERVATIONAL FACT that gravity exists, same with evolution) and no matter what people say there is no absolute fact in science - that said you must understand the definition in detail of every word from theory to evolution to fact. Now although you get observational fact and then there is no absolute fact in science seems confusing however what it means is if you have a strong theory like gravity you need STRONGER evidence to disprove it. So to disprove ToE and prove creationism/ID for example the evidence required would be to create something from nothing (violate 1st law) or bring the creator to come create it or prove without any doubt that there is a soul. Not reference BS stories from a fictional book, even if noah was real for example that STILL wouldnt be good enough evidence to disprove evolution.
Most people think they know science but they dont even understand its practice. You must also understand levels of information, not all information holds equal weight (primary secondary and tertiary). There might be some merit but if its 99% BS then that 1% merit is usually considered a fluke and dismissed completely.
The main reason why evolution is difficult to prove is because nothing lives long enough to actually witness and evolutionary change in the sense of dinosaur to bird. However its taken as fact as the genetic changes are there. like the how we know the universe is expanding and hence came from a point, if its expanding now then if you rewind time it will contract yet no one will be around to actually see the universe expand so much as to make the stars vanish. Same principle
Last edited:
cyghost
Executive Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,394
- Reaction score
- 4
Nope. 226 posts and 16 pages and not a single piece of evidence against evolution has been provided.
It is almost as if there are no such evidence or sumthing...
copacetic
King of the Hippies
Zewp
Banned
That pretty accurately describes this thread, yes. 
I don't think it is necessarily people that accept evolution that are sending a "bad message" to religious people or damaging science in general. I think it is a small group of people who abuse science to try and support their particular ideology. On the one hand you have IDers that try to argue that there are empirical measures to detect design. Whether this is possible (without a proper definition of design as well) is debatable, but the main issue is then to try and use these methods to go further and use it to support various aspects of different religions. In this way they are abusing science, or trying to stretch its limits to try and provide answers to various ontological/philosophical issues.
On the other hand you have a small group of people that abuse science to try and argue that creation is false, or that God does not exist, or that the soul does not exist, or that purpose does not exist etc. Often they come up with nonsense such as "scientific progress means less work for God, therefore more scientific understanding will make God more irrelevant". I.e. they abuse science to try and attack religion.
Both these groups are equally either dishonest, confused or ignorant or all of the above.
Science, the theory of evolution and evolution in general pose no problem for accepting creation, God, the soul, purpose, morals etc. Trying to poke holes into science and evolution are no more arguments for these aspects than accepting evolution and scientific discoveries are arguments against these views. Similarly, ID is a pretty horrible way to try and defend religion.
Last edited:
porchrat
Honorary Master
You keep using that word "proof". That is not a good word to use when you discuss something scientific. Science doesn't prove things.
You also talk of theories being "close to solid fact" as though that is the eventual goal of a theory. It isn't.
I'm not sure if you think these things but it can definitely be inferred from the way you write. Just something to keep in mind.
RiaX
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2012
- Messages
- 8,180
- Reaction score
- 4,501
evidence and proof are more or less the same thing. For example if I take a medicine and i want to show it works i must PROVE it works over a placebo. The rest is just details after that. Each field of science has its own variation of the scientific language. What is stated in general physics may not apply to biology or pharmacology for example. You right that science doesnt prove anything it explains though there is no reason to get so technical in an informal debate
That is the goal of science, to find truth. Nothing else
HapticSimian
Honorary Master
There is every reason to, as each instance of inaccuracy or ambiguity will be something fresh for the deluded to latch onto and misinterpret. 'Evidence' and 'proof' are not strictly synonymous; to quote from the Farlex Trivia Dictionary: "evidence (from Latin e- 'out' + videre 'to see') is information that helps form a conclusion; proof is factual information that verifies a conclusion".
...which does nothing to change the fact (lol) that scientific theories don't become anything 'more' given added certainty. Theory is already the highest rung of scientific knowledge.
They really are different concepts. Evidence is used in evidential premises of proofs using deductive or inductive reasoning. Evidence on its own is not proof. We can use your example.
Proof:
Premise 1: In order to show that a particular compound works for the treatment of a particular disease, I must show that it works better than a placebo.
Premise 2: Compound X works better than a placebo for the treatment of disease Y. (the evidential premise)
Conclusion: Therefore, compound X can be used for the treatment of disease Y.
Language matters.
Isn't it PZ Myers that said science is not about truth but about what works?
porchrat
Honorary Master
That is actually a wonderful way of putting it. Science doesn't prove, science explains. I love that. So much simpler than having to use the term "empirical" which a lot of folks would battle with. Well said!
I disagree though that there is no reason to get to technical here. The kitten drowner has exhibited a tremendous ignorance of how science works and using terms like "proof" when science doesn't deal in proofs is going to confuse him even more. In fact I reckon it might help strengthen his ridiculous idea that science is some sort of dictatorship that isn't open to challenge.
The goal of science is not to turn a theory into fact. I certainly hope you agree.
In your given example you certainly do not PROVE anything. All medical trials end up using a hypothesis test of some sort with a null hypothesis that the medicine is no better than a placebo. Then the test goes on to state that given the assumption that this medicine is no better than a placebo there is a x% chance that the collected evidence would be observed in a random sample. And then this is compared to a pre-specified cut-off value to decide whether the null hypothesis can be rejected. This is in no way a proof, it is just a quantification of uncertainty with a chosen acceptable cut-off level (usually 5% or 1% but it can be lower if necessary).
RiaX
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2012
- Messages
- 8,180
- Reaction score
- 4,501
hmmm ... im still going to say proof when I talk to the lay person 
I couldnt be bothered to be over technical with language. Scientific language also changes between its field. As a scientist you have to gauge the level of language to use and people who often disagree with evolution arent really that intelligent but pretend to be intelligent (in terms of scientific modalities) ... harshly blunt yes but true.
true but they good enough, the idea of science is simplicity. e = mc^2 is a very simple formula, though most people wont understand how its derived and that discussion will occur between people capable of comprehending the mathematics properly. The rest will explain merely what the equation means and hence its not in depth and technical at all.
Science is not philosophy the glass is not half full or half empty there arent many ways to describe the glass. Its only one way, the true way. The glass is always full half water and half air. You can later go into detail once you have established that the glass is full and describe with testing whats in the water and whats in the air and how they interact with the glass.
So yes scientific language is important ... however it must make sense for that field of science.
Yes i agree, however the goal of science is not the same as the goal of a scientist. From scientific debating and each person trying to prove their ideas as correct the truth emerges and forms science. Through out the history of science this has occured, the most famous would be Einstein vs Bohr WRT quantum mechanics
You miss the point. Perhaps its because you dont understand the science of pharmacology and assume that sciences are some generalised standard, which is incorrect. You dont have to prove anything to work 100% for it to be fact in pharmacology. Even 10% sufficient, the idea of a placebo is to show that the ligand is working not to determine how powerful it is or how it works. For example look up a drug called pyrazinamide, no one really understands how it works however IT DOES work hence its factual that its an antibiotic.
I purposely picked that field because one im a scientist in the field and two its clearly shows the difference between sciences, biology is not the same as physics. They interact with each other
its like saying its not fact that red blood cells carry oxygen, sure you get faulty cells in your body that lack hemoglobin and hence dont carry oxygen but does that effect the FACT that these cells carry oxygen ?
People often think science is a language it is not, science is the definition of human intelligence. It comes with many different languages from medical, to mathematics, programing, English and other spoken languages. At the end of the day it boils down to a stone cold truth that is why dishonesty is treated with severe penalties in scientific community
I couldnt be bothered to be over technical with language. Scientific language also changes between its field. As a scientist you have to gauge the level of language to use and people who often disagree with evolution arent really that intelligent but pretend to be intelligent (in terms of scientific modalities) ... harshly blunt yes but true.true but they good enough, the idea of science is simplicity. e = mc^2 is a very simple formula, though most people wont understand how its derived and that discussion will occur between people capable of comprehending the mathematics properly. The rest will explain merely what the equation means and hence its not in depth and technical at all.
Science is not philosophy the glass is not half full or half empty there arent many ways to describe the glass. Its only one way, the true way. The glass is always full half water and half air. You can later go into detail once you have established that the glass is full and describe with testing whats in the water and whats in the air and how they interact with the glass.
So yes scientific language is important ... however it must make sense for that field of science.
Yes i agree, however the goal of science is not the same as the goal of a scientist. From scientific debating and each person trying to prove their ideas as correct the truth emerges and forms science. Through out the history of science this has occured, the most famous would be Einstein vs Bohr WRT quantum mechanics
You miss the point. Perhaps its because you dont understand the science of pharmacology and assume that sciences are some generalised standard, which is incorrect. You dont have to prove anything to work 100% for it to be fact in pharmacology. Even 10% sufficient, the idea of a placebo is to show that the ligand is working not to determine how powerful it is or how it works. For example look up a drug called pyrazinamide, no one really understands how it works however IT DOES work hence its factual that its an antibiotic.
I purposely picked that field because one im a scientist in the field and two its clearly shows the difference between sciences, biology is not the same as physics. They interact with each other
its like saying its not fact that red blood cells carry oxygen, sure you get faulty cells in your body that lack hemoglobin and hence dont carry oxygen but does that effect the FACT that these cells carry oxygen ?
People often think science is a language it is not, science is the definition of human intelligence. It comes with many different languages from medical, to mathematics, programing, English and other spoken languages. At the end of the day it boils down to a stone cold truth that is why dishonesty is treated with severe penalties in scientific community
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
From Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution "In addition to the people named above, other scientists at universities in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom helped with various parts of the manuscript, but prefer to remain anonymous. In several cases, they chose anonymity because their careen might suffer at the hands of people who strongly disagree with the conclusions of this book. For those scientists, public acknowledgment will have to wait."
Sure sounds like a dictatorship to me. Really Ekstasis if we behaved like they do I would be ashamed to associate myself with any of it.
Evolutionists would like to say that scientists discovered "junk" DNA isn't actually junk. But they can't say it's their scientists that did so as these people were ridiculed by evolutionists and evolutionists still want to believe that DNA to be mostly functionless.
Really every major advance in biology came with resistance from evolutionists. The complex interrelationship between proteins and genes, directed or programmed adaptation, function of the appendix are just a few places where the scientists that investigated those things were ridiculed for doing so. For evolutionists to now claim to be the bastions of science is hypocritical as it didn't just offer those scientists no help at all but was an obstacle to it. In many cases those scientists were actually creationists.
Yes lots.
ERVs are not universally regarded as the product of retroviruses. Yes you make a lot of bold statements, like all evolutionists, but can't back any of them up.
Mainstream science doesn't want to consider the alternatives.
Yes it doesn't matter because porchrat has decided. Stop living in your delusions.
"Proof" in mathematics is an entirely different concept. Science is empirical? Then evolution ISN'T science.
Just because evolutionists make bold claims that aren't backed up doesn't mean ID should go a similar route. If something can't be scientifically investigated it's better to admit it.
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...d-every-time?p=9821766&viewfull=1#post9821766
Yet you didn't point it out. How strange.
Stop making stuff up.36823853673 threads and not a single piece of evidence for evolution has been provided. It's almost as if there's no such evidence.
