Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 112
  1.    #81  
    Such an assertion would be, at best, shorthand, at worst "junk science." "The Theory of The Evolution of Species by Natural Selection" is an attempt to explain a huge body of observed natural phenomenon. There is a scientific consensus that it is the best explanation of the data (that does not rely upon an appeal to magic). There is a scientific consensus that there is no need to rely upon magic to explain the data.

    Intelligent Design, at best, is an assertion that the theory does not satisfy, that there is a need to rely upon an as yet undiscovered explanation of the data. At worst it is an assertion that the phenomenon is so complex that science will always be inadequate to explain it.

    Creationism is, at best, a preference for a poetic or mythical explanation that does not require a detailed study or understanding of the observable phenomenon. At worst, it is a rejection of the scientifc method as a means of appreciating and understanding the universe.
    Let me summarize:
    Evolution is not necessarily TRUE, but any other explanation is patently FALSE.
    Last edited by shopharim; 12/21/2005 at 07:49 AM.
  2.    #82  
    I think it is odd that scientists aren't more focused on the "magic" that is theology. If evolution is the best explanation, then belief in god is a trait that has evolved within our species. And, if that is so, then we must conclude that it is advantageous, because a siginificant majority of the population has subscribed to it for centuries. Even medical professionals have observed the benefits of belief, noting that the confidence in the value of what is being experienced is in and of itself measurably beneficial (i.e. placebo effect). Doesn't such an obviously advantageous trait merit more study?
    Last edited by shopharim; 12/20/2005 at 11:31 PM.
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Ahh microevolution must mean macroevolution story. Oh well this horse has been beat to death, but wait maybe the dead horse will evolve into a unicorn.
    That continents move for the fraction of an inch per year because of continental drift may be an observable fact, but the idea that over the course of millions of years this is what created the Rocky Mountains, the Andes, the Himalaya and the Alps is really a slightly silly theory at best, a dead horse some are still beating....
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Let me summarize:
    Evolution is not necessarily TRUE, but any other explanation is patently FALSE.
    Evolution complies with all observed facts to date and makes correct predictions about how species develop in controlled experiments as well as in nature. The mechanisms of evolution are also sufficient to explain the development of species, there is no need for additional, external factors to expain the facts we observe.

    The story told in Genesis does not comply with the observed facts.

    I have yet to come across a person who (a) denies these points and (b) does this for reasons different from his or her religious convictions.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    That continents move for the fraction of an inch per year because of continental drift may be an observable fact, but the idea that over the course of millions of years this is what created the Rocky Mountains, the Andes, the Himalaya and the Alps is really a slightly silly theory at best, a dead horse some are still beating....
    I agree that is a silly theory because God made them all!

    (just couldn't resist )
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I think it is odd that scientists aren't more focused on the "magic" that is theology. If evolution is the best explanation, then belief in god is a trait that has evolved within our species. And, if that is so, then we must conclude that it is advantageous, because a siginificant majority of the population has subscribed to it for centuries. Even medical professionals have observed the benefits of belief, noting that the confidence in the value of what is being experienced is in and of itself measurably beneficial (i.e. placebo effect). Doesn't such an obviously advantageous trait merit more study?
    The fact that a trait evolved does not mean it is advantageous under the present circumstances. Maybe belief in God was useful in the absence of real explanations?

    Over the course of the last century, the importance of religion has decreased dramatically world-wide (with the exception of the US and some Muslim countries), while prosperity increased dramatically thanks to progress in science and engineering.

    Among Western countries, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries are among the least religious and certainly far less religious than the US, but people there are happiest world-wide (World Database of Happiness, click on "Nation Ranks" on the far left and e.g. on "level" in the middle column).
    Last edited by clulup; 12/21/2005 at 07:01 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Let me summarize:
    Evolution is not necessarily TRUE, but any other explanation is patently FALSE.
    TRUTH, (emphasis yours) is the province of theology. In science there is hyptothesis and evidence. There is predictability and falsifiability but no TRUTH. Science has no problem with poetry, metaphor, or myth. Indeed it has been used to study all of those.

    Science has no problem with Intelligent Design per se. However, it is not science. While it explains, it does not predict and it not falsifiable. We do not accept Newton's Laws of Motion because they are TRUE but because, at least on the scale to which they apply, they reliably predict.

    As an individual, I have no problem with its advocates teaching Intellgent Design. Like many, I find it a satisfying explanation. I do have a problem with its adherents using their elective office to mandate its teaching.

    As a citizen, I have a problem when the state attempts to define science or to require what be taught as being science. To me, for the state to require that non-science explanations be taught on the science curriculum as an alternative explanation to a scientific explanation ranks with the Tennessee legislature re-defining Pi to an integer because it is more satisfying. It goes beyond proper governing to thought control. I see no difference between the power of the state to do that and the power of the state to tell you that you must prefer the scientific explanation to the religious one.

    "Be careful what you ask for; you might get it."
    Last edited by whmurray; 12/21/2005 at 08:11 AM.
  8.    #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    ...Among Western countries, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries are among the least religious and certainly far less religious than the US, but people there are happiest world-wide (World Database of Happiness, click on "Nation Ranks" on the far left and e.g. on "level" in the middle column).
    The world database of happiness. Wow.
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The world database of happiness. Wow.
    Happiness can be defined, in part, as being allowed to think what you want without the coercive power of the state (or the threat of excommunication, not to mention damnation) to influence you.
  10.    #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Happiness can be defined, in part, as being allowed to think what you want without the coercive power of the state (or the threat of excommunication, not to mention damnation) to influence you.
    I appreciate the sentiment, however, I wouldn't think happiness had any dependency on what is allowed or disallowed.
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Science has no problem with Intelligent Design per se. However, it is not science. While it explains, it does not predict and it not falsifiable.
    Is the origin of life developing in a puddle and then developing into something crawling falsifiable and duplicatable? If so, I would be really interested in seeing that experiment.
  12. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The world database of happiness. Wow.
    Gee, did you notice where the website is from. Rotterdam
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  13. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The fact that a trait evolved does not mean it is advantageous under the present circumstances. Maybe belief in God was useful in the absence of real explanations?

    Over the course of the last century, the importance of religion has decreased dramatically world-wide (with the exception of the US and some Muslim countries), while prosperity increased dramatically thanks to progress in science and engineering.

    Among Western countries, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries are among the least religious and certainly far less religious than the US, but people there are happiest world-wide (World Database of Happiness, click on "Nation Ranks" on the far left and e.g. on "level" in the middle column).
    In most sciences the experts gladly consider other options and alternatives and readily compare the two. When there are unexplained gaps they seek the truth instead of trying to make every potentinally new discovery fit into the gap and claim success without proof. I find it amusing that evolutionist readily use the falseibility argument, yet they can not acurately apply it to their own scientific theory. A couple that jump to mind is how do we explain the vastly differrent ages in carbon dating a single sample (as a professor once told our class always go with the oldest date), or why does a lava rock from Mt St. Helens that formed during the most recent eruption date as far back as thousands of years old? Or where the original matter came from that eventually turned into the first single cell organism. And we won't even go into the lack of fossil or skelatal remains of the transitional (macroevolution) periods.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Is the origin of life developing in a puddle and then developing into something crawling falsifiable and duplicatable? If so, I would be really interested in seeing that experiment.
    Wouldn't we all. However, when one compares the time scale for such an experiment to that of the individual human life, we will have to settle for indirect evidence.
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I appreciate the sentiment, however, I wouldn't think happiness had any dependency on what is allowed or disallowed.
    Seriously? While Freedom does not guarantee happiness, a state of coercion and fear would seem to guarantee its absence. That great contemporary theologian, George W. Bush, assures us that Democracy is a prerequisite to both Freedom and happiness.
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Gee, did you notice where the website is from. Rotterdam
    And this signifies what?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I appreciate the sentiment, however, I wouldn't think happiness had any dependency on what is allowed or disallowed.
    Happiness doesn't depend on whether you are allowed to show your face or hide it under a burka, whether you are allowed to claim earth circles the sun without being burnt at the stake, etc.?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    In most sciences the experts gladly consider other options and alternatives and readily compare the two. When there are unexplained gaps they seek the truth instead of trying to make every potentinally new discovery fit into the gap and claim success without proof. I find it amusing that evolutionist readily use the falseibility argument, yet they can not acurately apply it to their own scientific theory. A couple that jump to mind is how do we explain the vastly differrent ages in carbon dating a single sample (as a professor once told our class always go with the oldest date), or why does a lava rock from Mt St. Helens that formed during the most recent eruption date as far back as thousands of years old? Or where the original matter came from that eventually turned into the first single cell organism. And we won't even go into the lack of fossil or skelatal remains of the transitional (macroevolution) periods.
    Rumours and misconceptions. With more time, and a minimum of good will, one could clear them. There is no serious controversy about anything you mentioned outside of fundamentalist circles. You cling to those alledged scientific lapses not because of real methodological doubts, but simply because the results don't fit your world view. You try to adapt the real world to your belief system.

    That's sad, because it is not a problem to believe in god and e.g. in evolution at the same time. Two billion Catholics set a good example in this respect.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19.    #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Rumours and misconceptions. With more time, and a minimum of good will, one could clear them. ...
    If you would take the time to share, I have the good will to listen (read) and learn.
  20.    #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Seriously? While Freedom does not guarantee happiness, a state of coercion and fear would seem to guarantee its absence. That great contemporary theologian, George W. Bush, assures us that Democracy is a prerequisite to both Freedom and happiness.
    Seriously. Many remain happy in the most dire circumstances. The key is to learn the art of contentment. It is possible for one to be content while at the same time unsatisfied. Likewise, it is possible for one to experience threats without feeling threatened.

    If the source of one's happiness is in his/her possessions or comfortable estate, then certainly coercion and fear would hinder happiness. However, if one's source of happiness is not temporal, such conditions would be of little, if any, effect.
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions