0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Keep in mind that humans do not make new species. In fact, we don’t know if species actually come about through evolution. That’s why we call it the “theory” of evolution. But we do know that natural selection exists.
That’s why we call it the “theory” of evolution.
I think we (humans) are incredibly arrogant for even claiming to be intelligent. Intelligent life forms would not be brainwashed into believing complete mumbo-jumbo then use that as a justifiaction for running around killing each other.
Yes, that's right. It's anti-science.It's completely analogous to claiming that mountains could never be built by plate tectonics because nobody has ever seen it happen. 'Plate tectonics is just a scientific theory not fact!!!!'
Will western science ever divorce itself from the Bible?
To Don_1: The phenomenal effect humans have on the world shows that we can significantly affect the environment and that we can, and have, created breeds and hybrids of various animals and plants. The fact that these animals and plants continue to thrive shows that humans have succeeded in doing so. We are the environment; we define what is the fittest; we control their survival. And, if nature is so perfect, how come I'm going bald, and why do some kids get leukemia and die?
Yes, science is supposed to be very objective, but I still see the influence. I went too far with my exaggerations but, most of all, I simply can't believe the Big Bang Theory. For example, how could it be a unique event? Its popularity leaves little information about, or desire to discuss, other theories. Non-scientific people accept it without ever considering the details.
The invisible/imaginary friend argument is my favourite, Variola  Unfortunately the one intelligent person I used it on did not see the relevance to their belief in God.
God is the collective name for all things we do not understand yet.
Variola (an interesting name, by the way), Occam’s razor conveniently gets rid of “imaginary friends”.
The reason I really abhor "intelligent design" is because it accepts some science, while rejecting good science that does not align with its preconceptions.Now, that's anti-science.
QuoteThe reason I really abhor "intelligent design" is because it accepts some science, while rejecting good science that does not align with its preconceptions.Now, that's anti-science.It's cognitive dissonance too Right!(crap - now I'll need to look up dissonance.)
Festinger is perhaps best known for the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, which suggests that inconsistency among beliefs or behaviors will cause an uncomfortable psychological tension. This will lead people to change their beliefs to fit their actual behavior, rather than the other way around, as popular wisdom may suggest. 
LOL!! sorry [:X]Start with Festinger first http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_FestingerThere is a link on there to Cog DFestinger is perhaps best known for the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, which suggests that inconsistency among beliefs or behaviors will cause an uncomfortable psychological tension. This will lead people to change their beliefs to fit their actual behavior, rather than the other way around, as popular wisdom may suggest. 
Oh! I thought it was maybe something to do with self-abuse. See, you learn something every day!
To Geezer: Of course, Intelligent Design is Creationism relabeled.
I think (and I could be wrong) that according to ID, humans were created by some intelligent designer (presumably we are supposed to conclude that must be a God, or The God) and that we were, sort of, "beamed down". It's not clear to me that ID makes that process very clear because ID/DI seems more interested in pointing out any minor flaws in well accepted scientific evidence. If you can figure it out, please let us know.
I just watched a couple of ID animations depicting the inner workings of a cell. The first thing I quickly noticed is that these videos depicted molecules as seemingly alive and intelligent, moving around and performing task with a purpose, etc. This molecule goes here and does this on purpose, that molecule goes there and does that on purpose, etc. Almost like in Disney's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice".
Maybe that's one of ID's sticking points ... that humans, as alive and sentient beings, must be alive and sentient all the way down to their smallest detail.
Stephan, a scientific theory is NOT the highest status that any scientific idea can achieve.
Consider these definitions by Wiley Publishing Co, which has a long and illustrious history of publishing science and has published the works of hundreds of Nobel laureates. Opinion - A conclusion or judgment which, while it remains open to dispute, seems true or probable to one’s own mind [it’s my opinion that he’ll agree].Belief - Refers to the mental acceptance of an idea or conclusion, often a doctrine or dogma proposed to one for acceptance [religious beliefs].Hypothesis - Implies an inadequacy of evidence in support of an explanation that is tentatively inferred, often as a basis for further experimentation [the nebular hypothesis].Theory - Implies considerable evidence in support of a formulated general principle explaining the operation of certain phenomena [the theory of evolution].Law - Implies an exact formulation of the principle operating in a sequence of events in nature, observed to occur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions [the law of the conservation of energy]. Examples of laws of science appear in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science, which states that even “laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them.” Just ask Newton. As a scientist, I strongly recommend that the readers of this forum acquaint themselves with the laws of science. So Stephan, if ‘Evolution is not “just a theory”’ and ‘The Big Bang is not “just a theory”’ (that is, they are supposedly laws), then: describe an observed occurrence of the emergence of a new species and describe the observed occurrence of the birth of the universe -- no, I’ll make it easier -- the birth of just a galaxy. And Stephan, if what I ‘might call “just theories” are actually hypotheses’, then you’ve relegated Evolution and The Big Bang to tentative explanations with an inadequacy of evidence needing further research. As I said, the tough thing about astronomy (and, essentially, speciation) is that it’s all observation and theories and no experiments due to the overwhelming scales involved.
Ultimately, it is a scientific responsibility to challenge theories such as Evolution and The Big Bang.
DI? Who's Tracey Luskin and what did she have to say on the matter? I hope it was an enjoyable debate rather than one of those annoying circular ones...I was under the impression that ID was a poor compromise, effectively claiming that natural selection happens, but a mystical being tinkers with all the major changes, and created existing species in more or less their current forms. Creationism lite, with a built in get loophole around the thorny issue of natural selection being directly observable.
Stefan, I apologize for my misspellings, and I will try harder in future posts. Quote from: _Stefan_ on 12/09/2009 13:22:48A Law is not better than a Theory.Your statement speaks for itself. You propose an inexperienced and sophomoric idea that the world-wide scientific community rejects, and you do so without justification or explanation -- ie, without merit. You promote theories to the level of laws, and hypotheses to the level of theories. Once you leave the theoretical/academic world and enter the working world of science, bosses and customers will look you in the eye and ask if you base your proposals and work on laws or just theories. You have yet to describe an observed occurrence of the emergence of a species or the observed occurrence of the birth of a galaxy. Furthermore, try explaining how an emerging species contain enough genetic diversity to survive, or describe the state of the universe one second before the Big Bang. You cannot address these topics with sufficient certainty because Evolution and the Big Bang are still theories because they do not contain an “exact formulation of the principle operating in a sequence of events in nature”, observed to occur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions. We reserve that distinction for “laws” alone. I already mentioned the ungainly immensity of scale involved, and so, science may never explain the emergence of species or the development of the universe with enough certainty to call those explanations “laws” of science. I propose, as a truce, that the immensity of scale has caused our understandings of speciation and the universe to remain in their formative stage, that they may continue to remain there for some time, and that their formative stage causes such controversy.
A Law is not better than a Theory.
Quote from: _Stefan_ on 13/09/2009 16:45:07Your ideas about what constitutes, and the value of, a Scientific Theory and a Law, are wrong. Stefan, I reported you to the moderator as defaming my character. While we're waiting for the moderator to contact you about this, please provide us with the definitions of: a law, a theory and a hypothesis, and please site your sources. Thank you.
Your ideas about what constitutes, and the value of, a Scientific Theory and a Law, are wrong.
Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens.
. . . the common error of assuming there is some universal authority that ranks scientific ideas into "laws" and "theories", with laws having some objective priority. This is not true. It's largely arbitrary. If you come up with a description of something that can be typically written out in a short and easily testable mathematical formula, it tends to be called a law: for example, Newton's laws, including F=ma, etc., or the ideal gas law, PV=nRT. Laws tend to be short and simple. This is not always true, of course (arbitrary, remember?): for example, Ernst Haeckel called his description of the relationship between development and evolution the Biogenetic Law, which has the virtue of being a counter-example that is neither mathematical nor in any way formally correct.Theories, on the other hand, tend to be descriptions of more complex phenomena, and are often not easily reducible to a formula: for example, cell theory, germ theory, and the theory of evolution. They are neither more nor less true than a law, and a scientific theory is nothing like the colloquial meaning of "theory", a guess. Theories can also encompass many ideas that we call laws. Evolution, for instance, includes concepts like the Hardy-Weinberg Law and Dollo's Law.
Before attempting any explicit definitions, let's return to that old Junior High fallacy which states that: "Hypothesis becomes theory becomes law, as degree of proof increases". A hypothesis is indeed an idea requiring further research. When sufficiently confirmed, a hypothesis may become a theory, a law, or a fact. "A fact", one might ask? "Aren't facts so certain they require no confirmation?" This is another common misconception. . . .Scientific facts, laws and theories are three very different types of statements. One sometimes hears the word "theory" used in place of the word "hypothesis" - as in "I have this theory that ..." - but this is an abuse of the word, possibly motivated to avoid the pretentious sounding word "hypothesis". If formal definitions of the terms are requested, one might offer:A scientific fact is a controlled, repeatable and/or rigorously verified observation.A scientific law is a statement of an observed regularity among facts, often expressible as a simple mathematical relationship.A scientific theory is an integrated conceptual framework for reasoning about a class of phenomena, which is able to coordinate existing facts and laws and sometimes provide predictions of new ones. . . . Theories often explain "why" laws and facts are "true" or "how they work". . . . Notice that not only theories and laws, but also facts may be falsified by new observations.
1. How is that natural selection takes millions of years to change a species or create a sub-species, yet domestication of plants and animals only takes thousands or tens of thousands of years? Is mankind that good?
2. Some species such as sharks and crocodiles are said to be millions of years old, which implies a) they are older than many other species and b) have changed little by way of comparison. Does natural selection address why the rate of change varies from one species to the next?
2. I reported Stefan to the Moderator as attacking my character because he described me as supposedly “intellectually dishonest”. Just because I believe in the Big Bounce Theory (if I had to choose) instead of the Big Bang Theory doesn’t make me dishonest. And read my posts. I never attacked Stefan’s character, only his statements.
And read my posts. I never attacked Stefan’s character, only his statements.
Try dealing with this current reality in your own life before you try dealing with what may or may not have happened billions of years ago.
SOOOOOooooh,on topic: Natural selection is much slower than human selection because natural selection occurs at random, and human selection has some reasoning and purpose behind it.