Author Topic: Evolution = Myth (Read 1606 times)

Hortlund · « **Reply #15 on:** April 05, 2004, 12:33:51 PM »

LOL there are alot of stinky baits in this tread.

Mini D · « **Reply #16 on:** April 05, 2004, 12:36:11 PM »

Hehehe... I think anthropology is great. If you screw up, there's very few people around that can figure it out. Most of the time they come up with the most extreme oppinions on things because controversy/sensationalism = more grants.

But carry on believing that someone trying to justify their income with brilliant discoveries is the most trustworthy person on earth and there is no bias nor pre-conceived oppinions influencing the "findings". It makes you look oh so more intelligent.

MiniD

SOB · « **Reply #17 on:** April 05, 2004, 12:41:02 PM »

I was hoping to keep this a secret, but in the interest of ending any ill will on this BBS, let it be known that it was me who created the universe.

Furious · « **Reply #18 on:** April 05, 2004, 12:51:37 PM »

Here's what I don't get.

Why would a strict creationist (the earth created in 7 days, etc.) limit the creativity and genius afforded their god?

Couldn't an "all knowing, all seeing" being be clever in its design of the universe??

midnight Target · « **Reply #19 on:** April 05, 2004, 12:53:56 PM »

You are right of course MiniD, except for one further point.

Anyone who feels the need or the inclination has the option to disprove a scientific finding. It is not only expected, it is encouraged. Ever heard of a religion that encourages debunking of itself?

Hortlund · « **Reply #20 on:** April 05, 2004, 12:56:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target

Ever heard of a religion that encourages debunking of itself?

You just named it...Science

Mini D · « **Reply #21 on:** April 05, 2004, 01:05:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
You are right of course MiniD, except for one further point.

Anyone who feels the need or the inclination has the option to disprove a scientific finding. It is not only expected, it is encouraged. Ever heard of a religion that encourages debunking of itself?

Actually... there isn't a difference. The same can be said for both. The basic assumption is the same...

Q: Debunk what?
A: Something taken on faith.

The post linked offered no proof of anything. A bone that may or may not support a theory is all. How someone chooses to see that is another story all together. Basically, you're asking to debunk something that really hasn't been proven... and can't be proven. Yet... it has been labeled "proof".

MiniD

midnight Target · « **Reply #22 on:** April 05, 2004, 01:18:16 PM »

1. Proof when used in the context of science basically means "best explaination fitting the observed facts"
2. The posted link offered no proof, but the actual study is open to scrutiny. Did you expect a treatise on bone structure and morphology?
3. Scientific "proof" can be based on models when actual observation is impossible. For Exdample: A shoulder that can create the "pushup" motion probably looks like other shoulders that can do the same thing.
You accept "models" as proof every day. What is 1 million plus 1 million? Do I need to get 2 million pebbles together to prove the answer to you?

Dead Man Flying · « **Reply #23 on:** April 05, 2004, 01:22:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
The post linked offered no proof of anything. A bone that may or may not support a theory is all. How someone chooses to see that is another story all together. Basically, you're asking to debunk something that really hasn't been proven... and can't be proven. Yet... it has been labeled "proof".

The scientists quoted in the article did not refer to the fossil as "proof" of anything; that was Sandman's spin on it.

Scientific theories should follow very rigid standards allowing falsifiability. Thus while scientists may never completely "prove" the validity of a theory, they can certainly disprove it. The fact that this fossil matches predictions about the chronology of evolution made prior to the discovery bolsters the theory. On the other hand, had they discovered a fossil that completely blew away their predictions, it likely would have proven the theory incorrect and forced scientists to reevaluate and modify it.

Thus you can scientifically debunk evolution, and in fact I'm sure paleontologists boringly argue back and forth in journals trying to falsify opposing theories about evolutionary minutia. I know political scientists do this all the time in the social sciences.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Mini D · « **Reply #24 on:** April 05, 2004, 01:36:35 PM »

I'm replying to this thread guys. I'm replying to what people chose to view as proof or not as proof... and the vagueness of people definition of "faith". Though... I'm glad to see you two both admit that this is not proof of anything.

Quote

1. Proof when used in the context of science basically means "best explaination fitting the observed facts"

Actually, you are wrong here. It is "an explanation" that loosely translates to a "very vague assumption". Especially in situations like this.

Findings are driven by pre-conceived notions. Science is as notorious for this as any religion. I even see it here at work due to the heavy scientific nature of things... You can make an assumption (or... "explanation" as you say) and if it makes some level of sense, people will take it as a baseline. You don't even need data to back it up. Once it is accepted as a baseline, you will need tons of data to displace what equates to "an assumption". Scientists are some of the most close minded people I've ever met.

MiniD

Dead Man Flying · « **Reply #25 on:** April 05, 2004, 01:49:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
I'm replying to this thread guys. I'm replying to what people chose to view as proof or not as proof... and the vagueness of people definition of "faith". Though... I'm glad to see you two both admit that this is not proof of anything.

[/B]

It is a finding that fits a prediction based upon a scientific theory. Thus the theory may parsimoniously explain the greatest amount of variance observed in evolutionary phenomenon. I think we also need to realize that scientists who study evolution aren't trying to debunk religion; they're trying to debunk one another if anything. If paleontology is anything like political science -- and I'm sure in a general sense that it is -- then conflicting theories abound with arguments over which evidence to use and how to use it. This is quite common, and it's all part of academia and scientific progress. I don't see it as good or bad per se.

Quote

Findings are driven by pre-conceived notions. Science is as notorious for this as any religion.

Bad science maybe. Among those with whom I've worked and published before, you'd better damn well justify any theoretical elements with data. There's no way you're going to publish in a top journal on assumptions that you can't operationalize and measure. In the very least you're going to have to justify any theory with extensive citations pointing to bodies of work and research that form the building blocks of your theory and its assumptions.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Yeager · « **Reply #26 on:** April 05, 2004, 01:50:38 PM »

Evolution is a tool used by the creator to shape the art of the universe. Nature is in fact, the greatest creation.

Mini D · « **Reply #27 on:** April 05, 2004, 02:09:05 PM »

Hold on DMF. Didn't you say this is a tidbit that supports a prediction based on scientific theory? Really... just think about the magnitude of what you said in that little sentance.

Virtually all of science is theory. There are so many assumptions its simply impossible to weigh. It's only when you find something that is counter to those general assumptions that you need to have "alot of proof". There was/is no proof that rotator cuff evolution involved that stage of evolution. Someone took a drawing of a bone that didn't allow for lateral motion and then one that did... morphing from one to the other. This looks like a picture in that morph. Science says one type of shoulder would support it, and another type won't... thus there MUST be something in-between if science also says that evolution MUST have occured.

Very few people, that I know of, will dispute the occurance of evolution to some degree. Even christians will have a hard time explaining how Noah fit 250,000 species of birds on the arc (x2 of course). The area where science is desperately trying to make things fit is in the cross-over regimes. There simply isn't anything out there that substantiates the migration from water to land nor from land to flight nor from reptile to mamal. This is the fundamental flaw of evolution and glaringly highlights just exactly what "scientific theory" is based on. Agree or disagree with it... just don't pretend it's not a religion.

MiniD

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #28 on:** April 05, 2004, 05:43:38 PM »

I really never understood the whole fuss about evolution vs god. To me at least it's quite simple to have both if you want to. Evolution is a fact, fossil evidence supports it it, microevolution studies support it, bacteria prove it every time a new generation becomes resistant to an antibiotic (a textboox perfect example of evoltion BTW) etc etc etc.. Yet there is always time and place for god at the very begining if you want to put him there, at the moment of creation of the universe, because quite frankly we havent got a clue what was before the beggining if time - it sure as hell didnt all come from "nothing" - even science will agree to that...

ravells · « **Reply #29 on:** April 05, 2004, 05:47:45 PM »

Quite. Grun.

The point is, we don't know.

For me, the question about belief in God has always been, not so much how many questions does its existence/non-existence answer, but whether our belief in its presence actually make the world a better place to live in.

On balance, apart from some great examples of humanity shown by religious people, it's been pretty much a negative in my book.

Ravs