Evolution and Science Acceptance

Status
Not open for further replies.
popemobile said:
No, because the base material (the texts) were never credible. They might have been given the same credence as science at some point in the past, but based on today's standards of science they are not credible. Whether or not they were accepted in the past doesn't have any meaning as far as proving its credibility today.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that if someone in the future proves beyond reasonable doubt that all present scientific theory is false then the present scientific theory was never science.

I'm not saying religion is credible to me. I'm saying that it was science at one point and that it still could arguable be called a science today since there are still people who believe it is credible.
 
iDunno said:
So what you are saying is that if someone in the future proves beyond reasonable doubt that all present scientific theory is false then the present scientific theory was never science.
Click to expand...

that's the beauty of science, nothing is taken as hard fact and everything is open to scrutiny from new evidence. If there was evidence that suggested this, then it would require all previous scientific claims to be retested and possibly completely discarded, and new theories would be tested based on the new evidence. If there is reason to believe that observation and evidence was no longer credible (which is essentially the case in your scenario), then we'd all have to become evil demon solipsists or whatever.

I figured you were trying to do one of these "gotcha" things when you asked the first question, but nothing in science is ever considered hard fact. I might say that evolution is "fact", but that's just me saying that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it and nothing to support any other theory to the point where calling it fact is the most useful and reasonable viewpoint to hold. The point is that science is different from religion because religion requires the basis for the texts to be true, while science needs no such basis and is always open to scrutiny.

Logan said:
So none of you believe in aliens at all? :/
Click to expand...

Extraterrestrial life and god aren't equatable in terms of beliefs, because aliens would exist within the universe while god necessarily exists outside of it. One is testable, and there is evidence to suggest that alien life is possible such as the discovery that mars once had water, or the sheer size of the universe. There's no proof yet, but it is testable within the realm of observation.
 
Logan said:
So none of you believe in aliens at all? :/
Click to expand...

First off, aliens pretty much have to exist somewhere because of the shear amount of alien worlds in the universe.

I am doubtful though that any alien race would be interested in us, as far as we can tell, interstellar space travel requires a high amount of scientific knowledge that we might not reach in thousands of years. The only way aliens might be interested in our planet is if they didn't have to go through those thousands more years of enlightenment. The only way they could happen is, getting here ass slow with about our current technology, interstellar space travel is much easier than we think, or it was given to them as a race to early.

I have admittedly watched a lot of ancient aliens and UFO hunters. Some of it, just some, is dam convincing. A lot of UFO reports are pretty solid, and some of the ancient tech just leaves even the experts scratching their heads.

I am a fan of the belief of sort of an ancient Atlantian like civilization that which traversed the Globe and was much more advanced that bronze age man. It doesn't take that much of a leap to imagine some parts of human civilization growing faster than others, and it also explains other things like the fact that the pharaohs were buried with cocaine. Cocaine only is found in the Americas, there must of been some amount of ancient international trade.

Modern UFOs I think are the government, a lot of UFO reports of the past coincide with later release aircraft and or failed project released decades later.

a bit of a huge tangent, but I had to say it
 
popemobile said:
that's the beauty of science, nothing is taken as hard fact and everything is open to scrutiny from new evidence. If there was evidence that suggested this, then it would require all previous scientific claims to be retested and possibly completely discarded, and new theories would be tested based on the new evidence. If there is reason to believe that observation and evidence was no longer credible (which is essentially the case in your scenario), then we'd all have to become evil demon solipsists or whatever.

I figured you were trying to do one of these "gotcha" things when you asked the first question, but nothing in science is ever considered hard fact. I might say that evolution is "fact", but that's just me saying that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it and nothing to support any other theory to the point where calling it fact is the most useful and reasonable viewpoint to hold. The point is that science is different from religion because religion requires the basis for the texts to be true, while science needs no such basis and is always open to scrutiny..
Click to expand...

Apparently our definitions of what a science is are completely different so I'm going to stop bothering to argue with you.
 
if you consider "science" without the scientific method to be equal in terms of validity with science using the scientific method then you're a moron. I don't know what else to tell you. Philosophy does not use the scientific method. It is not science. I don't deny that science started similarly to Philosophy and grew from there, but they are definitely not the same today.
 
popemobile said:
if you consider "science" without the scientific method to be equal in terms of validity with science using the scientific method then you're a moron. I don't know what else to tell you. Philosophy does not use the scientific method. It is not science. I don't deny that science started similarly to Philosophy and grew from there, but they are definitely not the same today.
Click to expand...

I already told you there is technically a scientific method to religion and philosophy and that all basal evidence is relative. The difference is that modern science just emphasizes it as an artificial process created by them, when it really isn't. You just choose to forget that because it's convenient for you. That is why I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore.
 
aaaand this is why I usually don't debate people in general

anyway it doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't be taught in schools because it's not factual, so I guess we really didn't change anything
 
This thread took a rather hilarious turn for the stupid.

I buckled over in laughter at Logan's "So none of you believe in aliens at all? :/".
 
TL;DR for the past couple of pages: iDunno thinks that everything is true if you just believe because humans can't possibly measure things objectively. 2+2=4, but also 3 or 5 if you want it to be. It's science!
 
elcheeso said:
TL;DR for the past couple of pages: iDunno thinks that everything is true if you just believe because humans can't possibly measure things objectively. 2+2=4, but also 3 or 5 if you want it to be. It's science!
Click to expand...

what? how is that anywhere close to what I said? just because something is a science doesn't mean everything said in the science is objectively true.

If you really wanted to you could create an infinite amount of number systems if you wanted to have one where 2 + 2 = x
 
iDunno, the fact is, your definition of science is very different from popemobile's and mine and pretty much every working scientist. You keep saying that nothing is fact, so everything is pretty much "science" as long as it undergoes some kind of testing method. That's not a definition that helps anyone determine anything that they could reasonably call "knowledge". In science, people care about how right/wrong a model can be in some sense. Moreover, any rational model gains credibility from what it can't explain, not what it can. A religion, when faced with contradictory evidence, reinterprets itself so that it can still explain everything. That is not a rational model of reality, that's a flip-flopping model of reality that can't ever truly be "wrong". In contrast, science does not deal in one model. It deals in the production of models that continually fall under scrutiny.

I suppose it's well within your rights to reject everything we've told you about science and still conclude that there is no knowledge and that everything is baseless speculation in the end. You don't get to force that view on us by calling us delusional.
 
capefeather said:
iDunno, the fact is, your definition of science is very different from popemobile's and mine and pretty much every working scientist. You keep saying that nothing is fact, so everything is pretty much "science" as long as it undergoes some kind of testing method. That's not a definition that helps anyone determine anything that they could reasonably call "knowledge". In science, people care about how right/wrong a model can be in some sense. Moreover, any rational model gains credibility from what it can't explain, not what it can. A religion, when faced with contradictory evidence, reinterprets itself so that it can still explain everything. That is not a rational model of reality, that's a flip-flopping model of reality that can't ever truly be "wrong".

I suppose it's well within your rights to reject everything we've told you about science and still conclude that there is no knowledge and that everything is baseless speculation in the end. You don't get to force that view on us by calling us delusional.
Click to expand...

Fine that's fair. But then again, on the same coin, having a differing opinion from mine does not give you a right to call me a moron, so we are both equally guilty of labeling.

EDIT: I just think that schools should be encouraged to provide educational programs concerning all religions so they at least know about what the scientific community wants them to condemn. People have a right to choose what to believe and not be limited in scope of religion by indoctrination by their parents.
 
iDunno said:
Why is being a solipsist stupid if it is a theory completely supported by the superposition principle.
Click to expand...

Because it goes no where. You arrive at the conclusion that you are the only thing that exists and the world only exists inside your head and you do what exactly? Nothing. It's masturbation.

It's the only thing worse than your belief system. I'm assuming your belief system is "YOU CANT PROVE ANYTHING! SURE YOU SAY THAT ROAD IS ONE MILE LONG BUT IT COULD BE TWO MILES LONG! HOW DO YOU KNOW?!? IT COULD BE A TIGER!"
 
Would you prefer this then? TL;DR for the past couple of pages: iDunno thinks that nothing is true because humans can't possibly measure things objectively. 2+2≠4, and people who claim it is are on par with people saying it's 3 or 5. It's science!

I mean, you've denied the existence of objective evidence (because somehow, somewhere, things might not be the same as they are here) and have been playing a game of false equivalence the entire time (between science and religion/philosophy)... so you either believe everything is true depending on who's looking, or everything is false because our systems of explanation are incapable of being objective because we made them up. Which is it?

behold the wonder of false equivalence said:
Religion's arguments are just as credible as scientific ones when one takes into account what makes a science "credible"
Click to expand...

Their scientific method is just simpler and less rigorous than that of the natural scientists because their scientific theory is much less intricate and easier to support through textual interpretations. That doesn't make it any less credible.
Click to expand...

objective evidence? In my science? It's less likely than you'd think said:
A "well-substantiated explanation" is a fancy word for a speculative opinion that is supported by a body of evidence that is believed to be fact which is a fancy phrase that one might say describes the word "theory" in the common usage.
Click to expand...

Philosophy == science

All scientific theory is essentially philosophy/theory/speculation supported by a body of evidence.
Click to expand...

PS: I'd actually agree with you re: the religious education thing... but you're really underestimating how easily it turns into religious indoctrination class. I've been through plenty of rel ed classes in different public schools, and every single one was "hey, this religion is cool, you should join it"... barring one, where different religious dudes taught different religious stuff to kids who were already part of their religion... and the atheists got to sit outside. It's not even like Australia is a non-secular country, but there you go.
 
I'm gonna quote Matt Dillahunty again because I think this is really relevant to what we're discussing:

absolute certainty is a red herring. 'oh I can't know for sure', well of course, you can't know anything for sure...I'm not claiming absolute certainty, I'm claiming in the context of reality that is useful, that is a matter of common discussion, that there isn't sufficient evidence to justify belief for me...Now I believe that there is no god, but I don't claim this as an absolute certainty because I think that absolute certainty is useless. Now to the degree that we CAN know anything, I think it is pretty close to knowledge, at least for me
Click to expand...

to put it into context: the idea of absolute certainty is mostly a hindrance to useful scientific discussion. Getting hung up on the notion that "we can't know for certain that science is absolutely and totally accurate so we should give all these other significantly less verified and tested methods and ideas equal credence" could take up pages and pages of forum pos...I mean lots of time that could be used to discuss more useful and relevant things.
 
Take the concept of an atom and the concept of a mole. No one (at least as far as I am aware of with the current technology) has ever been "fully" confirm the existence of an atom with their own very eyes (very much like how opponents of evolution are claiming). Yet, it's one of the most undebated topics in the world of science and why not? All empirical evidence point towards the concept of its existence through various chemical reactions, various experiments based on gases, statistical mechanics, etc.

Now let's look at the mole. How can anyone be able to quantify the concept of a "mole" at such a high magnitude? Again, it's because experimental data further backs this theory; anywhere from measured weights of chemical reactions, "counting" of water-insoluble fats on top of water using Gibbs Adsorption, etc have further confirmed the universality of the concept of this "unverifiable" number.

I guess where I'm trying to go is that theories aren't made and then scientific data made up to prove them as opponents of evolution are trying to claim. Theories exist because they are the best models available to us at the moment based on empirical evidence. There have been countless case studies of speciation and division and unification of species even within our small timeframe of biological studies. People need to realise that theories are rationale after the fact. Not the other way around.

Now the thing is, is our model perfect? Definitely not; there is no full-proof method to prove a theory. Just look at the basic laws of physics; 100 years ago, people would have had a fit if you denied their validity. Now, with the rise of relativity and quantum mechanics, the basic physic laws are at best an approximation at a macroscopic level, not at the quantum level. Is our model of evolution perfect? Of course not; it's on a bit more shakier ground since biology is infinitely more complex in documenting empirical evidence especially with its uncontrollable variables floating everywhere. Is it the best theory we have and does it adequately explain the rise and fall of species around us? Well considering the amount of support it has from the scientific community (note: the people who actually work with this stuff daily in our lives, as opposed to handchair opponents skimming data off wikipedia as we see here) has given, I'd say that the model of evolution is a good approximation of what happens in this world.

Now, for those who claim that the theory is untestable and thus, invalid, please try again, because your claims are so irrelevant and off-base in that I can't help but make a serious post actually outlining what everyone should have learned back in grade school. If you're still set on campaigning against evolution, please start campaigning against the existence of the atom, the mole and all the other sciences since clearly they're based on faulty principles too.
Click to expand...

Taken from the other thread. Seriously stop it iDunno.
 
whats that phrase....you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts? if something is subjective like music taste then sure believe whatever the fuck you want but when it comes to science, which is basically all about rightness, some things are more correct than others...so therefore saying yall have "differing opinions" about a rational system is just some retarded tomfoolery.

also everyone has the right to call anyone a moron, especially if the person is one
 
I know the difference between god and aliens. There isn't a god. Just the essence, collective consciousness as it has manifested into the universe. I guess all I can take from this debate is that sure well call it science (although many of you are guilty of carrying it as fact). Fuck modern science. Read Zechariah Sitchin's the 12th planet, DMT the Spirit Molecule and ancient human history in general. The fucking pyramids, with the eye of Horus piercing and controlling your mind. Escape the matrix. Evolution could be a solid theory but once, "science" or not you accept our cosmic heritage everything will make sense. Given what we know about genetics another possibility to explain dramatic changes / evolutionary eras. It is possible that adaption exists, and is completely unrelated to macro evolution. Consider with an open mind. In many ways modern science is just now catching up to what ancient society's knew to be true.. This may be another. Don't be so close minded as to think YOU know all of the answers. If modern science leads you to believe this theory is scientific fact then fuck modern science. All I know is I know nothing. I have a feeling man of you are the same people that still believe freedom hating Muslims took down 3 World Trade Center buildings with 2 planes.. Rme.
 
Logan said:
Don't be so close minded as to think YOU know all of the answers.

All I know is I know nothing.

I have a feeling man of you are the same people that still believe freedom hating Muslims took down 3 World Trade Center buildings with 2 planes.. Rme.
Click to expand...

haha
 
Logan said:
I have a feeling man of you are the same people that still believe freedom hating Muslims took down 3 World Trade Center buildings with 2 planes.. Rme.
Click to expand...

Just because we believe in evolution doesn't mean we are stupid enough to think anyone but George W. Bush did it.
 
Eraddd said:
Taken from the other thread. Seriously stop it iDunno.
Click to expand...

If you hadn't noticed I already did. I'm not campaigning against evolution. All my argument was about was religion actually being a form of science and people somehow derived that I was anti-science from that. If given enough reign men of science can be just as bigoted and dogmatic as men of religion. To avoid a future like that people need to be trusted to know about all religions and sciences and to choose what to believe for themselves. The core of intolerance is ignorance and choosing to teach some things but not others only perpetuates it.

Pernicious said:
whats that phrase....you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts? if something is subjective like music taste then sure believe whatever the fuck you want but when it comes to science, which is basically all about rightness, some things are more correct than others...so therefore saying yall have "differing opinions" about a rational system is just some retarded tomfoolery.

also everyone has the right to call anyone a moron, especially if the person is one
Click to expand...

just because I take consideration things you don't agree with/don't understand doesn't make me a "moron"

Again, I'm an atheist and accept scientific theories to be widely true given the evidence we are given, so I'm not on a campaign to discredit science as a whole...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top