It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Creationism Should Never be Taught in Science Class

page: 17
42
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   
So I was looking for some rather surprising quotes that most evolutionists know nothing about and come from some of their greatest academic minds. I'll find those. In the meantime, I ran across these and thought I'd let y'all pick 'em apart---I haven't vetted them. Evolution and Creationism are both faith-based belief systems and there's no way around that.


“And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred.” Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion (Rockford., Ill.: Tan Books, 1988), pp. 5-6. Dr. Smith, taught at MIT and UCLA.



"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the inevitable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not prove to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.



"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.



"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
The history books are full of science fairy tales... It's only appropriate that religion should be found there too!


History books is full of atrocities of those believing in fairy tales against those using their own head. Hundred of years of witch hunting and burning at stake... just to preserve illusion and keep ignorance?!

If I were you, I would not use history, science and religion in the same sentence...

Of course, you know that when you say 'fairy tales' - we all know you are talking about religion, do you??


What I know is that science is commonly assumed to be absolutely true


We have addressed your misconception about this a number of times. Perhaps you should actually read the comments that reply to you?

Science is never about absolute truth. It is merely our tool in which we apply to help understand and explain how a naturally occurring phenomenon functions. Science is solely about probability, it is never going to be 100% correct


originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: JadeStar
when in fact scientific theories come and go as our understanding changes.


Absolutely correct! give the man a star! (don't actually, it was only an accident that he came to this conclusion.

Again, science helps explain to the best of our current knowledge, how a phenomenon functions. If evidence arises that shows our previous explanation was incorrect, then it will change to make a more accurate description.


Excellent! You completely understand and yet your completely unable or unwilling to a recognize the fact that same short comings are evident in both evolution and creationism.


More so that I am not aware of the shortcomings of evidence in evolution. Especially considering when it's one of the most evidence-backed theories in all of the scientific fields.

Of course, if you're willing to provide me with some claims that you may possess about Evolution that can allow me to view these shortcomings, I'd be very excited to see them!




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: rollanotherone
hudsonhawk69



Your assumption that someone can be convinced of something through argument highlights your ignorance. This can rarely be achieved. 'YOU' might suggest that creationist were proof of that!

Are you really that afraid to ask the basic question? Are you really that afraid to admit you don't know the answer? The truth is, you don't know. You believe, but belief isn't truth. I would really like to see us exit the dark age in my lifetime. Not sure I'll see it though.


Ask what question?

I do know the answer.

The answer is that all truth should it really exist is relative.

My point remains the same. Evolution is simply an alternative theory from creationism based on relative interpretation of the same data. Both are based on a multitude of assumptions weather you label or view those assumptions scientific or not. Therefore evolution has no more of a factual basis on which to be taught in schools than creationism. Both are simply opposing theories trying to explain a phenomenon that is potentially completely pointless in understanding.


So when we see variation through reproduction, and the resulting new genetic material, and direct ancestral lineages, this is not proof?

We have witnessed speciation in person. That factor is not proof?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
The Theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is still as stated quite clearly a 'theory'. Once this theory of evolution has been tested repeatedly using the scientific process achieving consistent results this will then become an accepted truth. Given that it is currently and possibly always will be completely impossible to practically test evolutionary theory than I guess it will always remain theory.


You're mixing up the scientific use of 'Theory' with the proposed-example use of 'Theory'.

In order for a scientific theory to become a scientific theory it is first a scientific hypothesis. Once enough evidence accumulates to support the hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

To gather evidence what do scientists do? That's right! They do experiments. and there are thousands upon thousands of experiments that directly support the theory of Evolution.


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
I'm assuming at this point that you understand the difference between evolution an natural selection?


Will you STOP asking that?!?!? How many times do we have to say that no one is claiming evolution and natural selection to be the same thing. How about you respond to all the posts that explain that instead of skipping the record your mind lives on?


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
I'm not denying science. I'm denying ignorance.


What's ironic is that you're on massive ignorance is both denying science and denying it's own state of ignorance at the same time...


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
Scientific fact once told us that the world was flat however I'm supposed to believe that evolution is infallible?


Uh, no. science didn't claim that....

"The flat Earth model is an archaic conception of the Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century. That paradigm was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and the notion of a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies."

What science did is prove that concept wrong.

And no one said that Evolution is infallible! To be scientific it MUST BE FALSIFIABLE!


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
If you want a source for that open your mind and do some objective research into creationism.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA...

No more needs to be said about that claim.

We are still talking about Last Thursdayism creationism, right?


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
You and I are both smart enough to know that no matter how much we argue about it we are not going to change each others mind so please stop wasting my time.


You're the one asking questions. You are more than welcome to leave this thread. You don't even respond to the people who respond to your comments anyway, so why are you still here?


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
There is no absolute proof to support evolution or creationism and why do we all have to be so narrow minded and naive as to believe that these are the only two options... Or that in fact our origins may actually be a culmination of facts and ideas coming many differing theories and philosophies.


Because all the evidence... as in ALL the evidence, suggests that life evolves. The reason we don't look into the other options is because all the other options have been thoroughly debunked, save Evolution.


Wow! That's quite an amazing post.

From there I really have nowhere to go except back to the beginning. Judging by this post you seem to understand exactly what I said in the first place. The scientific process makes no bones about the fact that is impossible to know any absolute truths as a certainty. Quantum Physics as a science clearly highlights the strong tendency for scientist to look for, find, and prove, exactly that which he set out to find and prove!

Amazing!


You act as if I made a fool of myself by stating science does not claim absolute truths. (unless of course your post just seems sarcastic, and really isn't)

If that is the case, then you certainly do not see the logic behind falsifiability. It's a good thing to be falsifiable, because when people make amazing claims that are not able to be challenged, then there is no way to prove if they are factual or not. To be unfalsifiable is to be intellectually irresponsible, close minded, and arrogant.


So in fact evolutionary theory is as fallible as creation theory and as a result holds no more credibility as a theory then the the perceived facts and correctness of the interpretation of the data that you attribute to it. So there is no real reason that evolution should be taught in schools and creation not.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Can you name anything a creation model doesn't fall short of?



Why should anything about a creation model fall short? It's as completely unprovable as evolution is.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Seems like someone doesn't understand what "falsifiable" means.

Or the importance of it to scientific theory.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
The history books are full of science fairy tales... It's only appropriate that religion should be found there too!


History books is full of atrocities of those believing in fairy tales against those using their own head. Hundred of years of witch hunting and burning at stake... just to preserve illusion and keep ignorance?!

If I were you, I would not use history, science and religion in the same sentence...

Of course, you know that when you say 'fairy tales' - we all know you are talking about religion, do you??


What I know is that science is commonly assumed to be absolutely true


We have addressed your misconception about this a number of times. Perhaps you should actually read the comments that reply to you?

Science is never about absolute truth. It is merely our tool in which we apply to help understand and explain how a naturally occurring phenomenon functions. Science is solely about probability, it is never going to be 100% correct


originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: JadeStar
when in fact scientific theories come and go as our understanding changes.


Absolutely correct! give the man a star! (don't actually, it was only an accident that he came to this conclusion.

Again, science helps explain to the best of our current knowledge, how a phenomenon functions. If evidence arises that shows our previous explanation was incorrect, then it will change to make a more accurate description.


Excellent! You completely understand and yet your completely unable or unwilling to a recognize the fact that same short comings are evident in both evolution and creationism.


More so that I am not aware of the shortcomings of evidence in evolution. Especially considering when it's one of the most evidence-backed theories in all of the scientific fields.

Of course, if you're willing to provide me with some claims that you may possess about Evolution that can allow me to view these shortcomings, I'd be very excited to see them!



Here's a classic one.


Darwin's dilemma: Why do species exist? In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin interpreted biological evolution in terms of natural selection, but was perplexed by the clustering of organisms into species.[51] Chapter 6 of Darwin's book is entitled "Difficulties of the Theory". In discussing these "difficulties" he noted "First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" This dilemma can be referred to as the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in habitat space. Another dilemma, related to the first one, is the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in time. Darwin pointed out that by the theory of natural selection "innumerable transitional forms must have existed", and wondered "why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth." That clearly defined species actually do exist in nature in both space and time implies that some fundamental feature of natural selection operates to generate and maintain species.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT
So I was looking for some rather surprising quotes that most evolutionists know nothing about and come from some of their greatest academic minds. I'll find those. In the meantime, I ran across these and thought I'd let y'all pick 'em apart---I haven't vetted them. Evolution and Creationism are both faith-based belief systems and there's no way around that.


You do realize that there doesn't need to be a global acceptance of a scientific theory to be right or wrong?

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity. Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.
~ Delgado, Cynthia (2006-07-28). "Finding evolution in medicine" (HMTL). NIH Record 58 (15). Retrieved 2007-10-22.
~ Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83
~ Amicus Curiae brief in Edwards v. Aguillard, 85-1513 (United States Supreme Court 1986-08-18). , available at "Edwards v. Aguillard: Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates". From TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-10-19.




There are no hypotheses, alternative to the principle of evolution with its "tree of life," that any competent biologist of today takes seriously. Moreover, the principle is so important for an understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves that the public in general, including students taking biology in high school, should be made aware of it, and of the fact that it is firmly established, even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established.
Bales, James D., Forty-Two Years on the Firing Line, Lambert, Shreveport, LA, p.71-72,


If you want to do the whole "oh yeah, well some scientists don't accept The Theory Of Evolution!" thing, I can tell you right now that my number is going to be bigger.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Ghost147
You act as if I made a fool of myself by stating science does not claim absolute truths. (unless of course your post just seems sarcastic, and really isn't)

If that is the case, then you certainly do not see the logic behind falsifiability. It's a good thing to be falsifiable, because when people make amazing claims that are not able to be challenged, then there is no way to prove if they are factual or not. To be unfalsifiable is to be intellectually irresponsible, close minded, and arrogant.


So in fact evolutionary theory is as fallible as creation theory and as a result holds no more credibility as a theory then the the perceived facts and correctness of the interpretation of the data that you attribute to it. So there is no real reason that evolution should be taught in schools and creation not.


Your ignorance of Science never stops to amaze me. Actually, in this case it's logic all around.

Falsifiable and fallible are two entirely different things.

Falsifiable: if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false".

One of the foundational concepts behind science is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Do you believe that the Earth revolves around the sun? Well guess, what, that's falsifiable!

Fallible: in the context you're using it, is to be entirely erroneous - or incorrect.

This is first grade science here. Are you really that uneducated? or do you just choose to be?

It must be falsifiable, because it has no point otherwise: as an example, I could hypothesize that the universe sprang into existence 5 seconds ago, with all memories and situations intact. This might be true, but is not falsifiable, and so is pointless as an hypothesis because it can neither be proven correct or false.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: rollanotherone
hudsonhawk69



Your assumption that someone can be convinced of something through argument highlights your ignorance. This can rarely be achieved. 'YOU' might suggest that creationist were proof of that!

Are you really that afraid to ask the basic question? Are you really that afraid to admit you don't know the answer? The truth is, you don't know. You believe, but belief isn't truth. I would really like to see us exit the dark age in my lifetime. Not sure I'll see it though.


Ask what question?

I do know the answer.

The answer is that all truth should it really exist is relative.

My point remains the same. Evolution is simply an alternative theory from creationism based on relative interpretation of the same data. Both are based on a multitude of assumptions weather you label or view those assumptions scientific or not. Therefore evolution has no more of a factual basis on which to be taught in schools than creationism. Both are simply opposing theories trying to explain a phenomenon that is potentially completely pointless in understanding.


So when we see variation through reproduction, and the resulting new genetic material, and direct ancestral lineages, this is not proof?

We have witnessed speciation in person. That factor is not proof?


Speciation and genetic drift build well upon the theory of natural selection. However both are still far from explaining how complex life forms emerged from a primordial ooze.

The primordial soup may have contained all the necessary data to produce all forms of life on the planet. This however completely fails to explain how such an amazing primordial soup might suddenly appear from nothing.
At this point when life arises from the primordial soup genetic sequences are being created. In natural selection genetic material is if anything being lost...



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
The history books are full of science fairy tales... It's only appropriate that religion should be found there too!


History books is full of atrocities of those believing in fairy tales against those using their own head. Hundred of years of witch hunting and burning at stake... just to preserve illusion and keep ignorance?!

If I were you, I would not use history, science and religion in the same sentence...

Of course, you know that when you say 'fairy tales' - we all know you are talking about religion, do you??


What I know is that science is commonly assumed to be absolutely true


We have addressed your misconception about this a number of times. Perhaps you should actually read the comments that reply to you?

Science is never about absolute truth. It is merely our tool in which we apply to help understand and explain how a naturally occurring phenomenon functions. Science is solely about probability, it is never going to be 100% correct


originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: JadeStar
when in fact scientific theories come and go as our understanding changes.


Absolutely correct! give the man a star! (don't actually, it was only an accident that he came to this conclusion.

Again, science helps explain to the best of our current knowledge, how a phenomenon functions. If evidence arises that shows our previous explanation was incorrect, then it will change to make a more accurate description.


Excellent! You completely understand and yet your completely unable or unwilling to a recognize the fact that same short comings are evident in both evolution and creationism.


More so that I am not aware of the shortcomings of evidence in evolution. Especially considering when it's one of the most evidence-backed theories in all of the scientific fields.

Of course, if you're willing to provide me with some claims that you may possess about Evolution that can allow me to view these shortcomings, I'd be very excited to see them!



Here's a classic one.


Darwin's dilemma: Why do species exist? In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin interpreted biological evolution in terms of natural selection, but was perplexed by the clustering of organisms into species.[51] Chapter 6 of Darwin's book is entitled "Difficulties of the Theory". In discussing these "difficulties" he noted "First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" This dilemma can be referred to as the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in habitat space. Another dilemma, related to the first one, is the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in time. Darwin pointed out that by the theory of natural selection "innumerable transitional forms must have existed", and wondered "why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth." That clearly defined species actually do exist in nature in both space and time implies that some fundamental feature of natural selection operates to generate and maintain species.


They have already answered this: phys.org... (a basic rundown of the study)

and here's the link to the actual scientific paper as well: www.cell.com
edit on 8/7/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
Speciation and genetic drift build well upon the theory of natural selection.


The theory of natural selection? You've got to be kidding me, right? There is no "theory of natural selection", Natural selection is a mechanism WITHIN evolution.


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
However both are still far from explaining how complex life forms emerged from a primordial ooze.


Do you even bother to read the Wikipedia page on evolution before declaring that you are the All Knowing opponent of Evolution? Evolution has nothing to do with how life forms. It only is the phenomenon that occurs once life already exists and reproduces with variation.

By the way... no scientific model states that "COMPLEX LIFE emerged from a primordial ooze". Not even Abiogenesis (which is the theory you're actually referring to)



originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
The primordial soup may have contained all the necessary data to produce all forms of life on the planet. This however completely fails to explain how such an amazing primordial soup might suddenly appear from nothing.
At this point when life arises from the primordial soup genetic sequences are being created. In natural selection genetic material is if anything being lost...


Good for the primordial soup... now can we get back on the topic of Evolution? The beginnings of life on earth have nothing to do with Evolution.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

I'm asking what evidence it has to support it, period.

Is there anything besides the Bible?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
If you want to do the whole "oh yeah, well some scientists don't accept The Theory Of Evolution!" thing, I can tell you right now that my number is going to be bigger.


Herd-crowd academic mentality adverse to the alternative and unwilling to admit the glaring flaws. You can't produce evidence that doesn't exist.


"I shall discuss the broad patterns of hominoid evolution, an exercise made enjoyable by the need to integrate diverse kinds of information, and use that as a vehicle to speculate about hominoid origins, an event for which there is no recognized fossil record. Hence, an opportunity to exercise some imagination." Dr. David Pilbeam


But the real problem you have--and probably the greatest argument for the alternative is Consciousness. Especially human consciousness and its facility for abstraction. You know, that weightless, massless enigma responsible for all of our greatest achievements.


"And in man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe."

Dr. Isaac Asimov (biochemist; was a Professor at Boston University School of Medicine; internationally known author)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: Ghost147
If you want to do the whole "oh yeah, well some scientists don't accept The Theory Of Evolution!" thing, I can tell you right now that my number is going to be bigger.


Herd-crowd academic mentality adverse to the alternative and unwilling to admit the glaring flaws. You can't produce evidence that doesn't exist.


The funny thing about science is, ANYONE CAN DO IT! it's not just opinions flying around completely unjustified. You can do experiments in your own home and do science.

If you've got a problem with a theory, you can go out and disprove it with evidence, if there is any. The reason Evolution is so widely accepted is because of the absurd amount of evidence there is that supports it. That's it!

Of course, you're more than welcome to continue rejecting reality. It is in your right to sustain logic if you so choose.


originally posted by: The GUT"I shall discuss the broad patterns of hominoid evolution, an exercise made enjoyable by the need to integrate diverse kinds of information, and use that as a vehicle to speculate about hominoid origins, an event for which there is no recognized fossil record. Hence, an opportunity to exercise some imagination." Dr. David Pilbeam


Right... because these don't exist:




originally posted by: The GUT
But the real problem you have--and probably the greatest argument for the alternative is Consciousness. Especially human consciousness and its facility for abstraction. You know, that weightless, massless enigma responsible for all of our greatest achievements.


Exactly how is our current understanding and description of consciousness a "real problem" with evolution? Organisms are still reproducing with variation, new mutations are still forming in EVERY individual within EVERY species, Natural selection is still in the works. But because we have yet to understand consciousness to a solid degree means that all is bogus... why?

Not knowing an explanation does not mean an explanation is impossible. And since we are barely beginning to understand what consciousness is, it is not surprising that we would not have its origin worked out yet.

In fact, preliminary explanations for the origin of consciousness have been proposed, although they are too complicated to try to summarize here (see Dennett 1991 and Minsky 1985). Much more experimentation and refinement is needed before we have a full-fledged theory of the origin of consciousness, but we have more than enough to know that such a theory is possible.

A factor that likely contributes to the claim of consciousness's inexplicability is the fact that many people do not want a naturalistic explanation of consciousness, since a natural consciousness does not fit easily with a divine soul. This threatens people's desire for a divine origin and immortality (but see Dennett 1991, 430, for immortality of a naturalistic consciousness). An examination of this point alone could fill a book. However, suffice it to say,

There is much evidence -- from genetic predispositions of behavior and personality, from brain injury studies, from brain imaging of healthy people -- that consciousness is naturalistic now. A natural origin would not matter much beyond that.
What we want has no bearing on what really is.
~ Dennett, Daniel C., 1991. Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
~ Minsky, M., 1985. The Society of Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.


Oops, watch out, your insecurities are showing.
edit on 8/7/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

Oops, watch out, your insecurities are showing.


Not at all. You're projecting your own insecurity in the face of the fact that your theory is faith-based. Truth be known, I consider your own delusions unworthy of your intellect and fraught with circular reasoning.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: The GUT

You're free to prove my claims incorrect then, if that is the case. Can you show me that organisms do not reproduce with variation?
edit on 8/7/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Ghost147
You act as if I made a fool of myself by stating science does not claim absolute truths. (unless of course your post just seems sarcastic, and really isn't)

If that is the case, then you certainly do not see the logic behind falsifiability. It's a good thing to be falsifiable, because when people make amazing claims that are not able to be challenged, then there is no way to prove if they are factual or not. To be unfalsifiable is to be intellectually irresponsible, close minded, and arrogant.


So in fact evolutionary theory is as fallible as creation theory and as a result holds no more credibility as a theory then the the perceived facts and correctness of the interpretation of the data that you attribute to it. So there is no real reason that evolution should be taught in schools and creation not.


Your ignorance of Science never stops to amaze me. Actually, in this case it's logic all around.

Falsifiable and fallible are two entirely different things.

Falsifiable: if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false".

One of the foundational concepts behind science is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Do you believe that the Earth revolves around the sun? Well guess, what, that's falsifiable!

Fallible: in the context you're using it, is to be entirely erroneous - or incorrect.

This is first grade science here. Are you really that uneducated? or do you just choose to be?

It must be falsifiable, because it has no point otherwise: as an example, I could hypothesize that the universe sprang into existence 5 seconds ago, with all memories and situations intact. This might be true, but is not falsifiable, and so is pointless as an hypothesis because it can neither be proven correct or false.


Fallible- (adjective) - capable of making mistakes or being wrong.

Straight from the oxford dictionary.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
The history books are full of science fairy tales... It's only appropriate that religion should be found there too!


History books is full of atrocities of those believing in fairy tales against those using their own head. Hundred of years of witch hunting and burning at stake... just to preserve illusion and keep ignorance?!

If I were you, I would not use history, science and religion in the same sentence...

Of course, you know that when you say 'fairy tales' - we all know you are talking about religion, do you??


What I know is that science is commonly assumed to be absolutely true


We have addressed your misconception about this a number of times. Perhaps you should actually read the comments that reply to you?

Science is never about absolute truth. It is merely our tool in which we apply to help understand and explain how a naturally occurring phenomenon functions. Science is solely about probability, it is never going to be 100% correct


originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: JadeStar
when in fact scientific theories come and go as our understanding changes.


Absolutely correct! give the man a star! (don't actually, it was only an accident that he came to this conclusion.

Again, science helps explain to the best of our current knowledge, how a phenomenon functions. If evidence arises that shows our previous explanation was incorrect, then it will change to make a more accurate description.


Excellent! You completely understand and yet your completely unable or unwilling to a recognize the fact that same short comings are evident in both evolution and creationism.


More so that I am not aware of the shortcomings of evidence in evolution. Especially considering when it's one of the most evidence-backed theories in all of the scientific fields.

Of course, if you're willing to provide me with some claims that you may possess about Evolution that can allow me to view these shortcomings, I'd be very excited to see them!



Here's a classic one.


Darwin's dilemma: Why do species exist? In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin interpreted biological evolution in terms of natural selection, but was perplexed by the clustering of organisms into species.[51] Chapter 6 of Darwin's book is entitled "Difficulties of the Theory". In discussing these "difficulties" he noted "First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" This dilemma can be referred to as the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in habitat space. Another dilemma, related to the first one, is the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in time. Darwin pointed out that by the theory of natural selection "innumerable transitional forms must have existed", and wondered "why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth." That clearly defined species actually do exist in nature in both space and time implies that some fundamental feature of natural selection operates to generate and maintain species.


They have already answered this: phys.org... (a basic rundown of the study)

and here's the link to the actual scientific paper as well: www.cell.com


As the scientific paper clearly states this "POTENTIALLY" explains Darwins dilemma. Are you really trying to pass this off as conclusive proof?



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
Speciation and genetic drift build well upon the theory of natural selection.


The theory of natural selection? You've got to be kidding me, right? There is no "theory of natural selection", Natural selection is a mechanism WITHIN evolution.


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
However both are still far from explaining how complex life forms emerged from a primordial ooze.


Do you even bother to read the Wikipedia page on evolution before declaring that you are the All Knowing opponent of Evolution? Evolution has nothing to do with how life forms. It only is the phenomenon that occurs once life already exists and reproduces with variation.

By the way... no scientific model states that "COMPLEX LIFE emerged from a primordial ooze". Not even Abiogenesis (which is the theory you're actually referring to)



originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
The primordial soup may have contained all the necessary data to produce all forms of life on the planet. This however completely fails to explain how such an amazing primordial soup might suddenly appear from nothing.
At this point when life arises from the primordial soup genetic sequences are being created. In natural selection genetic material is if anything being lost...


Good for the primordial soup... now can we get back on the topic of Evolution? The beginnings of life on earth have nothing to do with Evolution.


Well since creationism and evolution are apparent addressing entirely different issues (the origins of life and how the differing species came about as opposed to, well... Whatever it was that you said). We can stop beating that one right now!



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join