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.

 

The Theory of Evolution Applied to Every Day Life

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


lol, to my friend whose mind is firmly closed, when you say prior experience do you mean the thread where I whooped your ass on your denial ofthe founders of quantum mechanics not being idealists and the relationship between QM and idealism, and then you disappeared off


If you do make the mistake of engaging me again in a debate, try not to run of this time


[edit on 12-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]




posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Originally posted by Lasheic


I'm only going to say this once. The word "theory" has several different meanings.


first of all you must have really taken offense personally to spew all that personal garbage. nothing i said was directed towards you. but where is the misconception of the word theory when i see it as a tested, however unproven assumption. the only difference is the scientific community has to deny that a theory is spectulation because they have hope that one day it will be proven; so they use the word tested in the definition as a substitude for substantiated. a theory, scientific or not, is a just a guess until proven to be the answer.



From the NCSE:
* Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.


if you can prove to me that a theory, no matter how much evidence, is no more than substantiated speculation, at best, then i surrender and apologize. but if not, since u misunderstood me and i was right in the first place though you had to argue anyway, you appologize.

(go ahead-tell me the word hypothesis does not mean guess.)

[edit on 12-12-2009 by notsympl]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 

Yes, I believe that was the occasion. I recall it differently.

Have a nice life.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by notsympl
first of all you must have really taken offense personally to spew all that personal garbage.

I didn't notice anything personal in Lasheic's post to you. Could you point out, please, just what you thought was personal? I'm curious.


where is the misconception of the word theory when i see it as a tested, however unproven assumption. the only difference is the scientific community has to deny that a theory is spectulation because they have hope that one day it will be proven.

Could you give us even one example of a fact or an explanation that is proven beyond all possible doubt? Because unless one exists, the distinction you are trying to draw between a scientist's 'theory' and a layman's 'fact' is meaningless.

You understand, science is a little different from religion. It is honest and scrupulous. There are no facts in science--nothing that is held to be true beyond all possible doubt. For that kind of 'certainty', you must apply to the priests or to the politicians. Science does not furnish it.

In science, we hope and believe that what we discover is true, but there is never a moment when we shut off the engines of investigation and say 'this is it, we've arrived'. Any scientific datum is open to falsification. That's what makes it scientific.

But that doesn't mean a theory isn't true.


if you can prove to me that a theory, no matter how much evidence, is no more than substantiated speculation, at best, then i surrender and apologize.

Time to apologize, I think. To Lasheic, obviously, not to me.

[edit on 12/12/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
I didn't notice anything personal in Lasheic's post to you. Could you point out, please, just what you thought was personal? I'm curious..


read it again ...


Originally posted by Lasheic
I'm sure you've probably been told the difference before. If not, then take the opportunity to correct your misconception now. It's NOT a hard concept, and may have just been something you missed or glossed over. If you have been corrected on this matter before - then you have no excuse for purposefully and consciously misrepresenting the use of the word. Plug your ears and shout to keep understanding out all you want... but just know that NOBODY who knows even the basics of science is going to take you or your criticism seriously. That others may refuse to engage you, excepting in ad homeniem attacks, is not a sign of fragility of position on their part - but rather a mockery of tired old misconceptions and misunderstandings that are you purposely will not correct. You want to throw garbage into the discussion, then don't be surprised when get garbage thrown back out at you.



Originally posted by notsympl
where is the misconception of the word theory when i see it as a tested, however unproven assumption. the only difference is the scientific community has to deny that a theory is spectulation because they have hope that one day it will be proven.



Originally posted by Astyanax
Could you give us even one example of a fact or an explanation that is proven beyond all possible doubt? Because unless one exists, the distinction you are trying to draw between a scientist's 'theory' and a layman's 'fact' is meaningless.


the law of energy; it cannot be created or destroyed only transferred...water cannot be compressed under pressure...must i go on?


Originally posted by Astyanax
You understand, science is a little different from religion. It is honest and scrupulous. There are no facts in science--nothing that is held to be true beyond all possible doubt. For that kind of 'certainty', you must apply to the priests or to the politicians. Science does not furnish it.

In science, we hope and believe that what we discover is true, but there is never a moment when we shut off the engines of investigation and say 'this is it, we've arrived'. Any scientific datum is open to falsification. That's what makes it scientific.


so science searches for the truth but denies all facts? what? again, science searches for the truth but denies all facts?

who can disprove a scientific law, if it is law is it not fact?

until a theory is proven it is a hypothesis (guess).


Originally posted by Astyanax
But that doesn't mean a theory isn't true.


i didn's say a theory cannot be true, i said all theories are guesses until proven true. and under the circumstances, the theory of evolution has not been proven and is a primative explanation of how we got where we are.


Originally posted by notsympl
if you can prove to me that a theory, no matter how much evidence, is no more than substantiated speculation, at best, then i surrender and apologize.


Originally posted by Astyanax
Time to apologize, I think. To Lasheic, obviously, not to me.


now you owe me an apology too, i'm in no rush to collect.



[edit on 12-12-2009 by notsympl]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by notsympl
 


To be fair a theory is more than just a glorified guess. It is a model which has been built up on the guy cited, facts, inferences etc. It is the most consistent explanation or the best explanation for those facts. Anyway that is what it suppose to be, but a lot of theories are not at all the most consistent explanations for the world and they continue to be used simply because the scientific community refuse to let them go because of vested interests in them. A lot of classical theories which should have been rejected a century ago no longer can explain the facts of the world, and I will include Darwinian evolution under that fold.

There is no denying that a phenomenon known as evolution is taking place, but the theory that is used to explain it of random chance mutations does not at explain this phenomenon consistently. There are huge holes, gaps and contadictions in this theory, some of which I mentioned in an earlier post. On the contrary, theories like intelligent design have much "better" explanations for the facts. You must factor in intelligence to explain the highly complex and systematic functioning of the body-unit, it is not at all valid to posit that the various components of the body develop in isolation by random chance. It is a fact attested by observation that human bodies and animal bodies are very complex and systematic units, undergoing a vast set of processes which are governed by a central processing centre which in turn is connected to the processes taking place in the world. Nothing is happening in isolation. The isolation notion is just the conclusion of highly arrogant men that think they are outside of nature, special and can impose their own laws on her. This is very much a Western attitude.

Hence why, non-western philosophies on the whole recognise the importance of living in harmony with nature. We are after all a part of nature, governed by its laws, and hence we should flow with nature to maintain harmony on this planet. The West has a lot to learn from non-western civilisations on that.



[edit on 12-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


in case you missed it before, earlier i had another separate response to you as well but anyway...

Proof of Creation - A Philosphical Approach



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by notsympl


Originally posted by Astyanax
I didn't notice anything personal in Lasheic's post to you. Could you point out, please, just what you thought was personal?

read it again ...


Originally posted by Lasheic
I'm sure you've probably been told the difference before...

I read it. Did you not notice the two critical 'ifs'? That was not a personal attack.



Originally posted by Astyanax
Could you give us even one example of a fact or an explanation that is proven beyond all possible doubt?

the law of energy; it cannot be created or destroyed only transferred...water cannot be compressed under pressure...must i go on?

I think you had better, because those two certainly won't wash.


The conservation of energy follows from the time-invariance of physical systems, and the fact that physical systems behave the same regardless of how they are oriented in space. Source

Get that? The law of conservation of energy is based on the observation that physical systems behave the same way whenever and from wherever you look at them. So far, this has always been the case. But what if, tomorrow, we were to find a special case of a physical system that did not follow these rules? There is absolutely nothing within the ambit of human knowledge to tell us this will not happen. What price the law of conservation of energy then?

In just the same way, you can say with assurance that the sun will rise tomorrow morning--but still, it may not. Your assurance is based only on the apparent fact that it has always risen on every morning the human race has ever seen. But does that mean it will always rise tomorrow morning? What, apart from inductive logic from previous experience, makes us so sure?


A partial listing of conservation laws that are said to be exact laws, or more precisely have never been shown to be violated:

* Conservation of energy...

(Source as above; my italics)

Are you starting to get it now? What we call the laws of nature are derived from empirical observation. These observations have the appearance of rock-solid consistency, so we assume it is safe to derive these laws from them. As long as the observations remain consistent every time we test them (and we test them a million times a day), we can continue to assume the laws apply. But there is no final assurance.

Ah yes, you'll say, but you're talking about laws. I'm talking about theories. Well, here's the bad news: in science a law and a theory are exactly the same thing.


Back when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations... Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law


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. Theory, Law & Fact in Science

Before you argue that these not-quite-identical definitions show a distinction of veridicality between theory and law, read the link. Thanks.

Shall we go on to the compressibility of liquids?

Can you compress a liquid?

Read and be enlightened.


Originally posted by notsympl
so science searches for the truth but denies all facts? what? again, science searches for the truth but denies all facts?

Not at all. Provisional acceptance is not the same as denial. Scientists are perfectly happy to say that data a, b or c are true, if they conform to observation. But science (because it is, unlike religion, honest, scrupulous and fair) alway leaves room for the possibility that what has hitherto been confirmed by observation and thought to be true, will one day be falsified. In fact, a law or theory or hypothesis is not scientifically acceptable unless it is falsifiable.

Science, unlike creationism, doesn't 'do' faith. And now it really is time you apologized.

[edit on 12/12/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
ok you got me on the water. bad example, how foolish of me to assume i didn't need to research what science has taught me. but on the conservation of energy, you went off track. ok, maybe in another dimension you might be right, but even then it wouldn't apply there anyway.


Originally posted by Astyanax
Ah yes, you'll say, but you're talking about laws. I'm talking about theories. Well, here's the bad news: in science a law and a theory are exactly the same thing.


so in science theory and law are the same; that would stem from a misconception and misuse of the word in the firstplace.(because we call oursleves winners doesn't make it so.)

or how about, between me and you,


Originally posted by Astyanax
you can say with assurance that the sun will rise tomorrow morning--but still, it may not. Your assurance is based only on the apparent fact that it has always risen on every morning the human race has ever seen.


hypothetically speaking, as far as science would be concerned, your theory would be accepted with the same merit as law?


Originally posted by Astyanax
There are no facts in science--nothing that is held to be true beyond all possible doubt.


every and any mathmatical formula is a fact and is used in science. true or false?


Originally posted by Astyanax
Science, unlike creationism, doesn't 'do' faith. And now it really is time you apologized.


evolution has been proven beyond all doubt. true or false?
within the science community evolution is thought to be true. true or false?
if you think yet cannot prove something is that not a belief?
and if you can prove something, does that not make it fact?

as the one who preached to me science does not believe in anything, nor itself by default, nor does it use facts then what are you defending, and how are you defending it?

alas you demanded an apology and so you shall recieve; I'm sorry you sunk your own battleship, and for that i thank you.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by notsympl
on the conservation of energy, you went off track. ok, maybe in another dimension you might be right, but even then it wouldn't apply there anyway.

What do you mean, in another dimension? Dimensions are not locations. Do you mean, in another reality? And if so, what reason have you for saying that?

My position is based on basic principles in the philosophy of science. It is pretty standard stuff; exotic only to the culturally challenged.


so in science theory and law are the same; that would stem from a misconception and misuse of the word in the firstplace.

Indeed. But the confusion is not on the part of science; it is yours.



Originally posted by Astyanax
you can say with assurance that the sun will rise tomorrow morning--but still, it may not. Your assurance is based only on the apparent fact that it has always risen on every morning the human race has ever seen.

hypothetically speaking, as far as science would be concerned, your theory would be accepted with the same merit as law?

What theory? My saying that your assurance the sun will rise tomorrow is based on inductive logic? What do you think it is based on?

Oh, I see, you're just being creative with the words hypothesis, theory and law. So then, as Lasheic wondered, you have heard all this before and you're just here to troll the thread. Very nice.

The armies of the Lord seem to have a lot of time to waste.


every and any mathmatical formula is a fact and is used in science. true or false?

Did you read the pages I linked in my last post? Why are you asking me this again?

A mathematical formula signifies a relationship between observables, ie a theory, so, yes, in that sense, a fact. What is your point?

Science recognizes nothing as a fact in the sense of an infallible certainty. In science, a fact is a datum with a high degree of probability. This has already been explained to you. If you would just stop ululating and take your fingers out of your ears, you may begin to understand.


evolution has been proven beyond all doubt. true or false?

Beyond all reasonable doubt. Nothing is ever proved beyond all doubt in science.


within the science community evolution is thought to be true. true or false?

Science is not religion. It has no articles of faith. The overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution as true. A few may disagree, but they haven't been able to produce convincing evidence for an alternative mechanism to explain the variety of life we see around us. Neither have they been able to falsify evolutionary theory.

Yes, I said 'theory'. In science, a theory is effectively the same as a fact.


if you think yet cannot prove something is that not a belief?

Indeed. Can you prove that you are alive? Can you prove that the rest of the universe exists? Can you prove that life is not simply a dream that you are dreaming? Can you prove Your Redeemer Liveth? These, too, are merely beliefs.

Some beliefs are better founded than others, that is all.


and if you can prove something, does that not make it fact?

You cannot prove something beyond all doubt, except formally. Substantive proof of anything--in the sense you mean--is impossible. Not even direct personal experience can suffice.


as the one who preached to me science does not believe in anything, nor itself by default, nor does it use facts then what are you defending, and how are you defending it?

Only people have beliefs. Science is not a person.

I never said scientists do not believe in anything.

I never said scientists don't believe in science, or in the findings of science.

I never said science does not proceed by facts.

You are lying, as all creationists do when they are cornered.

What I have said so far is sufficient to make anyone but an idiot understand me. I have done with you. As for your apology, it is typical of what decent people have come to expect from the likes of you. For a creationist, it seems, honour and dececy, too, are 'just a theory'.

[edit on 14/12/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Science is not religion. It has no articles of faith. The overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution as true.


It is funny how both of these statements contradict one another. There are definitely articles of faith in Science, the theory of evolution of random chance mutations being unfalsifiable is one of them. Another article of faith is the assumption this is a physical world, which is existing separate from us and which will yeild to our measurements.

Science did indeed become like a religion with the rise of positivism, and you definitely sound positivist to me. To make positive statements like, "gravity IS" or "elecricity IS" is to declare something to be absolutely true. This is no different from a religionist declaring god to be the creator.
Fortunately, scientific positivism is a well and truly defeated philosophy today. Your kind are very few in number.

Other ways in how science is a religion is the prejudice and bias for certain theories or models within the scientific community. This prejudice or bias translates into less funding or investments in certain theories or models because either they oppose the null hypothesis or are not profitabe. In the case of theories and experiments which oppose the null hypothesis, such theories are often discarded as "fringe" and are not accepted until much later when there is a build up of overwhelming evidence that they cannot suppress it anymore. Much like how Christians rejected heliocentric theory initially and it was only accepted after the evidence became overwhelming.

Another way of how science is a religion is how it constructs false problems for scientists to solve, when they may not even exist. The problem of how consciousness can be explained by the brain for example or global warming, which may not actually have solutions.

Science is not at all as objective, factual and neutral as you claim. This is an exceedingly naive view of science, and that itself is indicative of treating it like some religion. I love, for example, the verve with which you quote from online science articles to prove your points. Think for yourself.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
What do you mean, in another dimension? Dimensions are not locations. Do you mean, in another reality? And if so, what reason have you for saying that?


because if somewhere else, not in this reality, another dimension perhaps, if energy could be created or destroyed the law wouldn't apply there anyway...duh.


Originally posted by Astyanax
Science recognizes nothing as a fact in the sense of an infallible certainty. In science, a fact is a datum with a high degree of probability.


if there are no facts in science, how then can you say water can be compressed. are you going to switch now and say "that is not a fact of infallible certainty"?


Originally posted by Astyanax
Science is not religion. It has no articles of faith. The overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution as true. A few may disagree, but they haven't been able to produce convincing evidence for an alternative mechanism to explain the variety of life we see around us. Neither have they been able to falsify evolutionary theory.


you did say science does not "do" faith, yes the quotes should be over faith but you used them over "do". if science has no faith it must not even believe itself. science is a religion where chaos is God, for if there is no God, it must have happend on its own, without reason. and as it continues to explore nature, it is certain that the day will come when it proves God does exists. no evidence just means you haven't noticed it. life adapts to survive. if life ever evolved (what would be the reason for evolution?), based on how rare a mutation occurs (which is an accident anyway), natural selection would erase it from existence. there is more than enough information to disprove evolution, way more against it than for it.


Originally posted by AstyanaxCan you prove that you are alive? Can you prove that the rest of the universe exists? Can you prove that life is not simply a dream that you are dreaming? Can you prove Your Redeemer Liveth?.


anything that reproduces within itself or with a like partner is alive. if there is one of anything there is another. life is somewhat of a dream. Jesus already did that.


Originally posted by Astyanax
Yes, I said 'theory'. In science, a theory is effectively the same as a fact.


there you go again confusing your own logic.
becase something is said to be perfect and treated as so even if it is not is laughible. and therein lies the denile you yourself uphold.

this is why playing chicken is fun. sooner or later someone will run through you and if you learn something, or evolve, you get up and are stronger, smarter, next time. i welcome anyone to correct my critical mistakes.

great, now you introduce science philosophy. but science is knowing and philospophy is understanding, both are explanations for the way an event unfolds. yet which is greater? if you know how an event unfolds it is useless, in order for it to be of use one must understand or it cannot be applied outside of what one knows. you don't need to understand to know, but you do need to know to undertand. and the more you understand the more you will learn, and the more you will know.

as quoted from the link you provided, “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds,” according to physicist Richard Feynman

and it is an understanding that you lack, you can know all you want, but if you can't think for yourself or understand someone elses thoughts without being biased, you will be trapped in you own box.


[edit on 14-12-2009 by notsympl]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by notsympl
 

I see we have reached that point in the argument where the creationist goes


All your questions and objections have been dealt with in earlier posts. Re-read them. Get Mummy to spell the hard words out for you.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


creative way to surrender, apology accepted.

Evolution Cruncher

some food for thought, i doubt you'll have the courage to take a look.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by notsympl]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by notsympl
 

I did not apologize to you.

As for your web site, I looked at it. The same farrago of distortion, delusion and dementia to be found on all web sites of that sort.

At least come up with something original. All those straw men were flattened and burnt long, long ago.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join