Quantcast

They Might Be Scientists

manimal

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,212
17
Blindly running into cactus
BurlyShirley said:
Example?
Click to expand...
from the OP of this thread:

First song, "Science is Real." Implication being obvious, but the lyrics actually say something about how "there are people who like stories about angels and unicorns, but science is real from DNA to evolution..."
Click to expand...
Religion and evolution are both neither provable/falsifiable or repeatable yet, as you see above, evolution is touted as the only possibility that explains the origins of life and creation is mocked when in reality, both are faith-based ideas (no evidence of micro to macro evolution and dating methods are highly inconsistent - i even got my professors to agree with me on those points) my biology professor explained it very well when he said, "evolutionary science is always changing but it's the best way we have so far to explain the origin of life." i am totally cool with that because he's not preaching it as anything but what it is. the problem arises when stuff like MikeD's dvd makes such bold claims as "science is real from DNA to evolution" and then mocks the creation theory as a fairy tale consistent with belief in unicorns. my son's science textbook does not state that evolution is our current best idea on how life originated but it states that evolution is how we came to be.
do you see my point? i am not contesting science as a necessary and vital part of life, heck..my whole family is in medicine, my issue is with agenda's that set out to try and disprove any and every form of religious belief through semantics that doesn't give kids a fair chance to make up their own minds.
(there are other issues...evolution is just the easiest one to debate in comparison to religion.)

and burly, in the spirit of open-mindedness...i'll read your book if you read mine:
http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Trial-Phillip-Johnson/dp/0830813241
 
ohio

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
24
SF, CA
Manimal, you seem to struggle with the idea that one thing can be MORE right than another, even if it is imperfect. Not all uncertainties are equal.
 
Silver

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Um, no. If evolutionary theory wasn't falsifiable, Darwin would have been 100% correct.

He wasn't.

Also, gaps in understanding don't lead to the conclusion=Jesus. That's what we smart people call a non-sequitur.

Also, too...we've done this thread in the past, yes? Did Hovind make a stop in your area on the weekend?
 
Last edited:
jonKranked

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,984
24,535
media blackout
manimal said:
from the OP of this thread:



Religion and evolution are both neither provable/falsifiable or repeatable yet, as you see above, evolution is touted as the only possibility that explains the origins of life and creation is mocked when in reality, both are faith-based ideas (no evidence of micro to macro evolution and dating methods are highly inconsistent - i even got my professors to agree with me on those points) my biology professor explained it very well when he said, "evolutionary science is always changing but it's the best way we have so far to explain the origin of life." i am totally cool with that because he's not preaching it as anything but what it is. the problem arises when stuff like MikeD's dvd makes such bold claims as "science is real from DNA to evolution" and then mocks the creation theory as a fairy tale consistent with belief in unicorns. my son's science textbook does not state that evolution is our current best idea on how life originated but it states that evolution is how we came to be.
do you see my point? i am not contesting science as a necessary and vital part of life, heck..my whole family is in medicine, my issue is with agenda's that set out to try and disprove any and every form of religious belief through semantics that doesn't give kids a fair chance to make up their own minds.
(there are other issues...evolution is just the easiest one to debate in comparison to religion.)

and burly, in the spirit of open-mindedness...i'll read your book if you read mine:
http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Trial-Phillip-Johnson/dp/0830813241
Click to expand...

point is, there's more evidence supporting the theory of evolution than there is supporting the 7 days + magic beard man theory.
 
manimal

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,212
17
Blindly running into cactus
Silver said:
Um, no. If evolutionary theory wasn't falsifiable, Darwin would have been 100% correct.

He wasn't.

Also, gaps in understanding don't lead to the conclusion=Jesus. That's what we smart people call a non-sequitur.
Click to expand...
so we are at an impasse...(even though i was not condescending towards you for your belief.) you don't understand how i can believe in creation and i don't understand how you can believe in the broad assumption that is macroevolution. both sides have supportive science but neither have any concrete evidence yet creationst/intelligent design-ist are ridiculed as buffoons for believing in something just as faith-driven.
 
Silver

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
manimal said:
so we are at an impasse...(even though i was not condescending towards you for your belief.) you don't understand how i can believe in creation and i don't understand how you can believe in the broad assumption that is macroevolution. both sides have supportive science but neither have any concrete evidence yet creationst/intelligent design-ist are ridiculed as buffoons for believing in something just as faith-driven.
Click to expand...
What color is the sky in your world?

I actually did laugh out loud at the bold part, btw.
 
kidwoo

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
42,146
13,340
Squirtin ketchup n' mustard on charred flesh
manimal said:
Religion and evolution are both neither provable/falsifiable or repeatable yet, as you see above, evolution is touted as the only possibility that explains the origins of life and creation
Click to expand...
Whoa whoa....... That's BS.


Evolution is absolutely provable and has been proven for decades in a multitude of species. Where I think you're getting confused is in species that have a much longer reproductive/regeneration cycle like humans. Then again this may actually be news to you.......

Origin of life is something related but not wholly the same.
 
MMike

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,207
105
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
kidwoo said:
Whoa whoa....... That's BS.


Evolution is absolutely provable and has been proven for decades in a multitude of species. Where I think you're getting confused is in species that have a much longer reproductive/regeneration cycle like humans. Then again this may actually be news to you.......

Origin of life is something related but not wholly the same.
Click to expand...
I was going to say that. I was busy googling supporting info.....but you said it better than I would have anyway....
 
MMike

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,207
105
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
It is my belief that the police should only use water pistols, candy canes and tickles to subdue criminals.

Though I have never studied criminology at all, I believe that this is a valid method.

So there.
 
BurlyShirley

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
manimal said:
from the OP of this thread
Click to expand...
No. This marks one of several times you've either outright ignored or misunderstood very simple points I've made in this thread. What you said was:

many in the scientific community, or perhaps the politico-scientific community, parade around with extrapolated "evidence" as fact to bash the religious community and then quickly become silent when the evidence no longer supports their agenda.
Click to expand...
The band They Might be Giants are not scientists. So far as I know they haven't "extrapolated any evidence," and then they didn't become silent after what they "paraded around with" was debunked, so I fail to see how you classified this as an example of the type I asked for. Specifically I'd like to see any example of where a religious claim proved a scientific claim wrong.


Religion and evolution are both neither provable/falsifiable or repeatable yet, as you see above, evolution is touted as the only possibility that explains the origins of life and creation is mocked when in reality, both are faith-based ideas (no evidence of micro to macro evolution and dating methods are highly inconsistent - i even got my professors to agree with me on those points)
Click to expand...
You're pretty far off-base here.
First off, with regard to micro/macro evolution.. you'll have to explain WTF you're even talking about. Microevolution (change in genetics) is the exact same thing as macroevolution, only viewed on molecular scale. The two don't need to be reconciled in any way at all. One explains the other. Whoever gave you this talking point is a retard... or are you saying you don't believe in DNA/genetics?

Evolution (change over time) is fact. The species that exist today are not the same as pre-cambrian species. Fossil records clearly show a transition from simple to more complex organisms. No debate there. What you are attempting debate and referring to as "the theory of evolution" is the mechanism that causes these changes, which is properly known as The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Because this process takes so long to occur in nature, it's not readily repeatable in a laboratory setting, but we have many, many instances of the same repeated trends occurring across the taxonomic spectrum, so repetition actually has been achieved and observed. This process is so integral to our understanding of the natural world that none of the rest of biology even makes sense without its application. There are many converging lines of evidence that support this theory (fossil record, genetics, cladistics, biogeography, etc.) that a complete picture is available to us. To claim it is in any way "faith-based" makes no sense at all when such a complete picture is available.


my biology professor explained it very well when he said, "evolutionary science is always changing but it's the best way we have so far to explain the origin of life." i am totally cool with that because he's not preaching it as anything but what it is.
Click to expand...
I don't know who your professor was, but either you misunderstood the person or he doesn't know what he's talking about. First off "evolution" is not the study of the "origin of life" nor does claim to explain the phenomenon. Origin of species? Yes, but not origin of the first species.

If you want to claim that a god created the first species and thereby set all natural, biological events in motion that way, fine. It's not my area of expertise and knowledge in the field of abiogenesis is not as rock solid as evolution by natural selection by any stretch. But remember there is no evidence at all to support the existence of a deity, and even if you count the bible as evidence, it wouldn't support this viewpoint. The explanations available in the bible have been completely discredited.


the problem arises when stuff like MikeD's dvd makes such bold claims as "science is real from DNA to evolution" and then mocks the creation theory as a fairy tale consistent with belief in unicorns. my son's science textbook does not state that evolution is our current best idea on how life originated but it states that evolution is how we came to be.
Click to expand...
How exactly is creation theory any more credible than belief in unicorns? There is precisely the same amount of evidence supporting the existence of each (none). What place is there for completely unsupported speculation in a science textbook? Evolution by natural selection is sound. Science does not eventually proclaim that a theory has become accepted as a fact. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution by natural selection, therefore that is what we teach in science class. There are no competing theories.


do you see my point? i am not contesting science as a necessary and vital part of life, heck..my whole family is in medicine, my issue is with agenda's that set out to try and disprove any and every form of religious belief through semantics that doesn't give kids a fair chance to make up their own minds.
Click to expand...
No. I don't see your point because you haven't really made one. You have only made clear a willingness to believe the unsupported in the face of the heavily supported, and have presented a manufactured controversy as means of rationalizing it.


(there are other issues...evolution is just the easiest one to debate in comparison to religion.)
Click to expand...
:rofl:

and burly, in the spirit of open-mindedness...i'll read your book if you read mine:
http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Trial-Phillip-Johnson/dp/0830813241
Click to expand...
I'll read anything someone asks me to seriously consider. Let's trade books.
 
Last edited:
MikeD

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,690
1,735
chez moi
Anyone see the irony in "Manimal" arguing against evolution?

 
Last edited:
BurlyShirley

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
kidwoo said:
Hey you guys remember when burly used to be a dumb republican redneck?
Click to expand...
Well to be fair, I don't think I've gotten any smarter. At some point I just realized I was putting far more work into justifying or defending opinions than had I spent trying to form them in the first place. That's a backward way of doing things.
 
stevew

stevew

resident influencer
Sep 21, 2001
40,596
9,608
burly's desire to become a teacher will die in this thread.

twas a noble gesture.....
 
Kevin

Kevin

Turbo Monkey
Sep 6, 2004
4,540
1,007
In Holland sticking my finger in a dike...
MikeD said:
I also gotta wonder about the "theory" Kevin cites that the world would be better off without religion, because historical causation is a decidedly thorny philosophical problem, and certainly nothing that can be tested in a way as to make it a theory. Sounds more like me in high school, pissed-off and cynical and railing about the evil and stupidity of "organized religion" while cranking up my NIN Pretty Hate Machine cassette, or maybe my Ministry Psalm 69...
.
Click to expand...
Let me be more clear.
Religion has become obsolete in the past years, maybe decades.
It has served its purpose of explaining the unexplainable for the regular Joe, science does a better job at that now even though many people are too infested with religious doctrine to see it.
The only purpose it serves today is that it comforts.
In my opinion this is only because people are misseducated, and kept away from the truth by religious propaganda and doctrine.

The truth, for me, is in fact more beautifull and comforting then the fiction brought to us by religion...

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
Click to expand...
By Douglas Adams
 
MikeD

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,690
1,735
chez moi
Kevin said:
Let me be more clear.
Religion has become obsolete in the past years, maybe decades.
It has served its purpose of explaining the unexplainable for the regular Joe, science does a better job at that now even though many people are too infested with religious doctrine to see it.
The only purpose it serves today is that it comforts.
In my opinion this is only because people are misseducated, and kept away from the truth by religious propaganda and doctrine.

The truth, for me, is in fact more beautifull and comforting then the fiction brought to us by religion...



By Douglas Adams
Click to expand...
You're stuck on a facet of religion as an explainer of phenomena. That's not all it is/can be.

I'm an atheist, so you don't need to convince me there aren't fairies in the garden.



In the meantime, let us all enjoy a They Might be Giants selection:


May it haunt your brain as it does mine.
 
Last edited:
Kevin

Kevin

Turbo Monkey
Sep 6, 2004
4,540
1,007
In Holland sticking my finger in a dike...
MikeD said:
You're stuck on a facet of religion as an explainer of phenomena. That's not all it is/can be.

I'm an atheist, so you don't need to convince me there aren't fairies in the garden.



In the meantime, let us all enjoy a They Might be Giants selection:


May it haunt your brain as it does mine.
Click to expand...
No. No Im not.
Im saying religion as a moral guide is obsolete and in fact a paradox because in the end you base youre morals not on religious guidance but on common sense.

Religion has become obsolete in every aspect of its served purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom