[Spud]

It cracks me up when people get all excited that evolution is just a theory No kidding? Do these people even know what a scientific theory is?

Better not travel on an airplane as air travel is based on the theory of gravity. Better not stick a pacemaker in gramps as that device is based on electromagnetic theory (and who created the electrons anyhow?)


http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html

a couple of references on the scientific method and definitions. (as if anyone really cares)

 

[Spud]

Originally posted by Damn True
Liberal contradiction:

Liberals (at least in CA) wish to do away with many objective scoring/grading systems that have been in place for years.

For instance:
They want to get rid of grades ( A, B, C, D, F ) because when one kid in a class gets an A it makes the C and below students "feel bad".

They want to get rid of the practice of keeping score in little league and kids soccer games because it makes the losing kids "feel bad".

They want to get rid of playground games like dodgeball because bigger, stronger, and more atheletic kids usually win which makes the other kids "feel bad".

Now if I'm not mistaken the world is a competitive place. You compete for entry into Universities, you compete for jobs, you compete for promotion, you compete for mates etc. This presents something of an arguement in favor of evolution does it not? The strongest, smartest, best adapted for the environment is most succesfull.

Yet, they wish to take away that which supports their own arguement. While still clinging to the teaching of evolution.

HUH?

So science apparently has political affiliations. Is evolution just a liberal scientific theory and thermodynamics and good solid conservative scientific theory? ROTFLMAO

 

[Toshi]

Originally posted by Damn True
Now if I'm not mistaken the world is a competitive place. You compete for entry into Universities, you compete for jobs, you compete for promotion, you compete for mates etc. This presents something of an arguement in favor of evolution does it not? The strongest, smartest, best adapted for the environment is most succesfull.

Yet, they wish to take away that which supports their own arguement. While still clinging to the teaching of evolution.

HUH?

the only contradiction here is in your mind. (nb: i do not support the whole feel-good-and-forget-about-any-objective-standards movement) why there is no contradiction: believing that we evolved to be as we are through the process of evolution does not compel one to always hasten "evolutionary" processes. in other words, believing that we evolved from apes is a different mental concept than pushing social darwinism on the masses. where again is the contradiction?

 

[KFulch]

This thread has made my brain hurt. I study and research evolutionary patterns and beleive in the higher power. In general the study of evolution goes from the first record to the last.

 

[golgiaparatus]

With regard to the vast majority of those questions:

Anyone who answers with anything more than a theory or a "no one can be sure", is a very ignorant and rediculously presumptuous person.

Now, with that said, I know many evangelicals that would answer all of the above with 100% certain "facts". But the truth is... they have no fvcking clue other than what they are told.

- JB

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by manimal
i agree with you a bit...but, ever watch discovery,pbs.....they refer to history and evolution as fact not as theory so kids are being force fed this info without any offer of alternative theories. why can't creationism be taught as an option? at least brushed over as an idea, no specific religion involved, just the IDEA that perhaps we were CREATED. when you look at all the FACTS, it's actually much easier to believe that someone/thing created us than to believe that we just randomly occured.

I think evolution is the most accepted theory of where humans came from. Now it is our nature to screw up and eventually treat what we hear most often as fact. However, I do not think the theory evolution was ever intended to be more than a theory.

I think there absolutely is some truth to evolution though. I.E. a species improving itself over time by way of natural selection.

AS far as creationism being taught as an option. I think that it should be taught as a theory, no more or less factual than evolution. The problem with teaching creationism as a theory is that many people look at the act of calling it "theory" as blasphemy (sp) and would get VERY angry at any educational system for doing so. And you cant teach one religion without having members of other religions protesting. Its actually pretty ironic how it has happened. Each religion had protested so much that we have had to make it illegal to teach about creationism. The only thing left is evolutionism. I think that it is safe to say that religion, as a whole, has forcefully and completely removed God from our schools.

Just for good measure: I believe that this thread is going to be very hard to debate. The only conclusion is that NO ONE FVCKING KNNOWS and NOW ONE CAN SAY OTERWISE. Anyone who does is simply lying to himself/herself, all religions and scientific theories included.

I gave up a long time ago trying to figure out the nature of universe. I have simply chalked it up as, life is a really fabulous phenomenon and Im glad that I have this chance to participate. While I am able to participate I will try to cause as little damage and as little pain as possible. If there is a God I hope he appreciates this and rewards me as such. I also hope that the creator understands that I only refuse to select a faith or a belief based on the FACT that it is impossible for me or anyone to figure out, and that there are so many types of religions that have such great ideas that it is almost a crapshoot. Roll the dice and see if you get into "heaven". Anyway, If there is a God, I hope I do well enough in life to meet this being (if it is a being). If not, wow, life is so cool (even though I dont know what the absence of life is like) that I hope that somehow the energy that is who I am continues somehow elsewhere in the universe. If not Im sure that I will find it neither pleasurable nor painful to be dead.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by Damn True
Liberal contradiction:

Liberals (at least in CA) wish to do away with many objective scoring/grading systems that have been in place for years.

For instance:
They want to get rid of grades ( A, B, C, D, F ) because when one kid in a class gets an A it makes the C and below students "feel bad".

They want to get rid of the practice of keeping score in little league and kids soccer games because it makes the losing kids "feel bad".

They want to get rid of playground games like dodgeball because bigger, stronger, and more atheletic kids usually win which makes the other kids "feel bad".

Now if I'm not mistaken the world is a competitive place. You compete for entry into Universities, you compete for jobs, you compete for promotion, you compete for mates etc. This presents something of an arguement in favor of evolution does it not? The strongest, smartest, best adapted for the environment is most succesfull.

Yet, they wish to take away that which supports their own arguement. While still clinging to the teaching of evolution.

HUH?

LOL thats pretty sweet. That brings up a whole new point. Natural selection of most species is based on who is the better physical specimen. Our species has found a new way of competiong for mates? Natural selection based on intelect... Nature is a cool biotch.

No one can completely refuse evolution because that would say that species can not evolve. FACT: 2 short, fat, stupid people have a baby, chances are they will have short, fat, stupid kids. Two 7 Foot, perfect physical specimens who happen to both be geniouses have a kid, chances are the will have a really tall, well built, smart kid. A majority of people are attracted to smart, well built, healthy people, thus promoting the improvement of the human gene as a whole. This is evolution and it works that way with ALL species (with exception to intelect, and Im not even sure about that).

 

[SuzyCreamcheese]

Well, theories are useful as explanations of what is observed around us. A theory is a fit of the available data that makes the most sense. Theories also are required to make some predictions that can be proven or disproven. Once proven it becomes the Law of whatever, if disproven it's tossed in the trash.

As an example, at one point Newton had a theory about gravity and then other scientists provided experiments that demostrated he was right. This then became the Law of Gravitation. Einstein made some improvements to it to explain some anomalies, that were proven to be true by expeiment, etc..

Evolution is still a theory.

One of the problems with the theory of Creationism is that many of the segments do not agree with other established sciences. See Creationism isn't just about the appearance of humans, or animals, etc.. It's a whole picture of the earth, trees, and everything around us appearing outta nothing.

As an example, one of the tenets of Creationism is that the earth was created ~3500 years ago. The problem is that there isn't enough time for everything that we know to be true to have happened. Sheeeeit, according to some newer experimental data, the observed macrostructure of the Universe couldn't have occured in the time allowed by the Big Bang Theory.

But do you know what the biggest problem with Creationism is? It's all god based and therefore verboten in a publicly funded school curriculum.

The Cheese

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by SuzyCreamcheese
But do you know what the biggest problem with Creationism is? It's all god based and therefore verboten in a publicly funded school curriculum.

The Cheese

Thats sort of what I was saying above.

- JB

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
FACT: 2 short, fat, stupid people have a baby, chances are they will have short, fat, stupid kids.

you're talking about Partsbara and Valve Bouncer?


When religious people STOP saying that evolutionists believe we come from apes, I'll start considering what they have to say.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Toshi
the only contradiction here is in your mind. (nb: i do not support the whole feel-good-and-forget-about-any-objective-standards movement) why there is no contradiction: believing that we evolved to be as we are through the process of evolution does not compel one to always hasten "evolutionary" processes. in other words, believing that we evolved from apes is a different mental concept than pushing social darwinism on the masses. where again is the contradiction?

The contradiction lies in the fact that we are told we must teach "survival of the fittest" yet we shouldn't allow it to exist in practical application.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by LordOpie
you're talking about Partsbara and Valve Bouncer?

With bitch tits like yours I wouldn't be slingin' mud in my direction mate........oh sorry I forgot, it's hormonal right?

 

[Toshi]

Originally posted by Damn True
The contradiction lies in the fact that we are told we must teach "survival of the fittest" yet we shouldn't allow it to exist in practical application.

that's not a contradiction. survival of the fittest applies to animals in their natural state. that people, both fit and unfit, reproduce in modern society, does not contradict any of the mechanisms of evolution. one could argue that we are not making our species any stronger by subverting these processes, but eugenics is out of fashion, what can i say...

are you saying that the only consistent position for someone who thinks evolution best explains the observed data would be to allow for rampant social darwinism and disorder? i think that, if it is what you believe, is ridiculous.

 

[Spud]

Suzy -

You're still off base on Scientific Law vs. Scientific Theory.

In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

 

[SuzyCreamcheese]

Spudly,
I was trying to grossly oversimplify to keep it brief and yet still get my point across.

The Cheese

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
I love you OPIE

Awww, thats so sweet :love: :heart:

















neaky:

 

[Spud]

Originally posted by SuzyCreamcheese
Spudly,
I was trying to grossly oversimplify to keep it brief and yet still get my point across.

The Cheese

Fair enough – Theory is a pet peeve of mine as it is often misused for furthering an agenda.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Spud
Fair enough – Theory is a pet peeve of mine as it is often misused for furthering an agenda.

heh, Industrial Age, Technology Age...

i think the past 20-30 years should've been known as the "Agenda Age".

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Toshi
that's not a contradiction. survival of the fittest applies to animals in their natural state. that people, both fit and unfit, reproduce in modern society, does not contradict any of the mechanisms of evolution. one could argue that we are not making our species any stronger by subverting these processes, but eugenics is out of fashion, what can i say...

are you saying that the only consistent position for someone who thinks evolution best explains the observed data would be to allow for rampant social darwinism and disorder? i think that, if it is what you believe, is ridiculous.

No, i believe he's saying the opposite. If allowing everyone to "feel better" about themselves is what's going to make us better, than darwinism is apparently working in reverse for us. And there is the contradiction.
Our current societal state is our natural state.

 

[SuzyCreamcheese]

Originally posted by Spud
Fair enough – Theory is a pet peeve of mine as it is often misused for furthering an agenda.

I had hypothesized that this might be the case and so constructed my second post around the model of the "pet-peeve" drawing such a response from you. Does this prove the theory that people with pet-peeves can be drawn into useless conversations?

The Cheese

 

[mrbigisbudgood]

If evolution is such a mainstream belief, why do we save the lives of people who are weaker and allow them to reproduce?

THAT is a contradiction.

 

[Spud]

Originally posted by SuzyCreamcheese
I had hypothesized that this might be the case and so constructed my second post around the model of the "pet-peeve" drawing such a response from you. Does this prove the theory that people with pet-peeves can be drawn into useless conversations?

The Cheese

I hypothesize that this forum will continue to be a source of numerous observations to confirm or deny the validity of your particular model.

Anecdotes is not the plural of data after all.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by mrbigisbudgood
If evolution is such a mainstream belief, why do we save the lives of people who are weaker and allow them to reproduce?

THAT is a contradiction.

Reproduction is not the issue - survival rate and quality of life is.

It seems that we, as a species, have evolved into materialists. Merely surviving and reproducing is not enough - surviving in style is what counts now. The ability to get jiggy and make babies is nothing special - quality of life is what separates the Austrailans form the Americans -

 

[mrbigisbudgood]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Reproduction is not the issue - survival rate and quality of life is.

It seems that we, as a species, have evolved into materialists. Merely surviving and reproducing is not enough - surviving in style is what counts now. The ability to get jiggy and make babies is nothing special - quality of life is what separates the Austrailans form the Americans -

I had an Acura once. My ex-gf wrecked it.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by mrbigisbudgood
If evolution is such a mainstream belief, why do we save the lives of people who are weaker and allow them to reproduce?

THAT is a contradiction.

Oh - forgot to add that it's not the evolution of the individual that matters here - it's the evolution of the species. As a species humans are more successful in groups.

 

[SuzyCreamcheese]

Originally posted by mrbigisbudgood
I had an Acura once. My ex-gf wrecked it.

Hence the "ex" in ex-gf?

The Cheese

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by mrbigisbudgood
I had an Acura once. My ex-gf wrecked it.

Do you dispute the theory that good looking, well heeled people are more likey to attract a similar mate and create similarly attractive little rug rats?

EDIT: Human evolution now involves a great deal of dentistry, elective surgery and beauticians. In the area of natural selection, personal wealth is giving evolution a run for it's money.

 

[mrbigisbudgood]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Do you dispute the theory that good looking, well heeled people are more likey to attract a similar mate and create similarly attrative little rug rats?

I don't know, I've seen some ugly kids come from pretty people and vice-versa.

 

[manimal]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Do you dispute the theory that good looking, well heeled people are more likey to attract a similar mate and create similarly attrative little rug rats?

I don't believe it.....i have a really cute kid...but i'm far from stellar in appearance.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by manimal
I don't believe it.....i have a really cute kid...but i'm far from stellar in appearance.

All babies are cute - that way we won't run away screaming when they pop out.

Serioulsy though - your kids will reflect you and your parenting skills when they are all grown up. You taught your son to pee out in the pature, my dad taught me to pee behind a tree...

 

[manimal]

Originally posted by Serial Midget

Serioulsy though - your kids will reflect you and your parenting skills when they are all grown up.

Don't remind me

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by mrbigisbudgood
If evolution is such a mainstream belief, why do we save the lives of people who are weaker and allow them to reproduce?

THAT is a contradiction.

"THAT" really has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. What you're doing is applying a theory you don't understand very well to sociology and politics. Be careful. The Nazis did the same thing.

It's easy to poke holes in a theory when you're make up new meanings for it. e.g. I claim it's a contradiction that Christians believe both "thou shalt not kill" but there's such thing as a "just war." See... shows an incomplete understanding.

 

[Spud]

Originally posted by ohio
"THAT" really has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. What you're doing is applying a theory you don't understand very well to sociology and politics. Be careful. The Nazis did the same thing.

<snip>

Is Godwins’ Law a scientific theory or just one of those internet things we all believe? :evil:

Godwin's Law /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Spud
whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

The Godwin principle applies to the abstract use of a Nazi reference for the implication of anti-semitism or racism. (err, or at least it only makes sense that way...)

My reference wasn't abstract at all. The Nazi's (and other social darwinists), quite literally, DID the same thing: apply misunderstood principles of evolution to sociology and politics. Interestingly, their resulting conclusion echos MBBG's conclusion.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by manimal
but like i said before....prove just ONE theory withing evolution as FACT and i'll shut up about teaching it to our kids. "until we find something better

We are all created out of inamimate materials....building blocks if you will and when we die that is all that is left.

Ashes to ashes.....dust to dust....

Do I win a cookie?

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
We are all created out of inamimate materials....building blocks if you will and when we die that is all that is left.

Ashes to ashes.....dust to dust....

Do I win a cookie?

You win a cookie that has evolved to ashes and dust.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by johnbryanpeters
You win a cookie that has evolved to ashes and dust.

Everything has..............would taste the same. We are all drinking cave man piss as todays water......

I was showing life coming from "un-life" one of Manimals original questions/points he wished to argue.......

We are created from dirt(dust/ashes/what have you) and we return to dirt.

Now we need to argue if there is a soul......

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

whoever asks for a FACT, has no idea what he/she is talking about.

100% certainties in outcomes dont exist anywhere but math (and only because math its imaginary).

now if you want PROOF of evolution, then I'll have to try every possible combination and prove it right. but even then , somebody could prove those wrong, so before that, i have to prove those proofs for my initial proof false, and before that, prove that false and...

you get the point, u have to try the infinite number of possible combinations there are.

thats impossible, and nobody has ever done anything like that before, and nobody will neither. u can validate a theory for certain conditions, but u CANNOT prove it. you'll learn this in any freshman physics class.

saying a scientific theory is just a theory is like saying that some athete, is JUST an gold olympic medal winner.

what people can do is just tell you, well i'll give you a x% chance this is what will happen, or happened (if there was no witness), but its impossible to cover every posible outcome with your model. because its and APPROXIMATION to what u can measure. and from all models i know that explain the universe as is, well evolution, and science are the best so far.so we have to teach it.

i mean, airplanes are built like that, with probabilities of failure balanced against cost, houses, bridges, bikes are the same.

any engineering structure (which is based on scientific theories), can only have a likeness of x% to happen. never 100%.

i can argue the same, and say dont teach chemistry in school because its not 100% certain. so then what? we also have to teach alchemy??? neither of them is certain, but we noy chemical models are far more precise than alchemy.

what about astronomy? no more astronomy? after all, we are not 100% certain there is a sun X miles from here, we see it, feel it, measure its gravitation on us.
but still i cannot prove 100% that its there. so what? not teaching it and teaching astrology, and every other hocus pocus idea is the solution??

dont be foolish to expect 100% certainties,when they dont exist.

its not a matter of evolution itself, but fundamentalist who feel this idea attacks their literal and absolute view.
if it was about not having 100% certainties or truly scientific interest, then they'd also wine about chemistry, astronomy, geology (hey hold on!!, they are already wining on astronomical distances, flood geology!!!...)

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

some professor in stanford once told me. (smart guy, he won the physics nobel in 96 by the way)

your model can get as close as you want to the actual fact, but u'll never be 100% sure, or something like that....

and another professor told me (on structural mechanics)

close enough, is good enough. i guess it kinda applies to this topic as well.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
whoever asks for a FACT, has no idea what he/she is talking about.

100% certainties in outcomes dont exist anywhere but math (and only because math its imaginary).

now if you want PROOF of evolution, then I'll have to try every possible combination and prove it right. but even then , somebody could prove those wrong, so before that, i have to prove those proofs for my initial proof false, and before that, prove that false and...

you get the point, u have to try the infinite number of possible combinations there are.

thats impossible, and nobody has ever done anything like that before, and nobody will neither. u can validate a theory for certain conditions, but u CANNOT prove it. you'll learn this in any freshman physics class.

saying a scientific theory is just a theory is like saying that some athete, is JUST an gold olympic medal winner.

what people can do is just tell you, well i'll give you a x% chance this is what will happen, or happened (if there was no witness), but its impossible to cover every posible outcome with your model. because its and APPROXIMATION to what u can measure. and from all models i know that explain the universe as is, well evolution, and science are the best so far.so we have to teach it.

i mean, airplanes are built like that, with probabilities of failure balanced against cost, houses, bridges, bikes are the same.

any engineering structure (which is based on scientific theories), can only have a likeness of x% to happen. never 100%.

i can argue the same, and say dont teach chemistry in school because its not 100% certain. so then what? we also have to teach alchemy??? neither of them is certain, but we noy chemical models are far more precise than alchemy.

what about astronomy? no more astronomy? after all, we are not 100% certain there is a sun X miles from here, we see it, feel it, measure its gravitation on us.
but still i cannot prove 100% that its there. so what? not teaching it and teaching astrology, and every other hocus pocus idea is the solution??

dont be foolish to expect 100% certainties,when they dont exist.

its not a matter of evolution itself, but fundamentalist who feel this idea attacks their literal and absolute view.
if it was about not having 100% certainties or truly scientific interest, then they'd also wine about chemistry, astronomy, geology (hey hold on!!, they are already wining on astronomical distances, flood geology!!!...)

I find it odd and interesting that you posted this... when most of your posts or replies to others seem to be quite literal.

PS: Brevity is the key to sucessful communication. Granted, we all do like to hear ourselves talk.