BlackBerry Forums Support Community

BlackBerry Forums Support Community (http://www.blackberryforums.com/index.php)
-   Sensitive Discussions (http://www.blackberryforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=129)
-   -   President Obama and Evolution (http://www.blackberryforums.com/showthread.php?t=172128)

test54 03-26-2009 11:59 AM

Science: knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

I think science should not be in question. But its never that cut and dry, emotions unfortunately come into the discussion.

Dawg 03-26-2009 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1333351)
I have never called you a liar. Lying is something that one does willfully. I don't think you're doing that. But I am calling you ignorant. And wow Dawg, you must be getting paranoid. My signature was not aimed at you. But now that you mention it.....

And on the Theory of Evolution? I have no desire to try to prove anything to you. You will simply not make an attempt to understand. So we will get absolutely nowhere if we try that again.

Well, I am glad you admit that you think I am ignorant. Just because I dont see things your way makes me ignornat? Thats a little far stretch isnt it.

And the reason you cant prove me wrong is because there is no proof.

bigolsparky 03-26-2009 06:53 PM

Wirelessly posted (8310)

Let's all rest assured that everyone who has posted to this thread is ignorant in some form or fashion. The real meaning of that word is "uninformed". I take pride in my ignorance because it enables me to keep learning. I might add that ignorance can also be obtained by refusing to learn.

mriff 03-26-2009 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1334028)
And the reason you cant prove me wrong is because there is no proof.

But there is proof Dawg. All the scientific studies that have been conducted on the subject have created a body of evidence. It is this body of evidence that forms the basis of the Theory of Evolution. I've already laid it out for you numerous times in this thread. Again, you just choose not to believe any of it.

I don't know why this bothers you so much. I've provided all the proof I can. I've provided links to books, websites, experiments, etc. The proof is all there for everybody to see, if that is of interest. I know it's not of much interest to you. For some reason, it threatens your belief system in such a way that all you want to do is attack the thought behind the theory. And condemn anyone who actually believes in this scientific work.

Anyway, I'll look for your further posts on the subject, if you choose to respond to anything in this thread.

And before you say the Theory of Evolution is just a theory, read this:

Scientific Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.

mriff 03-26-2009 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigolsparky (Post 1334035)
Wirelessly posted (8310)

Let's all rest assured that everyone who has posted to this thread is ignorant in some form or fashion. The real meaning of that word is "uninformed". I take pride in my ignorance because it enables me to keep learning. I might add that ignorance can also be obtained by refusing to learn.

I don't know bigolsparky. I agree with you. But obtained might not be quite the right word. People settle for ignorance. People accept ignorance. For many reasons. Laziness, stubborness, lack of grey matter? Maybe I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but to obtain ignorance denotes a willful disregard of the facts. Am I getting lost in the semantics? :oops:

But you are dead on in 'enabling learning'. And Lord knows, the resources are out there is one wants to learn something. Now more than ever. For example, I'm not worth a damn when it comes to fixing something around my house. But my son recently knocked a hole in the drywall. Sure enough, there are precise step by step instructions on how to patch it right out there in cyberspace that even I can understand. I can't tell the hole was there now.

But the key is only when someone wants to learn are they able.

bigolsparky 03-26-2009 09:36 PM

Wirelessly posted (8310)

Yes, you are lost in the semantics. If ignorance were chosen or sought because it conflicted with ones ideals it could be obtained, hence painfully aware or ...

mriff 03-27-2009 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigolsparky (Post 1334141)
Wirelessly posted (8310)

Yes, you are lost in the semantics. If ignorance were chosen or sought because it conflicted with ones ideals it could be obtained, hence painfully aware or ...

Of course. Got where you were going with your comments. And I fully agree. (y)

Dawg 03-27-2009 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1334109)
But there is proof Dawg. All the scientific studies that have been conducted on the subject have created a body of evidence. It is this body of evidence that forms the basis of the Theory of Evolution. I've already laid it out for you numerous times in this thread. Again, you just choose not to believe any of it.

I don't know why this bothers you so much. I've provided all the proof I can. I've provided links to books, websites, experiments, etc. The proof is all there for everybody to see, if that is of interest. I know it's not of much interest to you. For some reason, it threatens your belief system in such a way that all you want to do is attack the thought behind the theory. And condemn anyone who actually believes in this scientific work.

Anyway, I'll look for your further posts on the subject, if you choose to respond to anything in this thread.

And before you say the Theory of Evolution is just a theory, read this:

Scientific Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.

And with a little bit of geometry and trigonometry, I can prove that elephants can climb trees but we all know its not true. So until there is 100% truth with out a shadow of doubt to prove the other way I will rely on what God tells me is truth. If I am going to rely on faith I would surely like to rely on God then scientists. And since I will meet God soon in my life I think that is the right choice for me.

kathrynhr 03-27-2009 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1334109)
All the scientific studies that have been conducted on the subject have created a body of evidence. It is this body of evidence that forms the basis of the Theory of Evolution. I've already laid it out for you numerous times in this thread. Again, you just choose not to believe any of it.

I don't know why this bothers you so much. I've provided all the proof I can. I've provided links to books, websites, experiments, etc.

I'm not reading from Dawg's posts that he is bothered.

thexxx8901;oxxx8901;ryxxx8194; xxx8194;[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.


Source: Dictionary.com

A theory is a guess. A good guess, perhaps, but still a guess.

If you begin with the assumption that science is right until proven otherwise, you conclude the Theory of Evolution is a correct guess because all the facts gathered by scientists so far support it.

If, however, you start with the conclusion that the Bible is right until proven otherwise, you conclude the Theory of Evolution is at best an incomplete guess (and at worst completely wrong), because it has not yet accounted for everything mentioned in Genesis.

Quote:

The proof is all there for everybody to see, if that is of interest. I know it's not of much interest to you. For some reason, it threatens your belief system in such a way that all you want to do is attack the thought behind the theory. And condemn anyone who actually believes in this scientific work.
You seem to be confusing logical arguments with rational ones. A truly logical argument would take into account both the rational and the irrational because both exist. Faith is inherently irrational. If you want to argue with a Christian, a Muslim, or a member of any other faith, you cannot do it simply by laying facts before him. No matter how many pieces of evidence you produce, you will have neglected a full 50% of the topic if you don't also address faith in your arguments.

In addition, religion aside, you (a scientist) can't persuade most laymen to place their complete trust in scientific theories. No one can forget that once the world's best scientists insisted that the world was flat. No matter how you dress it up, a guess is still a guess and not a fact.

mriff 03-27-2009 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1334396)
And with a little bit of geometry and trigonometry, I can prove that elephants can climb trees but we all know its not true.

Ok. I'll wait for the calculations. Post your proof here when you're ready. I'm serious. I'd like to see your proof.

mriff 03-27-2009 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathrynhr (Post 1334434)
I'm not reading from Dawg's posts that he is bothered.

I'm not sure what posts you have been reading! :razz: He certainly seems bothered about this to me.

Quote:

thexxx8901;oxxx8901;ryxxx8194; xxx8194;[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
xxx8211;noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.


Source: Dictionary.com

A theory is a guess. A good guess, perhaps, but still a guess.
You cannot use the definition of theory from a dictionary. That is a common mistake used by people in opposition to evolution. You must use the definition of scientific theory, which I have posted above.

Quote:

If you begin with the assumption that science is right until proven otherwise, you conclude the Theory of Evolution is a correct guess because all the facts gathered by scientists so far support it.
I (or any any other scientist for that matter) do not begin with the assumption that science is right. Science always starts with questions! Hypotheses are formed. Research and inquiry is conducted. Hypotheses are either confirmed or not. Research continues. A body of evidence is either produced or not. It's classic scientific inquiry. You would be surprised how many research trials end with the hypothesis being proved wrong. And scientists will report this as a valid experiment because it still answered a question.

Quote:

If, however, you start with the conclusion that the Bible is right until proven otherwise, you conclude the Theory of Evolution is at best an incomplete guess (and at worst completely wrong), because it has not yet accounted for everything mentioned in Genesis.
I can't help you on this one. There are however, plenty of religions that have no problem with accepting a creator as well as evolution.


Quote:

You seem to be confusing logical arguments with rational ones. A truly logical argument would take into account both the rational and the irrational because both exist. Faith is inherently irrational. If you want to argue with a Christian, a Muslim, or a member of any other faith, you cannot do it simply by laying facts before him. No matter how many pieces of evidence you produce, you will have neglected a full 50% of the topic if you don't also address faith in your arguments.
But Kathryn, as I mentioned, there are a large number of scientists who fully accepted both. Take a look at Ken Miller when you get a chance. He was the main witnes for the plaintiffs in the Dover case. And I'm sorry, but I don't agree that a truly logical argument has to take into account any irrationality. Maybe it's the analytical side of me.

Quote:

In addition, religion aside, you (a scientist) can't persuade most laymen to place their complete trust in scientific theories. No one can forget that once the world's best scientists insisted that the world was flat. No matter how you dress it up, a guess is still a guess and not a fact.
Again, it's not a guess. And further, I think it comes down to what threatens most. The germ theory certainly doesn't threaten most, right? Yet it is widely accepted by almost everyone, non-scientists included. Ironically, germ theory completely depends on evoutionary theory. Yet one is accepted and one is not accepted by certain people.

kathrynhr 03-27-2009 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1334457)
You cannot use the definition of theory from a dictionary. That is a common mistake used by people in opposition to evolution. You must use the definition of scientific theory, which I have posted above.

I would counter that you need to accept that any lay person, whenever they see the word "theory," would argue that a valid synonym is "guess" because that's how the English language is used. Irrespective of industry professionals say. I mean, I don't expect lay people to understand that when I talk about telephony, odds are I'm not saying anything about phones.

If you want to persuade people, you need to meet them where they are. Religious people included.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1334457)
I (or any any other scientist for that matter) do not begin with the assumption that science is right. Science always starts with questions! Hypotheses are formed. Research and inquiry is conducted. Hypotheses are either confirmed or not. Research continues. A body of evidence is either produced or not. It's classic scientific inquiry. You would be surprised how many research trials end with the hypothesis being proved wrong. And scientists will report this as a valid experiment because it still answered a question.

You are speaking to me as if, "darn it! It's so clear and straightforward!" :-) In a way you're right. I accept that this is how scientists work because one of them (you) says so. But I do believe scientists begin with the assumption that the theories in existence so far are correct, and I believe that's half the reason this debate exists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1334457)
And I'm sorry, but I don't agree that a truly logical argument has to take into account any irrationality. Maybe it's the analytical side of me.

I disagree, unless you're arguing with a machine. Humans are irrational (some more than others). Look at our courting and mating behavior. Look at how we behave when cut off in traffic. Look what happens when you apply alcohol. (And yet we seek it out anyway!) If human irrationality isn't taken into consideration by you, the speaker, you won't make any significant headway in an argument with one. Even with the most superior arguments in existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1334457)
Again, it's not a guess. And further, I think it comes down to what threatens most. The germ theory certainly doesn't threaten most, right? Yet it is widely accepted by almost everyone, non-scientists included. Ironically, germ theory completely depends on evoutionary theory. Yet one is accepted and one is not accepted by certain people.

I think some people are wired to look at a situation and see what's wrong, missing, and otherwise exceptional. For example, my husband is one of those. It makes him an exceptional trial attorney, but sometimes he can be hard to deal with personally because he finds fault. And many people are threatened or offended when fault is pointed out in what they do or say.

This gets back to taking into account human irrationality (aka people skills). Someone who did that would adjust the presentation of his facts so that they would have the best chance of being received and digested without any counterproductive arguments made or offense taken by his target audience. And then meaningful dialogue could occur.

test54 03-27-2009 10:13 AM

Texas: From saved to doomed in just 6 hours! | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

ah Democracy, its great. Unless trying to compete globally with faster moving societies.

"Texas Board of Education creationist Barbara Cargill today proposed an amendment to the science standards saying that teachers have to tell their students there are different estimates for the age of the Universe. This is not even a veiled attempt to attack the Big Bang model of the Universe, which clearly, and through multiple lines of evidence, indicates the Universe is 13.7 +/- 0.12 billion years old.
So Ms. Cargill is right, if she means that "different estimates" range from 13.58 to 13.82 (given one standard deviation) billion years old.
But she doesnxxx8217;t mean that at all, does she? If you read her website, youxxx8217;ll see shexxx8217;s an out-and-out creationist. She has a large number of, um, factual errors on her site that are clearly right out of the Creationist Obscurational Handbook.
Anyway, her antiscience amendment passed 11 - 3."

mriff 03-27-2009 01:22 PM

Test, I've been following that closely. There's a blog being updated as things happen. What a train wreck. I've posted about Don McElroy. He's the Chairman of the state board of education. He is behind all this nonsense. As I've mentioned, he thinks the earth and everything on it is 10,000 years old.

Texas Freedom Network

test54 03-27-2009 01:50 PM

Yeah, I read all the Don McElroy stuff.

Well when you give the power to the people then sometimes they make bad choices.

kjjb0204 03-27-2009 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1332828)
God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

Well that's just stupid. That means anyone that doesn't have God in their heart is evil? All of these people are evil?

Main Page - Celebrity Atheist List

kjjb0204 03-27-2009 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1330808)
correct somewhere between there.

Again, wrong. Lucy (Australopithecus) is over 3 million years old.

mriff 03-27-2009 04:30 PM

Thanks Kathryn. Another very thoughtful reply. I enjoy reading your viewpoints in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathrynhr (Post 1334499)
I would counter that you need to accept that any lay person, whenever they see the word "theory," would argue that a valid synonym is "guess" because that's how the English language is used. Irrespective of industry professionals say. I mean, I don't expect lay people to understand that when I talk about telephony, odds are I'm not saying anything about phones.

Well, I can't accept that. Your synonym is precisely the reason. It's used so often by lay people to diminish the theory and the body of work that exists. That's why I've constantly posted the explanation here in this thread. There is a difference. It comes down to education. I will try to educate anyone, including lay people, what it takes to become a scientific theory. It's central to the debate.

Quote:

If you want to persuade people, you need to meet them where they are. Religious people included.
Yep, I understand that. And I do try. You and I have had very good exchanges in this thread.

Quote:

You are speaking to me as if, "darn it! It's so clear and straightforward!" :-) In a way you're right. I accept that this is how scientists work because one of them (you) says so. But I do believe scientists begin with the assumption that the theories in existence so far are correct, and I believe that's half the reason this debate exists.
:oops: Sorry, I don't mean to do that. And yes, absolutely, scientists start with the premise that a scientific theory is the general truth precisely because a large body of work already exists. But scientists do research on specifics. And trust me, the hypotheses formed, don't always turn out to be true! That's why you will often read in the literature that the theory is being 'tweaked'. Scientists are constantly making new discoveries about the specifics of evolution. But to date, there have been no ground breaking research that would disprove the theory. On the contrary, as E. O. Wilson has recently said, Darwin was astoundingly correct.

In addition, as I have said many times in this thread, if there were a way to test whether or not creationism is true, there would be scientists lined up around the block getting in on the action. It would be Nobel worthy work. To date, there has been no way to test this idea, much to the chagrin of the Discovery Institute.

Quote:

I disagree, unless you're arguing with a machine. Humans are irrational (some more than others). Look at our courting and mating behavior. Look at how we behave when cut off in traffic. Look what happens when you apply alcohol. (And yet we seek it out anyway!) If human irrationality isn't taken into consideration by you, the speaker, you won't make any significant headway in an argument with one. Even with the most superior arguments in existence.
I begrudge the point. In fact, there are those who would say that 'irrationality is a conserved trait'. That it is an evolutionary advantage in some cases. Wow, even thinking about that makes my head hurt. And I'm not saying that I'm not as irrational as the next person. Just ask my wife. :smile:

Quote:

I think some people are wired to look at a situation and see what's wrong, missing, and otherwise exceptional. For example, my husband is one of those. It makes him an exceptional trial attorney, but sometimes he can be hard to deal with personally because he finds fault. And many people are threatened or offended when fault is pointed out in what they do or say.
Agreed.

Quote:

This gets back to taking into account human irrationality (aka people skills). Someone who did that would adjust the presentation of his facts so that they would have the best chance of being received and digested without any counterproductive arguments made or offense taken by his target audience. And then meaningful dialogue could occur.
Again, I agree. If you get a minute, look up Ken Miller and check out some of his work. He was a witness for the plaintiff in the Dover case. He was very very effective. He took down Michael Behe in grand fashion.

djm2 03-27-2009 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1334605)
Texas: From saved to doomed in just 6 hours! | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

ah Democracy, its great. Unless trying to compete globally with faster moving societies.

"Texas Board of Education creationist Barbara Cargill today proposed an amendment to the science standards saying that teachers have to tell their students there are different estimates for the age of the Universe. This is not even a veiled attempt to attack the Big Bang model of the Universe, which clearly, and through multiple lines of evidence, indicates the Universe is 13.7 +/- 0.12 billion years old.
So Ms. Cargill is right, if she means that "different estimates" range from 13.58 to 13.82 (given one standard deviation) billion years old.
But she doesn’t mean that at all, does she? If you read her website, you’ll see she’s an out-and-out creationist. She has a large number of, um, factual errors on her site that are clearly right out of the Creationist Obscurational Handbook.
Anyway, her antiscience amendment passed 11 - 3."


Test, I assumed you did a copy/paste, but I suspect this should be 1 standard error, not a standard deviation. Error in the original, I suspect.

Dawg 03-27-2009 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjjb0204 (Post 1334938)
Well that's just stupid. That means anyone that doesn't have God in their heart is evil? All of these people are evil?

Main Page - Celebrity Atheist List

Yes I do.
Quote:

Originally Posted by kjjb0204 (Post 1334941)
Again, wrong. Lucy (Australopithecus) is over 3 million years old.

Prove it then. Show me absolute 100% proof.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.