Printable View
I had a conversation with about 3 other really religious people about 5 months ago, and I thought it was really funny how one person believed the earth was created 6000 years ago, the next one believed it was created 4.54 billion years ago with God being the one to make evolution, and the last one saying God himself caused the big bang. I think it's funny how people change their religious "knowledge" of the earth based on what science discovers.
Let's be charitable and do each other a favor here by being very clear what exactly each of us mean when we refer to the theory of evolution.
As I understand it, the theory claims that there is a process of mutation via reproduction whose products get filtered by natural selection. In plain words, whatever gets to live gets there by 1) chance, 2) suitability with the living environment.
It's not clear to me whether the scientific community intends for these 2 conditions to be necessary or sufficient, but let's assume both cases.
1. If they are a necessary condition, then the counterargument concludes something like: Living things don't have to be produced by chance or selected by suitability to be present in our time, the latter of which sounds like the classic "fate fighting" scenario to me but is regardless nonsensical. If we choose not to take natural selection for granted as a necessary condition for life and survival, we'd have a hard time making our case.
2. If they are a sufficient condition, then conversely, there must exist something that does not exist despite being both randomized and selected for. Likewise, my brain fails to grasp the possibility of extinction without an external cause (from the environment), so I'm inclined to pass this off as also a silly point to disagree on.
Now what was it that was so controversial about the theory again? Proof? Now it is easy to commit question begging in trying to prove these two claims (via proof by contradiction, I imagine), yes, but that doesn't mean it cannot be supported. The burden of proof rests on those actively making claims. The scientific community wants to validate the evolutionary theory, so they're expected to at least give a prima facie account in their favor. I believe they rest the argument on archaeology. I'm quite ignorant on the matter, but I imagine it can be argued via the scientific method: test the hypothesis for its predictive power. Natural selection being a necessary condition for survival seems to be supported (not proven) by that one case about butterflies with spots and various other simple (somewhat unethical) experiments, e.g. bringing a polar bear to a desert and watch it die. Support for natural selection and random mutation being sufficient conditions for survival, however, seems beyond me.
Though it cannot be settled in the strictest sense via empiricism, like all of science, evolutionary theory seems to have quite a bit going for it in terms of supporting evidence. To discredit the theory, that body of evidence needs to either be undermined or countered.
Remember, those open to the possibility that they don't know everything, make better scientists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Locked
I can see most people in this thread think they are gods and are above question, no point in me carrying on.
That's something implicit to what I posted already. Science doesn't know everything, it changes because reality changes as well, and that's something scientists should be are aware of. At least now, when part of education related to science spends decent amount of time with epistemology topics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chameleonic
Sciences are not above question, nor us. Having a scientific community and people continuously researching means scientific theories are constantly challenged, questioned, doubted to the extent that new theories may replace old ones.
We aren't gods, you questioned/challenged our beliefs and we answered with our arguments... however, when asked about yours you decide to leave us without much of an answer.
Mind telling me how I am ignorant and stupid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Corn
I live in the United States and interact with Americans a lot more than I do foriegners. I am sure everyone is stupid in their own way, but I definitely see Americans being stupid more than others. Not sure how this statement is ignorant.
I don't really see my second statement as ignorant either. Considering Israel has a lot of Jews that have a fairly different religion than the rest of the primarily-Islamic Middle East, I would imagine that their opinions on creationism vs. evolution might differ. Israel is also a fairly educated country, so I'd imagine that a lot of people there do believe in Evolution.
whatever
Absolutely. To an extent. However there is a very fine line where the possibility of being a better scientist ends and stupidity begins. Like questioning if the gravitational force or certain things, say electrons actually exist. I would absolutely put evolution in the "there is no way this isn't true" pile. There is too much evidence that it does to logically think otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chameleonic
IF you could prove that god exists to anything remotely like the statistical certainty that it can be proven that evolution exists, it would immediately change the theory. But so far, it cannot be proven and so "god" cannot be taken as a serious scientific theory.
Uhm wtp NO?!? Howw can the world can be likes 6000 year old, when it's only 2012 now? !?!Quote:
Originally Posted by DrRusty
Old Testament, yo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite
Then again, I'm really curious about the part of the theory of evolution that people can have any possible doubts about, short of them doubting it the same way they doubt all of science. The whole thing just doesn't sound all that preposterous to me and very easily confirmable in the scientific sense.
Everyone thinks everyone else is stupid besides him/herself, including stupid people. You can't just blatantly exclude yourself and arrogantly presume I'M SMARTER THAN MY FELLOW AMERICANS while also being an American.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyForDex
Fallacy of composition/division.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corn
I am smarter than my fellow americans because I have above average IQ.
Oh come on, now I have to pull out the worldwide IQ chart which I randomly Googled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiel
We're 19th. Not bad, considering how close the scores are.
IQ is completely meaningless above 100. It's a test to see if you're retarded. Getting anything higher than full marks just means you're good at taking IQ tests.
You know I don't get why there's only 12 countries above the median score and every single other country in the world is below it. That...wouldn't mean it's the median, then.
I guess it just ticks me off that CrazyForDex is proclaiming that Americans are dumb because like honestly, we're not that stupid. We have our fair share of dumb people but it's hugely overestimated because dumb people get more media attention than smart people.
Much greater representation from the 12 countries above it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corn
You say you don't interact with foreigners much, then tell us you've seen people you see all the time do more stupid things than the people you hardly see. Your reasoning is impeccable. There must be more Americans that are stupid than anyone else because you've seen more of them. I don't know how anyone could find that ignorant at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyForDex
Bill Nye is one batpomegranate crazy motherpineappleer. I like him even more.
:f6:Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTang
Wow.
"Hey look over there! It's the rape stork." may be my new favorite quote.
Although this amuses me deeply too
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9...5q34o1_500.png
We needed that pic earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eos