TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Nice evolution controversy article
- Thread starter herenorthere
- Start date
-
- Tags
- free
jimscott
Tropical Fish Enthusiast
jimscott
Tropical Fish Enthusiast
Relying on the five senses when an argument is made goes a long way towards allievating these issues. Unless of course, one is colorblind. That's why science relies on observation, all the instrumentation one finds lying around a lab is there to provide the user with a observable 'readout' for example.
To take a page from the real world: a researcher hypothesizes that some types of dinosaurs share a common ancestor with birds. By providing actual fossils of animals sharing bird-like and dinosaur-like features, which can be observed (in this case by the naked eye, or perhaps through microscopes), the hypothesis is supported.
To take a page from the real world: a researcher hypothesizes that some types of dinosaurs share a common ancestor with birds. By providing actual fossils of animals sharing bird-like and dinosaur-like features, which can be observed (in this case by the naked eye, or perhaps through microscopes), the hypothesis is supported.
jimscott
Tropical Fish Enthusiast
Jimscott, I don't understand that argument at all.
I mean, if I say that the sky is blue (which is occasionally true in the UK), all I mean is that I call light of a particular wavelength 'blue'. As I've yet to hear anyone tell me that the sky is green, I believe that most people agree with me.
Do you mean that what I see as blue someone else might see as green? If so, I think were moving back into FSM/IPU territory.....
T.
I mean, if I say that the sky is blue (which is occasionally true in the UK), all I mean is that I call light of a particular wavelength 'blue'. As I've yet to hear anyone tell me that the sky is green, I believe that most people agree with me.
Do you mean that what I see as blue someone else might see as green? If so, I think were moving back into FSM/IPU territory.....
T.
So how is it that intelligent, informed people can be creationists? I used to know a geology professor and a physics professor who were. They weren't Lyell and Einstein, but they were on the faculty of good schools. Other faculty seemed happy to have them around, but maybe it was because the others enjoyed watching grad students having their entire worldview dismantled after getting too cocky about it. Don't get me wrong - I think creationism is one religion's myth and intelligent design manages to be both heretical as religion and absurd as science. Not even one minute of science class time should be spent on either. But few advocates of evolution can hold their own against top competition from the other side.
I was talking about science.[b said:
God is not a theory, not even a hypothesis.
no, THE definiton of a scientific theory.[b said:
I really couldn't care less what dictionaries say about scientific terms. They say apes are monkeys. What I had said before:[b said:
Dictionaries just define common parlance. They tell you what people MIGHT mean when they say a certain word, which means real scientific words or math words, etc. are not defined how they should be.
I don't care about what people might think a word means, I care about what it actually means.
What if I tell you the sky is purple? i'm looking at it right now
the real question is, were they informed about evolution? so far, I haven't found any creationist who really knows what evolution is. They say it's "just" a theory, they say it has something to do with the origins of the moon or something, they say all the species goes extinct when one population speciates, etc. Some were more informed than others, but basically none really understood evolution or the evidence.[b said:
jimscott
Tropical Fish Enthusiast
Ugh, this is sounding way too much like my Mercury instrument and that calibration curve I have to do and that dratted "second source" standard for my QCS & LFB to show that my standards for the calibration curve, which is relative to itself, is actually giving me correct readings! Please excuse mini-rant! I had to toss my run today because the second source wasn't matching up with the calibration curve.[b said:
*rubs eyes* Okay. How do we know what I call blue and waht you call blue is really some universally absolutely true phenomenon that is blue? Maybe what I am calling blue is what you are calling green? Maybe we're both wrong and reality is truly yellow. How can we prove it for sure? Just because there is correlation, doesn't mean that there is causality.
BTW, haven't I seen you on some other discussion forum?
'Most' would be closer to the truth. Really, a large part of the scientific community stays aways from the argument.[b said:
I've wondered that myself too. I've noticed that for the most part it is scientist who are far outside of biology. But many people are strongly religious (Christian mainly in this case), it is very unsettling to have this concept which seems so heavily in conflict with, well, the Bible (Genesis).[b said:
Hi, Jim.
You know as well as I do that the question you posed is by definition unanswerable (unless you're the FSM).
Regarding whether you've met me before, maybe, but unless it was at CPUK I can't place you. I have the same username on all my forums.
Cheers,
T.
Incidentally, I've also spent far too much of my working life calibrating measuring equipment. Just to have His Noodly Appendage interfere.
You know as well as I do that the question you posed is by definition unanswerable (unless you're the FSM).
Regarding whether you've met me before, maybe, but unless it was at CPUK I can't place you. I have the same username on all my forums.
Cheers,
T.
Incidentally, I've also spent far too much of my working life calibrating measuring equipment. Just to have His Noodly Appendage interfere.
and that's exactly why nobody knows what evolution is
Is this the article?
I posted this thread about Wikipedia a while ago and got no real response so I didn't realize there was so much overlap between the two sites. Then again, I should have figured that the 53rd most popular website on the web would have a lot of overlap. Anybody who wants to chat on my Wikipedia talk page can find it here.
~ Brett
I posted this thread about Wikipedia a while ago and got no real response so I didn't realize there was so much overlap between the two sites. Then again, I should have figured that the 53rd most popular website on the web would have a lot of overlap. Anybody who wants to chat on my Wikipedia talk page can find it here.
~ Brett
jimscott
Tropical Fish Enthusiast
Tony: What's an FSM? Are they anything like the Q continuum? Yes, I was alluding to CPUK.
Michael, et al: I have no problem with harmonizing God creating and utilizing what we call evolution or natural selection as His way of doing things. You will find that there are Christians who take Biblical creation literally (6 consecutive 24 hour periods / 4004 bc as well as many that don't think it needs to be taken literally. I fall into the latter camp. "religious people" and Christians should not be equated. They are not the same. Also, someone who calls themselves, "Christian", as opposed to "a Christian" is entirely different.
Michael, et al: I have no problem with harmonizing God creating and utilizing what we call evolution or natural selection as His way of doing things. You will find that there are Christians who take Biblical creation literally (6 consecutive 24 hour periods / 4004 bc as well as many that don't think it needs to be taken literally. I fall into the latter camp. "religious people" and Christians should not be equated. They are not the same. Also, someone who calls themselves, "Christian", as opposed to "a Christian" is entirely different.
