Nice evolution controversy article

[nrbelex]

I also posted this in the forum this came from before I saw this one so here it is again...

Here's a good article on the debate itself occurring here.

~ Brett

 

[tonyc]

I have not had the slightest problem with the theory of evolution since I was touched by the Noodly Appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and converted to Pastafarianism.
See here: http://www.venganza.org/
RAmen.
T.

 

[nrbelex]

That is incredible.

~ Brett

 

[tonyc]

Yup.

Literally.

 

[endparenthesis]

Quote[/b] (jimscott @ Sep. 01 2005,6:52)]There is nothing out there associated with God, the Bible, etc.... that can be deemed proof, that an atheist or "devil's advocate" can't rationalize away. I know, because I was and atheist before I became a Christian. I wanted proof and didn't get any. All one could do is point to evidences, many of them. Taken together, they still won't convince a person who has made up their mind that it is all garbage. But to a person who has a want to attitude, who is expressing some amount of faith, it makes sense - a lot of sense. And that urges that kind of person to dig deeper and look for more. That further allows their faith to grow. Can a person of strong faith convince an atheist or devil's advocate of truth? For the most part - no. But I am proof that it isn't impossible.

Both sides would be guilty of faulty, top-down thinking if they had already made up their minds that something must be garbage and rejected any further information on it. I agree with you completely on always digging deeper.

 

[nrbelex]

Remember the IPU?

~ Brett

 

[tonyc]

Oh, yes, I remember that one......

How can it be I and P at the same time , for example?

LOL,
RAmen
T.

 

[SarraceniaScott]

Quote[/b] (tonyc @ Sep. 01 2005,4:15)]Oh, yes, I remember that one......

How can it be I and P at the same time , for example?

LOL,
RAmen
T.

once you can answer that, you will be a master theologian.

 

[jimscott]

Quote[/b] (nrbelex @ Sep. 01 2005,4:04)]Remember the IPU?

~ Brett

That's a new one on me, but a reference to the spaghetti showed up on a topic a few months ago.

Why pink, though? Personally, I prefer turquoise. Oh well.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]darwin/evolution is a man-made theory and nothing more.

gravity is a man-made theory. The structure, function, and dynamics of atoms are a man-made theory. continental drifting, the FACT that the sun is in the "middle" of the solar system and not the earth is a man made theory, etc. What's your point?

Quote[/b] ]I really hate how the general public does not know the difference between a theory and fact

yep. And to add to the def. you posted, Evolution is one of the most roboust theories in science.

Quote[/b] ]Unless you have conclusive proof otherwise, god is a man made theory too

god is not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis.

lol since we're giving links to invisible pink unicorns and it's holyness the flying spaghetti monster, here:

Quote[/b] ]Intelligent Falling proposes that things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence is pushing them down. This is supported by the assertion that theories explaining gravity are not internally consistent and mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics.

The arguments made for Intelligent Falling largely follow the line of arguments used to support Intelligent Design. Based on the argument used to explain why Intelligent Design should be taught in school along with the theory of evolution, requests are made throughout the internet arguing that Intelligent Falling should be taught in schools as alternate to gravity, to enable students to make 'an informed decision' on the subject

and here is the offshoot of the flying spaghetti monster, SPAM- http://www.yoism.org/index.php?id=spam
note: SPAM (Spaghetti & Pulsar Activating Meatballs)
and i'm pretty sure there are others out there.

Quote[/b] ]Try telling that one to Heisenberg

I don't know what else he said, if anything, but wasn't he the guy of the uncertainty principle? That only says you can't know where electrons are right? it doesn't say anything about predicting what atoms themselves will do.

Quote[/b] ]Just FYI, there is. There is a degree of randomness in everything, Mendelian principles, evolution, the works

I have no idea... can you elaborate?

 

[Finch]

*sits on TheAlphaWolf

 

[StifflerMichael]

I love the "Intelligent Falling" thing, funny.

 

[fatboy]

From Alphawolf:

Quote[/b] ]god is not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis.

The definition of "theory" as per Dictionary.com

the·o·ry    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Religion, ergo "God" fits very neatly into definition 1. where it says "especially" but does not specifically say "limited to" repeated testing of satement or principle, and also definition 6. conjecture or assumption based on limited information.

Whether it is a good theory or not isn't relevant.

Cheers, Troy.

 

[jimscott]

Troy, does this also apply to marriage?

 

[fatboy]

Jim: I plead the 5th

 

[StifflerMichael]

Quote[/b] ]Religion, ergo "God" fits very neatly into definition 1. where it says "especially" but does not specifically say "limited to" repeated testing of satement or principle

But religion does not fit into the other parts about "has been repeatedly tested" and "can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena". Otherwise, the word theory is being used in a colloquial sense. In that case, religion fits in nicely.

Quote[/b] ]and also definition 6. conjecture or assumption based on limited information.

See?

 

[fatboy]

Quote[/b] ]But religion does not fit into the other parts..

Doesn't say it has to?
It says "A set of statements etc, ESPECIALLY one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." which is not limiting.

I like blue, especially dark blue.
This means I like ALL blue, I like dark blue more but that doesn't mean I don't like anything that isn't dark blue.

Cheers, Troy.

 

[StifflerMichael]

...not limiting by the dictionary.com definition. But limiting when it applies to the definition of a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a model of the natural world from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation (which is a more precise way of saying 'it has been repeatedly tested and must be able to be used to make predictions about natural phenomena'). There's no 'especially' or differing shades. Like I said, there is a colloquial definition of the word theory, and then there is a scientific theory.

For example, the 'Theory of Intelligent Falling' is not a scientific theory because the Intelligent being or whatever it is is supernatural. It therefore shouldn't be taught in science class.

 

[fatboy]

Quote[/b] ]...not limiting by the dictionary.com definition.  But limiting when it applies to the definition of a scientific theory.

Limiting when applied to YOUR definition of a scientific theory!
In which case you are taking the word "theory" in a specific context which only applies to whatever you are deciding it applies to.
Dictionary.com, or virtually any other publicly available dictionary, gives the definition I have given and so this is likely to be more widely accepted.
There are MANY words that have very specific menaings if you put them into certain contexts.

Michael I am enjoying this immensely but I have polished off a bit of vodka right now so I'm not 100% sure I'm making sense

I think I'll look at this again tomorrow.

Cheers, Troy.

 

[StifflerMichael]

Is this like Bill Clinton's definition of sex?

Wikepedia is even more accepted (dictionary.com and any other dictionary is written by only a few people, Wikepedia is surveyed by thousands) that's where I get my stuff. I don't know, I'm a 4th year grad student at Harvard University studying chemistry and biology. I'm Pretty sure I have a good grasp of the definition of scientific theory. But I guess I'll know for sure at my thesis defense!!