Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,556 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6041
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
Evolution is biological history, mutation, and statistics.
You can take Christian Theology in high school(if your high school offers it.) And there are about 8 difference classes on it at my college( im sure bigger colleges have more)
Meaningless. Appeal to authority. Ones title does not validate a given position in science. There are numerous papers as well of scientists who were shown wrong throughout history, some of them with such great minds that I think it would be safe to say that the above P.H.D couldn't even qualify as an assistant.
Saying that the answers you are looking for are probably in a dissertation is an appeal to authority? I am just trying to give you suggestions as to where you can get the answers you would like, but from your obvious hostility I would guess you are not interested.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 03-13-2013 at 12:33 PM..
That is the key though. Scientific process requires those problems be properly explained (validated to their divergence, error, etc... within the bounds of the hypothesis) or the hypothesis fails and must be thrown out, or modified.
Science isn't a process of "close enough" or "seems plausible, so it must be true", it is the process of establishing such is true because it consistently shows such an assumption to always be true, or explained properly when it fails to be true.
Until then, it is simply an assumption. It may be a reasonable assumption, but it is an assumption that has no validated means of establishing itself scientifically.
I am not really interested in the religious aspect of such. They are two separate areas that do not conflict with each other in my opinion. Religion is a concept of faith, science is the process of belief through validation.
My only complaint about schools is that if they teach something, they focus on the core aspect of science itself. The rest takes care of itself with the application of that process. That means we don't teach plausibility as validity. Schools however are political these days and the result is science suffers for all sides of the debate.
Science is a process, though. Science is designed to include plausible, as long as plausible addresses the facts and information that we currently have. While we can validate many scientific theories by testing and retesting hypotheses in replicable experiments, larger theories (like evolution which occurs over millions of years) isn't replicable in the sense that you and I won't exist long enough to fully test and validate the hypotheses. So the theory can only be validated by its ability to explain the massive amount of evidence that's been left behind by the process over those millions of years. While we have massive amounts of fossils and scientific evidence that the theory consistently explains, we have gargantuan amounts of fossils that are waiting to be found, and even more fossils that have been destroyed over time, and the theory will have to continue to provide a cohesive, comprehensive explanation for the new information, or the theory will have to be modified. At this point, there is such extensive evidence for evolution, that the suggestion that it would have to be discarded is irrational. It will continue to modify itself, to better explain the new information.
And I concur with you that in public schools, teachers should focus on the core aspects of science itself. Which is why I point out that religion isn't science and has no place in the science classroom.
One of the central concepts of Physics is that time can be dilated depending on the relative velocities between observers.
In other words what transpires 1 billion years for one observer can only take 7 days for the other.
In other words stretching it to 1 billion years doesn't make it much more plausible just less verifiable since we're confined to our reference frame.
A. One of the central concepts of some branches of Physics...
B. Unfortunately for you, creationism is every bit as implausible and unverifiable as evolution. And creationism doesn't have ANY evidence to support it. Evolution does have evidence.
B. Unfortunately for you, creationism is every bit as implausible and unverifiable as evolution. And creationism doesn't have ANY evidence to support it. Evolution does have evidence.
What's the evidence for the evolution origin of life story (Abiogenesis)?
I didn't mention religion at all in what I said. It wasn't meant as a religion vs science thing. It was meant as "settled science" comment about things like gravity, atoms, and relativity where "everybody knows" that something is true and then it turns out not to be true. Every once in a while you hear about a groundbreaking discovery that goes against established conventions, where if someone asserted the conclusions without the evidence to back it up they wouldn't just be called out for not having anything to back their statements up, but actually called crackpots. People say science is ever expanding but they also have certain things they consider set in stone when those things may not be entirely set in stone.
I know what you said. It just wasn't true. I re-wrote it to accurately reflect the viewpoint of skeptics and atheists. (By the way, your inclusion of atheists is a mention of religion. THEISM is the belief in a God---ergo, religion. A-THEISM is the non-belief in a God. But either way, it involved a God.)
That's no different than when scientists eons ago added cycles to explain inconsistent results of their model the planets and sun orbiting the earth.
Everyone explains away inconsistent data. What you see isn't the "empirical method" in action but rather a person trying to save his argument.
No, science EXPLAINS the data. Science is not allowed to explain away inconsistent data. The theory has to change to make the data consistent.
Religion EXPLAINS away the inconsistent data. Religion doesn't expect to change to reflect the new information. Hence the reliance on a book THOUSANDS of years old. The beliefs don't change.
What's the evidence for the evolution origin of life story (Abiogenesis)?
Abiogenesis isn't evolution. They are two different theories. This thread is about evolution. If you want to discuss abiogenesis, start another thread, and be prepared for theories of chemistry to take a larger part of the discussion.
No, science EXPLAINS the data. Science is not allowed to explain away inconsistent data. The theory has to change to make the data consistent.
Religion EXPLAINS away the inconsistent data. Religion doesn't expect to change to reflect the new information. Hence the reliance on a book THOUSANDS of years old. The beliefs don't change.
How does Punctuated Equilibrium explain the data since it was made after the data was collected? It would be one thing for this theory to make a prediction, but when it makes a prediction and fails, and then tries to explain it away, to me it all sounds a bit like Dick Morris post election
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
