Thanks: 0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
The great thing about science is that is true no matter what you believe. All my life I have heard how aids is punishment for gays. Science did not believe that shit and did this...Reprogrammed AIDS Virus Successfully Cures Child of Leukemia - JD Journal | JD Journal
The greatest enemy of knowledge isn't ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Stephen Hawking
Originally Posted by Darren King
If all of those people are trained and educated in the subject, then yes.
If 10,000 people tell me that climate change is not real because the media outlets they listen to have talking heads who tell them so, and another source tells me that climate change is real because 100 people who are trained in climate sciences and dedicate their life studying it say it is so, I choose to believe the scientist. Medicine is considered science. not all doctors are correct all the time, but they keep data and based on that they evolve medicine based on what the most doctors agree on.
The greatest enemy of knowledge isn't ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Stephen Hawking
Hi to all, I've just seen this thread, I'm still studying other member's posts. I will join the discussions later on.
However let me as of now chip in something on the basic definition of the word ''THEORY'' as applied in the context of this discussion.
- With due respect, Akitu's 'rigid' definition of the word theory that it can't be disproved is totally wrong. According to 'Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th edition, published in 2007 by the Oxford University press', the word 'THEORY' is defined as a set of formal IDEAS that is intended to explain why something happens or exists.e.g according to the theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than light.
Now, IDEA is simply an opinion or belief about something, and this can change with TIME as & when better ideas come up, beliefs can also change.
- In the scientific world, a theory can either be proved, by providing empirical evidence [based on experiments], and if proved correct or true, the theory becomes 'LAW'. If the theory fails the empirical tests with time, it is DISCARDED into the dustbin of 'scientific history'.
- When the theory is upgraded into the LAW status it means it is an established/proven fact that something always happen in the same way in an activity or nature.
-Darren Kings definition of the word theory is the most plausible.
The point about judgement on gays is a good illustration. Those religious people are weak and vulnerable mentally and are easily controlled by people with an agenda. I happen to think evolution is an agenda. If is has merit it should be easy to prove. If it is an agenda, all that will be offered is speckulation.
Mojo-
As far as the island/isolation thing. Darwin observed 1000's of birds and speckulated that if a group of 10 or 20 birds were to be isolated from the rest and interbreed for a few hundred generations good traits would develop. Not true, bad traits occur with a shallow gene pool. Islands have nothing to do with it, he was just wrong about the outcome from a shallow gene pool.
As far as stem cells, I don't doubt those are facts. Not trying to be sarcastic, but are you concluding evolution happened from that data? Following the facts where they lead brings me to the conclusion stem cells are incredible things but I don't see enough data to conclude anything more. I think progress is when stem cell research is not influenced by people with an agenda, imagine a fresh set of eyes looking at stems cells! And by agenda I mean Religious people and Darwinists forcing their square peg in there.
NO disrespect or sarcasm intended, Based on your own words above, whom would you choose to believe in, in the following case: if 10,000 people tell you 'there's no God', because the people whom they live among say so, and another 100 group of people who are theologically trained in theology & philosophy , and dedicate their life studying the Bible?.
There's a bit of a stretch that appears to be taken here in that it seems like Darwin is taken as the final authority on evolution. Taking that presumption would be just as erroneous as taking Newton as the final expert on gravity or Copernicus as the final expert on astronomy. It took the work of Einstein, Bohr, and piles of other physicists to develop general relativity which is a much more comprehensive grounding for the interaction of objects in the universe. Copernicus sat as an object of ridicule in some circles until Galileo was able to justify his findings. Even Aristotle argued for the idea of change and development in the physical world as changes occur all around us and are easily observed at any particular time if we care to take a look to find the cause.
Even in the field of genetics, there are a multitude of lifeforms that have very similar genetic makeups that would appear to suggest a common ancestor, or other intermediary relations between them. Humans and all other organisms are just strands of DNA and RNA with very little variety between them: we're all just groups of A, T, C, and G (Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine, and Guanine) with a very small amount of differentiation. Looking at the world overall, with what we've been able to see in terms of extinction, changes within species, negative/positive traits (sickle-cell anaemia carriers are immune to malaria), and the overall discipline of science evolution gives us a very good explanation for the living and developmental state of living things. As a disciplined approach it accounts for things much better than the idea of all life springing in a static state already formed.
As for macro-evolution, should the issues with that theory really shake evolution that much more than the manner in which quantum physics tears away a good deal of what we know about the workings of the universe?
Can you elaborate more on the effects of quantum physics, it sounds interesting.
When I look at the world overall, I see just how inadequate evolution is for explaining the state of living things.
In the fossil record there is what is known as the "Cambrean explosion" where many life forms sprang into being fully formed in a relatively short time. It doesn't matter to me who is the final authority on evolution, I see it as an obstacle to progress.As a disiplined approach it accounts for things much better than the idea all life springing in a static state already formed.
I have been staying away from some of the latest Copytechnet rants and raves, but I will weigh in on this one with my opinion so here it is: Science deniers are fucking idiots.
In traditional physics, matter is static: it exists in one form. In quantum physics, or physics at the atomic level, it can exist simultaneously as both a particle and a wave. Furthermore, it can exist in multiple places at one time. The regular rules of the world around us seem to break down at the atomic level. Despite the fact that traditional, or particle physics, doesn't apply to the atomic world it still gives us a solid grounding for everything we see around us, and until you get to the beyond microscopic level it works.
This is a very simple version of what quantum physics covers if you really want more check out this link: Understanding Quantum Physics And Its Implications, quantum physics, Schrodinger’s cat, wave function, collapse of the wave function, probability, probability law, randomness, localization, free will, Copenhagen interpretation, Everett, many-worlds i
My overall argument was that just because evolution doesn't cover every base doesn't mean that it doesn't give us a solid grounding for the mechanisms that are in play around us.
Even the Cambrian explosion has potential causes that would force the pace of natural selection and evolution from changes in climate and oxygenation levels on earth, to the fact that many of the species that came out of the era existed in some simpler form even before that time. More than likely the environmental changes helped to make the preservation of fossil material much easier.
I may choose to believe your statement, but since we are talking about science, do you have data about your claim that we can review?
The greatest enemy of knowledge isn't ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Stephen Hawking
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks