This topic is locked
1. They're still indirect
2. How is that reproduceability?
Separation Of Church & State
Started by
Flint
, Sep 14 2004 03:59 PM
149 replies to this topic
#92
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 18 September 2004 - 06:48 PM
1. Concede. Find a better alternative.Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 18 2004, 06:45 PM
1. They're still indirect
2. How is that reproduceability?
2. If we know fossils are dead animals, then, considering that big assumption, and "microevolution," evolution is a valid theory.
#93
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 06:50 PM
No, since because of it's very nature, you can't test it.
#94
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 18 September 2004 - 06:59 PM
Agreed, it requires the same assumption that's the basis of nearly everything else. But if you won't grant it that, do you have a better theory? One you can prove?
It may be good to point out here that you can't "prove" a damn thing. Gravity is just a theory, and not believeing it won't let you fly.
It may be good to point out here that you can't "prove" a damn thing. Gravity is just a theory, and not believeing it won't let you fly.
#95
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 07:08 PM
The difference is you can see gravity work. You can test gravity. You lift a ball five feet off the ground and let go, and it will fall the same way every time. This is an example of observability and reproduceability.
To test evolution as a theory, you would have to start off with a barren, lifeless planet, with the same conditions of primordial Earth. Then you sit back for a couple billion years and if the exact same sequence of evolution occurs, you have a viable theory. Hell, if any sequence of evolution occurs you have a viable theory.
And no, I don't have a better theory. You're missing the point entirely. Due to the nature of the phenomena in question, you cannot gather empirical evidence. Without empirical evidence, you have no theory. Even if you could gather that data, you'd still be faced with the impossibility of testing that theory.
Thus, macroevolution remains a hypothisis and an educated guess.
Also, all the fossil records tell us is that different life forms existed on earth at different points in history. Connecting the dots is pure speculation.
To test evolution as a theory, you would have to start off with a barren, lifeless planet, with the same conditions of primordial Earth. Then you sit back for a couple billion years and if the exact same sequence of evolution occurs, you have a viable theory. Hell, if any sequence of evolution occurs you have a viable theory.
And no, I don't have a better theory. You're missing the point entirely. Due to the nature of the phenomena in question, you cannot gather empirical evidence. Without empirical evidence, you have no theory. Even if you could gather that data, you'd still be faced with the impossibility of testing that theory.
Thus, macroevolution remains a hypothisis and an educated guess.
Also, all the fossil records tell us is that different life forms existed on earth at different points in history. Connecting the dots is pure speculation.
#96
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 18 September 2004 - 07:22 PM
Nope, "it done fell" doesn't count as evidence. Prove gravity, and here's the catch- do it while totally ignoring the effect of it. Just start from scratch. THAT'LL prove it.
That's not going to work, is it? Gravity's just a potulate. Until we have a better alternative, evolution will be as well.
That's not going to work, is it? Gravity's just a potulate. Until we have a better alternative, evolution will be as well.
#97
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 07:25 PM
You're obviously not a science major.
Here's how theories come to be:
1. You see things happen.
2. You think of a possible explanation.
3. You find ways of testing the accuracy of the explanation by using it to predict other related events.
4. You conduct the test.
5. If the observations in the experiment match the prediction, you have a theory. If they don't, return to step 2 and start over.
Now, tell me. How do you test the hypothesis of evolution?
Here's how theories come to be:
1. You see things happen.
2. You think of a possible explanation.
3. You find ways of testing the accuracy of the explanation by using it to predict other related events.
4. You conduct the test.
5. If the observations in the experiment match the prediction, you have a theory. If they don't, return to step 2 and start over.
Now, tell me. How do you test the hypothesis of evolution?
#98
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 18 September 2004 - 07:45 PM
1. I see animals existing.
2. I think mutated genes might have something to do with it.
3. I see if mutated genes exist, I see how frequently they occur, I see if the world has existed long enough for this NOT to change one species into an entirely different one, and I see if the fossil record supports me.
4. Done.
5. It was a theory when I thought it up. It was those other things which made it valid.
But, much more importantly:
No other theory is more likely to be true than evolution
There's not proof AGAINST evolution.
2. I think mutated genes might have something to do with it.
3. I see if mutated genes exist, I see how frequently they occur, I see if the world has existed long enough for this NOT to change one species into an entirely different one, and I see if the fossil record supports me.
4. Done.
5. It was a theory when I thought it up. It was those other things which made it valid.
But, much more importantly:
No other theory is more likely to be true than evolution
There's not proof AGAINST evolution.
#99
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 07:48 PM
Those last two sentences are entirely irrelevant, regardless of their questionable accuracy.
Scientific method is designed to convert hypotheses into theories. You can't start with a theory. Now, when have you DIRECTLY WATCHED this process happen? Not to mention your "proof" was ambiguous and convoluted. Also, you tested it against the same observations that you started with.
You're still using inductive reasoning.
To go back to gravity, here's what you just did:
1. I see the ball fall
2. I think maybe there's gravity
3. I think about that time the ball fell.
4. Still thinking...
5. I just proved gravity.
Scientific method is designed to convert hypotheses into theories. You can't start with a theory. Now, when have you DIRECTLY WATCHED this process happen? Not to mention your "proof" was ambiguous and convoluted. Also, you tested it against the same observations that you started with.
You're still using inductive reasoning.
To go back to gravity, here's what you just did:
1. I see the ball fall
2. I think maybe there's gravity
3. I think about that time the ball fell.
4. Still thinking...
5. I just proved gravity.
#100
arunma
-
- Members
-
- 3,615 posts
Physics and math maniac
- Location:University of Minnesota
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 07:57 PM
Well Steve, I leave this debate in your capable hands.
Oh don't worry, I'm not going anywhere. I'll just root for you on the sidelines, and maybe come in if I can think of anything to say. Otherwise I'll just steal Alak's stash when he's not looking.
Oh don't worry, I'm not going anywhere. I'll just root for you on the sidelines, and maybe come in if I can think of anything to say. Otherwise I'll just steal Alak's stash when he's not looking.
#101
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 08:02 PM
Hey, if you think you can get through to him better than I can on the workings of the scientific method, please do.
#102
arunma
-
- Members
-
- 3,615 posts
Physics and math maniac
- Location:University of Minnesota
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 08:03 PM
Well, if we hold up our credentials (over 20 credits in physics and biology, here), I'm sure that'll keep him at bay.
#103
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 08:06 PM
10 in chemistry and 17 completed in Physics for me, plus the nine credits (Physics) I'll have at the end of this sememester.
Oh yeah, and 3 in Old English.
Oh yeah, and 3 in Old English.
#104
GraniteJJ
-
- Members
-
- 807 posts
King of Scarcity
- Location:The Great White North
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 11:02 PM
*sigh*
Part of the old Code of Conduct was that you shall not flaunt any sort of superiority over other members. Steve, arunma, shut your faces.
Look, no one claims evolution to be truth. It is specifically called the "evolutionary theory". They teach it in schools because it is the only creation theory of world that doesn't have some religious ties. God's creation story is taught in Church. Science's creation story is taught in schools. The alien creation theory is taught on your freaky, monday night cult meetings.
There is nothing wrong with teaching the evolutionary theory in school. Even if it is wrong, it will probably still be taught in school. Why? Because it is a crucial part of science that will lead us to something more in the future. Teaching new generations evolution will give them a chance to further the study and eventually prove it, or disprove it.
They don't try to teach it as a lie. They don't try to teach it as undeniable truth. There is an area in between that they call "An idea to chew on."
In response to the conflict of interests thing, kids just need to decide what theory they believe more. The one they are taught in church, or in school. Its like what I have to do in my religion class. They hand out a sheet that talks about atheism as a valid alternative, but then at the very end they diss atheism so much as if they just realized they were making it sound good. However, I believe with conviction that religions are wrong. So, I choose not to believe the sheet.
Also, to all those who are saying that we can't go and prove evolution through demonstration...when are you going to give me a lab or analysis that shows me the proof behind creationism.
I'm sure arunma has God on his speed dial...#2...just past boobies...
Part of the old Code of Conduct was that you shall not flaunt any sort of superiority over other members. Steve, arunma, shut your faces.
Look, no one claims evolution to be truth. It is specifically called the "evolutionary theory". They teach it in schools because it is the only creation theory of world that doesn't have some religious ties. God's creation story is taught in Church. Science's creation story is taught in schools. The alien creation theory is taught on your freaky, monday night cult meetings.
There is nothing wrong with teaching the evolutionary theory in school. Even if it is wrong, it will probably still be taught in school. Why? Because it is a crucial part of science that will lead us to something more in the future. Teaching new generations evolution will give them a chance to further the study and eventually prove it, or disprove it.
They don't try to teach it as a lie. They don't try to teach it as undeniable truth. There is an area in between that they call "An idea to chew on."
In response to the conflict of interests thing, kids just need to decide what theory they believe more. The one they are taught in church, or in school. Its like what I have to do in my religion class. They hand out a sheet that talks about atheism as a valid alternative, but then at the very end they diss atheism so much as if they just realized they were making it sound good. However, I believe with conviction that religions are wrong. So, I choose not to believe the sheet.
Also, to all those who are saying that we can't go and prove evolution through demonstration...when are you going to give me a lab or analysis that shows me the proof behind creationism.
I'm sure arunma has God on his speed dial...#2...just past boobies...
#105
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 11:06 PM
Also, to all those who are saying that we can't go and prove evolution through demonstration...when are you going to give me a lab or analysis that shows me the proof behind creationism.
An excellent, though perhaps unitentional, comparison between the two. Neither of them counts as a true theory. They're both hypothises.
#106
GraniteJJ
-
- Members
-
- 807 posts
King of Scarcity
- Location:The Great White North
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 11:08 PM
My point was simply that you can't prove creationism more than evolutionism. You seem to be acting to the contrary.
#107
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 11:09 PM
No, all I was every tryign to say was that evolution is a mere hypothesis and therefore should not be taught as otherwise.
#108
GraniteJJ
-
- Members
-
- 807 posts
King of Scarcity
- Location:The Great White North
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 11:11 PM
Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 19 2004, 12:09 AM
No, all I was every tryign to say was that evolution is a mere hypothesis and therefore should not be taught as otherwise.
And it isn't.
They teach everything in science classes, especially the wrong stuff.
They teach it as it was developed, which is why they will teach you outdated things in chemistry when they are no longer used in a pratical fashion, etc, etc.
#109
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 11:14 PM
In my school, they failed to mention that it was incomplete.
They teach chemistry as it developed both for historical accuracy, but because it lets the student grow to understand atoms in the same way as the scientiest before them. Giving the origin of any theory is helpful for that purpose.
They teach chemistry as it developed both for historical accuracy, but because it lets the student grow to understand atoms in the same way as the scientiest before them. Giving the origin of any theory is helpful for that purpose.
#110
GraniteJJ
-
- Members
-
- 807 posts
King of Scarcity
- Location:The Great White North
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 11:17 PM
Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 19 2004, 12:14 AM
In my school, they failed to mention that it was incomplete.
They teach chemistry as it developed both for historical accuracy, but because it lets the student grow to understand atoms in the same way as the scientiest before them. Giving the origin of any theory is helpful for that purpose.
Exactly.
And they will teach evolutionary theory forever. Even if it is proven wrong, because it was an idea, and a moderately good one. Whether it is wrong or right wont even matter to its future in schools, because if it is right, it will be taught as truth, if it is wrong, it will be taught as something to further our understanding of how we got to this point.
P.S. Individual schools cannot be taken as the grand-scale picture of evolutionary theory teaching. Just because you and arunma went to shittacularly stupid schools, doesn't mean that's the way it is everywhere...
Then again, America stinks...
#111
arunma
-
- Members
-
- 3,615 posts
Physics and math maniac
- Location:University of Minnesota
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 11:19 PM
So I'm not the only one who thinks that! But then, it'd help my cause if you were American.Originally posted by GraniteJJ@Sep 18 2004, 11:17 PM
Then again, America stinks...
#112
GraniteJJ
-
- Members
-
- 807 posts
King of Scarcity
- Location:The Great White North
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 11:20 PM
Woah! Canada!
*runs through Contro shirtless*
*runs through Contro shirtless*
#113
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 11:22 PM
Just calling it "evolutionary theory" makes it out to be fact.
#114
GraniteJJ
-
- Members
-
- 807 posts
King of Scarcity
- Location:The Great White North
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 11:25 PM
Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 19 2004, 12:22 AM
Just calling it "evolutionary theory" makes it out to be fact.
No. That's a huge assumption on your part.
Claiming it as a theory doesn't name it as fact...where the hell would you get that idea?
If they wanted it to be considered fact, they'd probably call it the law of evolution.
#115
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 11:27 PM
In the scientific sense, a theory refers to something that has been experimentally proven, as per the scientific method.
Laws are like theories, but more universal.
Laws are like theories, but more universal.
#116
GraniteJJ
-
- Members
-
- 807 posts
King of Scarcity
- Location:The Great White North
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 11:29 PM
Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 19 2004, 12:27 AM
In the scientific sense, a theory refers to something that has been experimentally proven, as per the scientific method.
Laws are like theories, but more universal.
I can't believe this. Seemingly, your only arguement about evolution in schools involves the semantics around how it is presented.
Ridiculous...<_<
#117
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 11:30 PM
That's because it IS the issue. I'm against teaching anything whose truth is questionable and letting the kids think it's a law of nature.
#118
GraniteJJ
-
- Members
-
- 807 posts
King of Scarcity
- Location:The Great White North
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 11:36 PM
Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 19 2004, 12:30 AM
That's because it IS the issue. I'm against teaching anything whose truth is questionable and letting the kids think it's a law of nature.
No one is letting the kids think its a law of nature...I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
*sigh*
You know what, when everyone is being forced to believe evolution..., when no alternative is presented in any form, then I think someone might care about your plea.
#119
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 11:40 PM
As long as it's presented as a theory-in-progress, there's nothing wrong. Obviously, my school and arunma's just did a bad job of that, and yours managed to remember to point it out.
#120
GraniteJJ
-
- Members
-
- 807 posts
King of Scarcity
- Location:The Great White North
- Gender:Male
Posted 18 September 2004 - 11:42 PM
Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 19 2004, 12:40 AM
As long as it's presented as a theory-in-progress, there's nothing wrong. Obviously, my school and arunma's just did a bad job of that, and yours managed to remember to point it out.
Actually, my school barely teaches it. Its mostly in passing.
Bio Teacher: *walks in* Hey kids, lets talk about evolution.
Student: What about it sir?
Bio Teacher: What about what?
Student: But you said...
Bio Teacher: Moving on...
Ok...so they do talk about it. But everyone knows its not written in stone. Ex. My world history class presented us evolution and creationism on the first day.
