Evolution?

[Silux]

[quote="Grumlen";p="504286"]Actually, I will argue with that: http://dictionary.reference.com/search? ... c%20theory.[/quote]

Uhm. Great argument. I'm not saying there's no such thing as a scientific theory. You are however saying there is no such thing as a scientific fact and that shows a lack of understanding that you're accusing me of.

[quote="Grumlen";p="504286"]
"scientific facts" (a term which I have NEVER heard any of my professors use)[/quote]

Hmm. Must not exist then.

[quote="Grumlen";p="504286"]

Well put, but completely irrelevant. Mathmatics is a different animal. Take it away Mr. Gould...

Yes, math is a "different animal," but that was FAR from irrelavant. I was using it to illustrate that difference between a fact and a theory. Apparently you missed that completely. The same rules of logic and deduction that apply to math apply to science as well..[/quote]

You still fail to understand the point then.

[quote="Grumlen";p="504286"]
No offense Silux, but all you're doing at this point is trying to incite a flame war. Both sides of the arguement are now focused on you, and you're starting to derail the entire topic. Either stop posting in here, or think your posts through more thoroughly before you post again.[/quote]

I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm just defending what I say and trying to show how others on both sides are not always right. Shocker huh?

[quote="Grumlen";p="504286"]
Terrik, thats an excellent article that you linked.[/quote]

Actually, I linked it. He just copied it. So thanks for the compliment.

[Deacon]

[quote="Silux";p="504040"]I've gone through this all before. By all means, continue with your exchanges. I'll...just be over...here... [/quote]
8 hours later...

[quote="Silux";p="504186"]Ding ding ding...I guess I'm back for Round 3...[/quote]
Adding, "This one dude is thoroughly convinced that evolution happened exactly as he imagines it today, so it must be true."

People are unshakably convinced that the moon landing was staged, too, citing a preponderance of cleverly interpreted evidence and ignoring or explaining away anything that seems to shoot holes in their theory. It doesn't mean they're right. "So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for a fake moon landing become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense the moon landing being faked is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words."

For instance, one of the pieces of heavily "interpreted" "evidence" for the moon landing being faked is the "C" marking on one of the bigger moon rocks in one of the photos. They are thoroughly convinced that this is a stage prop marking that some inept stage hand left with the labeled side sticking up. However, because we have the luxury of referencing the original negatives themselves, we can easily see the the vaguely "C" shaped line that appears on the rock is actually a human hair that got in the way of the mass-produced prints. We also have the luxury of talking to veteran producers and directors and props managers in order to find out that no, they've never seen props labeled in such a manner. However, we do not have that luxury with evolution. We make huge assumptions based on what we find buried in the ground without the opportunity to actually verifiy the originals to find out whether there was a proverbial hair on the lens of this magnificent picture we've drawn up in our minds. But since it's the best thing we can come up with that denies the involvement of any supernatural power, its quirks, foibles, gaps, and inconsistencies are tolerated. It is the best we can come up with under those restrictions based on what we know. The evolutionists who fanatically argue that it is factual rather than theoretical, however, seem to do so with much the same unreasonable, hard-headed, dogmatic attitudes of those who insist that the world is flat.

[kyoryu]

Deacon, that was an AWESOME episode of Bullshit!, huh?

[Ruu]

Silux, you are likely the worst debator I have ever encountered. Since your first post you have presented your own view as unrefutable fact, insinuated that anyone who tries to argue against evolution is merely uneducated or uninformed, and, most alarmingly, have offered no defense for any of your propositions other than "Go hit the books." Any attempts at rebuttals against your statements are met with short "You just don't understand" phrases, with no attempt to explain why the other person's points are erroneous. You merely assert that they are and leave it at that. Do you expect us to take you seriously? How can we? All you have stated is "I am right, and if you don't believe me you just haven't done enough research."

I challenge you to put together a written case for evolution and present it to us here. At this point I am eager to know exactly what it is that makes you so thouroughly convinced that it is irrefutable, for every piece of evidence I find when I set out to objectively study evolution has plausable refutations. Even the article you linked has a rebuttal to it linked on the very same page, along with a rebuttal of the rebuttal. This "scientific community" you have mentioned hardly seems to be a placid place where evolution is quietly accepted as fact. Debates are still going on. If all the arguments against evolution have no value, then present us with the case for evolution that proves it as fact. Lend some credibility to your position. At this point, you really don't sound as though you have any idea why you believe evolution is true.

[Deacon]

Haha, kyoryu, it was indeed!

[Silux]

[quote="Ruu";p="504386"]Silux, you are likely the worst debator I have ever encountered.[/quote]

Ruu, your debate skills are incredible. I stand before you and humbly ask to teach me to be as great a debater as you are. Let's see. You say I'm just criticizing your views, and not offering anything to the contrary? ...

[quote="Ruu";p="501190"]I dont think we're trying to prove creationism here. Just disprove evolution.[/quote]

[quote="Ruu";p="501261"]If we wanted to defend what we believe to be the correct alternative, that would be a separate discussion.[/quote]

It seems you're a "goddamn hypocrit" (your words) too. Oh then I believe Deacon's recent post was a dig at me for using a quote to help make my point. Where could I have got that from? ...

[quote="Ruu";p="504089"]In response to this, here is a quote from C.S. Lewis's The Weight of Glory[/quote]

But you're right Deacon. Arguments of authority ARE weak. I hope the irony isn't lost here. Ruu's first post on this topic...

[quote="Ruu";p="501061"]Here's an argument against evolution. Contains references to God and such, but the scientific evidence is sound, so those of you who don't believe in God can still read this and ignore those parts, as they aren't integral to the argument.

THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST EVOLUTION
by Dr. Phil Fernandes
A chapter from his doctoral dissertation
© 1997, Institute of Biblical Defense, All Rights Reserved.[/quote]

Moving on...

[quote="Ruu";p="504386"]
I challenge you to put together a written case for evolution and present it to us here.[/quote]

And what a waste of time that would be. You know darn well that it won't do any good as you've already decided to believe otherwise. I could build a time machine, take you on a little trip through time to actually show you species evolving, and you'd still throw up your hands and say that doesn't prove anything. Do your own damn research. I'll give you a start...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

[quote="Ruu";p="504386"]
At this point I am eager to know exactly what it is that makes you so thouroughly convinced that it is irrefutable.[/quote]

Irrefutable is a strong word. Let's just say I find it highly unlikely that evolution will be proven falsifiable. Sure there's a possibility. But that is not keeping me up at night. Nor any professional researchers in the fields of science, I'd imagine. But if you must know why I feel this way, then I'll simply say that there is no alternative explanation of the natural world that holds up to strict scientific scrutiny, as evolution has for the past 150 or so years. None that span the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, and paleontology, to name a few.

[quote="Ruu";p="504386"]
for every piece of evidence I find when I set out to objectively study evolution has plausable refutations.[/quote]

Let's flip this on you now. Why don't you list your errors you've come across in your "studies"? Please present an alternative scientific theory that is testable and we'll see how that compares.

[quote="Ruu";p="504386"]
This "scientific community" you have mentioned hardly seems to be a placid place where evolution is quietly accepted as fact. Debates are still going on.[/quote]

Yes. Debates between creationists pushing a religious agenda and those in the scientific community. Tim Wallace and his band of groupies hardly consitutes a world wide dissension in biological science you'd have us believe it to be.

[Deacon]

Is it time to stop feeding the troll?

It's honestly hard for me to tell, because part of me wants to tear into his post and rub his nose in it like a puppy who's left a pile of tootsie rolls on the carpet, but another part of me just wishes he'd take himself and his poop outside where we won't have to worry about it until we go to mow the yard.

[Ruu]

And what a waste of time that would be. You know darn well that it won't do any good as you've already decided to believe otherwise. I could build a time machine, take you on a little trip through time to actually show you species evolving, and you'd still throw up your hands and say that doesn't prove anything.

No, I would not. If that is really what you think, you aren't worth talking to.

[Deacon]

[quote="Deacon";p="504438"]It is time to stop feeding the troll.[/quote]
I fixed my previous typo.

[Nekra]

Go for it Deac, i could do with a good laugh

[Grumlen]

[quote="Silux";p="504301"][quote="Grumlen";p="504286"]Actually, I will argue with that: http://dictionary.reference.com/search? ... c%20theory.[/quote]

Uhm. Great argument. I'm not saying there's no such thing as a scientific theory. You are however saying there is no such thing as a scientific fact and that shows a lack of understanding that you're accusing me of.[/quote]

Rahter convenient of you to not include the paragraph that went with that . . .
[quote="Grumlen";p="504286"]A fact is an observation. You can observe that I am typing right now, and thats a fact. A theory explains those facts. The facts themselves aren't really a part of science, other than just the semantics that you're arguing that I'm using myself. Stop acting like a hypocrite and accusing me of arguing semantics when you're arguing semantics in the process. Plus, it's important to note that "scientific facts" (a term which I have NEVER heard any of my professors use) are ONLY useful to prove theories. They mean little to nothing in and of themselves.[/quote]

Also, keep in mind that internet is not the grand repository of all knowledge in the universe. I base most of my arguements not off of what I read online, but from what I learn through life and observing other people. Currently I'm a math/physics dual major so I think I ought to know a little something about the scientific methods.

If you want to argue about facts in science, then you're really just arguing semantics since to me the definition of "scientific fact" that you linked contradicts the definition of a fact. A fact is, to me at least, something which is, was, and always will be true. If a scientific fact can be refuted, then it isn't a fact. Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to stop arguing about pointless semantics and get back to the message I was originally trying to convey: NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS 100% CERTAIN! You seem to think that there are things in science that are, and THAT is why I say that you don't understand science.

I'm not using an arguement of authority, I'm simply trying to impress on you the fact that I am not some random idiot spouting off the latest drivel, which you seem to think I am.

You still fail to understand the point then.

And neither do you apparently. Guess we don't understand eachother at all. Moving on . . .

I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm just defending what I say and trying to show how others on both sides are not always right. Shocker huh?

So far you've done jack as far as the actualy debate goes. What you've done is accuse people of being wrong and point out minor and easily fixable flaws in people's arguements and claim that because of these small flaws their entire arguement is invalid. Around here, I do believe that called arguing semantics.

[Silux]

[quote="Grumlen";p="504592"]NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS 100% CERTAIN! You seem to think that there are things in science that are, and THAT is why I say that you don't understand science.[/quote]

I agree. Nothing in science is 100% certain. If I gave you the impression I thought otherwise, then I apologize. As I said before, I don't think evolution is irrefutable. It's the best theory we have to explain the natural world. I think it's 99.9999%, but it will never acheive the certainty of 2+2=4. I think you and I exist, but I cannot possibly prove that with 100% mathmatical certainty. That however does not keep me from accepting that we do exist as fact.

[quote="Grumlen";p="504592"]Guess we don't understand eachother at all. [/quote]

I understand you perfectly. I think we agree on probably 98% of the meat of this topic, we just don't like conceding our points, even if that means we have to argue semantics. So I'll say, yes evolution is not 100% certain.

[Euthanatos]

Keep in mind, debates over evolution in the scientific community are merely debates over the mechanisms and details, not over the acceptance of the idea itself. That said, if anyone comes up with a better alternative that fits all the evidence, as long it is a valid and empirically testable idea, scientists will support it just as strongly.

Silux, you can not keep saying that evolution is even 99% 'certain', 'right', or anything similar. Evolution is simply best current solution to the evidence and questions we have, and nothing more. I best you still think Einstein's theories are fact. Notice, they replaced Newtonian physics, but when quantum physics showed up, that supplanted Einsteinian behavior for quantum effects, and is causing basic problems in how we view the universe. We're still looking for something big to link them all.

Evolution is similar. It replaced the early creationist viewpoint, but we continue to change and alter it. It is no more certain than next Tuesday's weather, and the people like you who insist Creationism is dumb and that evolution is the only answer are the real threat, not the Creationists themselves.

Grow up, and stop trying to piss everyone off. Post in Rants and Raves for that grade school stuff.

[Silux]

[quote="Euthanatos";p="504680"]Keep in mind, debates over evolution in the scientific community are merely debates over the mechanisms and details, not over the acceptance of the idea itself. That said, if anyone comes up with a better alternative that fits all the evidence, as long it is a valid and empirically testable idea, scientists will support it just as strongly.[/quote]

How incredibly insightful. I've never thought of that before. I'll be sure to keep that in mind.

[quote="Euthanatos";p="504680"]
Silux, you can not keep saying that evolution is even 99% 'certain', 'right', or anything similar. Evolution is simply best current solution to the evidence and questions we have, and nothing more.[/quote]

I'll just let this one go, and say fine. Have it your way. You're right. Evolution is simply best current solution to the evidence and questions we have. Oh wait. I said that already didn't I?

[quote="Euthanatos";p="504680"]
people like you who insist Creationism is dumb and that evolution is the only answer are the real threat, not the Creationists themselves.[/quote]

Oh snap. Are you f*cking serious? Do you want me to quote your first post here? The one that actually started this entire thread?

[quote="Euthanatos";p="500487"]As the creationism movement gains headway again, I wonder, does anyone else even care that evolution is based on scientific principle, and creationism is nothing more than the death rattle of a religion whose sole purpose is to deny men knowledge and chain down science?[/quote]

Freakin hypocrit.

[quote="Euthanatos";p="504680"]
Grow up, and stop trying to piss everyone off. Post in Rants and Raves for that grade school stuff.[/quote]

I think I just demonstrated who the real person trying to piss people off is. Move along, you college-know-it-all-hippie.

[Martin Blank]

First of all, after thinking about it for a few days, I will not retract my words, but I will restate them:

I submit that much of the reason for accepting the words of a religion is that for some, it is presents a more comforting explanation to them than can a purely scientific view of evolution. Some people find the concepts embraced by religion to be more acceptable for a variety of reasons, be they guidance, intervention, afterlife, or any of a dozen other aspects covered by their beliefs. For some -- myself included -- this presents an uncomfortable concept because it cannot be reconciled directly with observations.

Silux:

You're not doing the evolution side any favors. So far, I believe I have seen the following fallacies used on your part: appeal to authority (and possibly anonymous authority), popularity, prejudicial language, straw man, begging the question, and possibly non-support and failure to elucidate, not to mention extreme use of argumentum ad hominem.

Please defend your points or disprove the points of your opponents, rather than attacking your opponents themselves.