By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - I have never seen an article so offensive to Christianity as this

appolose on 26 March 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
appolose said:
The_vagabond7 said:
appolose said:
As much as I hesitate to say this, it's too often ignored: evolution (at least, most of the idea) is wholly unscientific. Observability, testability, repeatability, and falsifiability are the hallmarks of the scientific method, and not much of these can be applied to a large amount of evolutionary work (as much of it deals with the past). So much of it can't be called a theory, and certainly not science.

That doesn't necessarily destroy any certainty in evolution, but as many of you are moved to demonstrate the definition of theory, this might be a good thing to know.

One might call it a "historical" theory (in the branch of historical science), but that would be quite different than the word "theory" in the phrase "theory of gravity".

 

Sorry Appolose but this post is only ignorance. Go read "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne and then come back and say that it hasn't been observed, tested, isn't repeatable and is unfalsifiable. I could make a long post as to all the things that have been done within the theory but you really just need to read up on it instead of get a couple of tidbits. But what you said isn't even close to true.

 

 Of course it's true; we're talking definition here.  Nothing said of history can be called science (and, thus, theory), as it instantly falls outside of the hallmarks of science.  I'm not saying that history shouldn't be trusted therefore, I'm saying it's just not science.

And I did say most of evolution isn't science; I'm aware that aspects of evolution could well be qualified as science (observing evolution in a present-day species), but I'm referring to the historical positions of evolutionary theory (I use the word loosely here).

 

Sorry, but that's just a splitting of hairs. I guess a large portion of cosmology isn't science either. I mean the big bang happened 14 billion years ago, I guess it's untestable whether or not it really happened. I guess we can assume that the universe exploded into existence 14 billion years ago based on the piles of evidence, and test predictions that should be true based on that model, but that's not really science now is it?

 

 I quite agree; the big bang "theory" and whatever else it entails does not qualify as science, either.  Note that that is not a criticism of the big bang.  All I'm doing is showing the large difference between science and evolution.  I'm not saying that historical statements are inherently untrustworthy.



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
Around the Network
appolose on 26 March 2009
rocketpig said:
Using that thinking, a huge chunk of astonomy, geology, and a handful of other sciences aren't really "science", either.

 

 Yes, thats right.  That's not really a problem for those fields, though. 

I notice the objection here is that most people seem to think that science is exclusively synonymous with truth



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
vlad321 on 26 March 2009

Ok for all those against evolution and who ask how you can replicate and observe it here's a thought to ponder:

Drug resistant bacteria. Please explain to me how bacteria went from being utterly decimated and annihilated by antibiotics, to taking it in stride without even flinching? Obviously evolution had nothing to do with it and god himself came down and gave his divine protection to the bacteria, right?



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Tispower1 on 26 March 2009

Religion should stay in RE, Science should stay in "science", by that I mean the word science is a bit meaningless, are we talking about Physics, Chemistry etc? However, if a school is stupid enough (like my old one) to teach "Religion vs Science" in RE lessons, then they should be stupid enough the other way and teach American creationism in science.

my 2 cents



The_vagabond7 on 26 March 2009
appolose said:
rocketpig said:
Using that thinking, a huge chunk of astonomy, geology, and a handful of other sciences aren't really "science", either.

 

 Yes, thats right.  That's not really a problem for those fields, though. 

I notice the objection here is that most people seem to think that science is exclusively synonymous with truth

 

The only reason it's "not a problem" for those fields is because religious groups aren't angry that they are raining on their parade.

 

Saying geology isn't science is crazy.

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

 



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Around the Network
rocketpig on 26 March 2009
appolose said:
rocketpig said:
Using that thinking, a huge chunk of astonomy, geology, and a handful of other sciences aren't really "science", either.

 

 Yes, thats right.  That's not really a problem for those fields, though. 

I notice the objection here is that most people seem to think that science is exclusively synonymous with truth

Well, science is definitely not synonymous with truth. It's the quest for truth, not the truth itself.

 




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Senlis on 26 March 2009
SciFiBoy said:
Senlis said:
My question is why atheists are so defensive when creationists want evolution to be taught as a theory. It is not like they want Christianity to be taught in the schools. It seems that atheists believe that if they cast the slightest doubt on the theory of evolution, then the students won't believe it.

so, no matter how much evidence of Evolution is posted, youre gonna ignore it

I am going to let other people argue now.  I think I've said all I have to say.

I quoted this post just to say....what?  That doesn't make any sense in reference to my previous post.

 




 

vlad321 on 26 March 2009
vlad321 said:
Ok for all those against evolution and who ask how you can replicate and observe it here's a thought to ponder:

Drug resistant bacteria. Please explain to me how bacteria went from being utterly decimated and annihilated by antibiotics, to taking it in stride without even flinching? Obviously evolution had nothing to do with it and god himself came down and gave his divine protection to the bacteria, right?

 

I'm kind of waiting for an answer ont this.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

SciFiBoy on 26 March 2009

Super Intendent Chalmbers: God has no place within these halls, just like facts have no place in organised religion



Tispower1 on 26 March 2009
vlad321 said:
vlad321 said:
Ok for all those against evolution and who ask how you can replicate and observe it here's a thought to ponder:

Drug resistant bacteria. Please explain to me how bacteria went from being utterly decimated and annihilated by antibiotics, to taking it in stride without even flinching? Obviously evolution had nothing to do with it and god himself came down and gave his divine protection to the bacteria, right?

 

I'm kind of waiting for an answer ont this.

Depends what the distinction you think is between natural selection and evolution. I'd say this is more natural selection, whereas evolution delves more into questions like "where did eyes come from etc", ie mutations, not variances in the gene pool.

I think