Hey, Bill Maher! Why won't you debate evolution?

[jillian]

So (suck my balls)what's (suck my balls)your point (suck my balls)? You (suck my balls)bitched (suck my balls)at (suck my balls) me(suck my balls) for (suck my balls)calling(suck my balls) Jillian(suck my balls) to (suck my balls)read(suck my balls)that(suck my balls) site, (suck my balls), and (suck my balls)give (suck my balls)Creationism(suck my balls)a (suck my balls)fair(suck my balls)shake. I (suck my balls)don't (suck my balls)need(suck my balls) to(suck my balls) prove(suck my balls)ANYTHING.(suck my balls) If(suck my balls) You(suck my balls) were(suck my balls) able (suck my balls)to (suck my balls)comprehend (suck my balls)as (suck my balls)well (suck my balls)as (suck my balls)you (suck my balls)bloviate, (suck my balls)you (suck my balls)might (suck my balls)understand (suck my balls)(gasp!) (suck my balls)the (suck my balls)POINT (suck my balls)of (suck my balls)this (suck my balls)thread. (suck my balls)Instead, (suck my balls)you (suck my balls)use (suck my balls)it (suck my balls)as (suck my balls)way (suck my balls)to (suck my balls)spout (suck my balls)Hate.

That childish enough, Fruitcake?

Dang, dude! How long did it take you to do that post????

 

[Annie]

Dang, dude! How long did it take you to do that post????

He's one of the fastest keyboarders I've seen!

 

[jillian]

He's one of the fastest keyboarders I've seen!

He'd have to be to get all that out!!

 

[liberalogic]

Fishing, but not getting any bites.

Genesis doesn't provide any scientific evidence as to how Adam and Eve were created. It just says that God created them. That's a story-- not science.

I've never told people to not believe in intelligent design; it just can't be passed off as science though.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Now you're being retarded... go READ the site.. and the articles..... you're making ASSumptions about the site and its content before reading it...

www.not-so-bright.net

I've read it. I think that it is written with a spin, just like everything else. Does this make me retarded? I'm a christian that believes that God gave us the ability to adapt to our environment. Is the world older than 6000 years? Probably. Why didn't Noah save the dinosaurs? Maybe they wouldn't fit on the boat. You can rehash these questions and others all you want to, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter where we came from or how we came to be. The past is history and we are in it together for the future.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Genesis doesn't provide any scientific evidence as to how Adam and Eve were created. It just says that God created them. That's a story-- not science.

I've never told people to not believe in intelligent design; it just can't be passed off as science though.

What is science then? Isn't it the study of unproven theories?

 

[Dr Grump]

What is science then? Isn't it the study of unproven theories?

sci·ence (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to explaining a limitied class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

 

[Diuretic]

What is science then? Isn't it the study of unproven theories?

From Wikipedia:

Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) refers to the system of acquiring knowledge – based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.

Most scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge which explains observable events in nature as a result of natural causes, rejecting supernatural notions.

So, it's a system of acquiring knowledge - it uses empirical methods. As it says above the word also refers to a body of knowledge and it's a way of describing the method of aquiring that knowledge. And again it's the antithesis of supernatural notions.

On theory - again from Wikipedia:

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

So, the answer to your question OTF must be - no, it isn't.

 

[Dr Grump]

So, the answer to your question OTF must be - no, it isn't.

I once read a piece on the difference between scientific theory and the term "theory" as described in the dictionary. Wish I'd kept the piece because it has been needed on several occasions....

 

[Diuretic]

I once read a piece on the difference between scientific theory and the term "theory" as described in the dictionary. Wish I'd kept the piece because it has been needed on several occasions....

It's a bedeviling concept Doc because we all have our own ideas about it. In a sense "theory" is speculation about something, in another it's an accepted explanation about something. And in another - and this one drives me up the wall on a personal level - it's a development post-hermeneutics in the sense of "critical theory" (ref Habermas and the Frankfurt School), just called "theory" in some circles.

I've found its useful to agree on the definition being used before the debate starts otherwise we end up all over the place.

 

[Annie]

Science and religion are not really my forte. From what I can gather, evolution really does come 'after' the creation or 'flash point' if one will. Personally, I buy into evolution to explain a lot, though not the 'beginning.' For some reason fruit flies keep popping into my thoughts, though that may have to do with genetics or something?

In any case, seems the 'science' gods are pulling a no win scenario, not just for creationism, but for any science theory before a certain point:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache...edu&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

The scientific method attempts to explain the natural occurrences (phenomena) of the universe by using a logical, consistent, systematic method of investigation, information (data) collection, data analysis (hypothesis), testing (experiment), and refinement to arrive at a well-tested, well-documented, explanation that is well-supported by evidence, called a theory. The process of establishing a new scientific theory is necessarily a grueling one; new theories must survive an adverse gauntlet of skeptics who are experts in their particular area of science; the original theory may then need to be revised to satisfy those objections. The typical way in which new scientific ideas are debated are through refereed scientific journals, such as Nature and Scientific American. (Depending upon the area of science, there are many other journals specific to their respective fields that act as referees.) Before a new theory can be officially proposed to the scientific community, it must be well-written, documented and submitted to an appropriate scientific journal for publication. If the editors of these prestigious publications accept a research article for publication, they are signaling that the proposed theory has enough merit to be seriously debated and scrutinized closely by experts in that particular field of science. Skeptics or proponents of alternative or opposing theories may then try to submit their research and data, while the original proponents of the proposed theory may publish new data that answers the skeptics. It may take many years of often acrimonious debate to settle an issue, resulting in the adoption, modification, or rejection of a new theory. For example, the Alvarez Meteorite Impact theory (a 6-mile wide meteorite struck the earth 65 million years ago, ending the Cretaceous Period and causing extinction of the dinosaurs), was first proposed in 1979, and took about 10 years of debate before winning over the majority of earth scientists.

A successful scientific inquiry may culminate in a well-tested, well-documented explanation (theory) that is supported overwhelmingly by valid data, and often has the power to predict the outcome of certain scenarios, which may be tested by future experiments. There are rare examples of scientific theories that have successfully survived all known attacks for a very long time, and are called scientific laws, such as Newton's Law of Gravity.

Below is a generalized sequence of steps taken to establish a scientific theory:

1. Choose and define the natural phenomenon that you want to figure out and explain.
2. Collect information (data) about this phenomena by going where the phenomena occur and making observations. Or, try to replicate this phenomena by means of a test (experiment) under controlled conditions (usually in a laboratory) that eliminates interference's from environmental conditions.
3. After collecting a lot of data, look for patterns in the data. Attempt to explain these patterns by making a provisional explanation, called a hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis by collecting more data to see if the hypothesis continues to show the assumed pattern. If the data does not support the hypothesis, it must be changed, or rejected in favor of a better one. In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data. (That is called "cherry-picking" and is commonly used by pseudo-scientists attempting to scam people unfamiliar with the scientific method. A good example of this fraud is shown by the so-called "creationists," who start out with a pre-conceived conclusion - a geologically young, 6,000 year old earth, and then cherry-pick only evidence that supports their views, while ignoring or rejecting overwhelming evidence of a much older earth.)
5. If a refined hypothesis survives all attacks on it and is the best existing explanation for a particular phenomenon, it is then elevated to the status of a theory.
6. A theory is subject to modification and even rejection if there is overwhelming evidence that disproves it and/or supports another, better theory. Therefore, a theory is not an eternal or perpetual truth.

The Scientific Method in Earth Science

The classic scientific method where a convenient laboratory experiment may be devised and observed often cannot be done in the earth sciences. This is because most of earth and geological phenomena are too big (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions) or too slow (mountain building, climate change) to be observed easily or replicated; the earth itself is the "laboratory." Also, because many of the events analyzed by geologists occurred long ago, they often "working backwards" - that is, they start with the conclusion (a rock or fossil), and try to work out the sequence of past events that occurred over geologic time.

Limitations of the Scientific Method

The scientific method is limited to those phenomena which can be observed or measured. For example, what existed prior to the Big Bang and the known universe is outside of the realm of science to investigate.

Science is good at explaining "how things work" but not necessarily for explaining "why do such things exist" or "for what purpose." (Science does not really explain why the Universe exists.)

Copyright ©2003 by William K. Tong

 

[Diuretic]

That's an interesting summary and some very good points. And this is very important:

Limitations of the Scientific Method

The scientific method is limited to those phenomena which can be observed or measured. For example, what existed prior to the Big Bang and the known universe is outside of the realm of science to investigate.

Science is good at explaining "how things work" but not necessarily for explaining "why do such things exist" or "for what purpose." (Science does not really explain why the Universe exists.)

Science has its limits and it acknowledges them. I'm not sure about this but I think that the questions about why and for what purpose are the province of metaphysics.

And then we get into quantum physics and my brain goes to mush but that seems to be where science and metaphysics go to play. That's a really fascinating area.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Exactly. I've never understood creationists and evolutionists fighting when they could both be correct.


Again: the theory of evolution does not contain anywhere within it the origin of life; merely the adaptation and progression of life after creation.

 

[Annie]

That's an interesting summary and some very good points. And this is very important:



Science has its limits and it acknowledges them. I'm not sure about this but I think that the questions about why and for what purpose are the province of metaphysics.

And then we get into quantum physics and my brain goes to mush but that seems to be where science and metaphysics go to play. That's a really fascinating area.

I'm very curious, how does science explain or test the Big Bang theory? Their chosen point of cut off?

 

[Diuretic]

I wish I knew Kathianne - I think science is working on analysing the origins of the universe, if I can use that phrase, all the time and probably moving forward slowly in understanding what happened (not why it happened as has been pointed out). I think it's really exciting trying to find out what happened. Just the idea that science can, in a sense, look back in time to try and work out what happened is incredibly interesting and exciting.

 

[Annie]

I wish I knew Kathianne - I think science is working on analysing the origins of the universe, if I can use that phrase, all the time and probably moving forward slowly in understanding what happened (not why it happened as has been pointed out). I think it's really exciting trying to find out what happened. Just the idea that science can, in a sense, look back in time to try and work out what happened is incredibly interesting and exciting.

or self-limiting? Seriously. What is this? Limits on making it 'impossible' for a senior or grad thesis to test ID or creationism by another name? Trying to somehow encompass Big Bang, the most likely explanation, yet still a beginning of it all theory?

I wish to embrace science, but it needs to be open. Seems more exclusionary than the Vatican!

 

[Diuretic]

I think this is where the confusion lies. If I can use a metaphor - you can't play football using soccer rules.

Creationism and intelligent design aren't science, they're theology.

 

[Annie]

I think this is where the confusion lies. If I can use a metaphor - you can't play football using soccer rules.

Creationism and intelligent design aren't science, they're theology.

by the parameters given?

 

[Diuretic]

I think the problem lies in method. I think so anyway.

As far as creationism goes, it's a belief system. Anyone is entitled to believe whatever they wish about how the universe was created, but it's just a belief and as such can't be tested, it's beyond our knowledge. So, anyone can believe what they wish about how the universe was created and no-one can disprove it.

 

[Dr Grump]

Now we're getting into the nitty gritty. Two things I've always wanted to know (and never will): How did the Universe begin; and WHERE (not WHEN) does it end?