Well there's your problem. We are done speaking with you. There's no point anymore. If you had actually wrote that in the first place you could have saved us all a lot of wasted time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you are a Battletech/Mechwarrior geek you may enjoy my Timberwolf/MADCAT model (the source of my avatar) (warning: image-heavy link target) I will often edit my posts after I have posted them in an attempt to improve their clarity (I value a few high quality posts over several low quality ones; the more lengthy the post, the more time it requires to edit) so you might want to wait for a while if this post is recent and refresh to see if anything has changed before replying to it.
Evolution is still a theory dude. I hate to break reality to you but its the sad and pitiful truth.
There is a diffrence between Scientific Theory, and theory in the regular world. In the regular world, a theory is something that hasn't been proven, and there is no evidence for besides the idea. A scientific theory is formulated using the observed evidence, and formulates a theory around the evidence. If it doesn't fit with the evidence, it's not even a hypothesis.
I don't get why you deny only the theories that you want too. You don't deny Atomic Theory, Special Relativity, or Gravitation, because they have nothing to do with your beliefs. Evolution and the Big Bang intrude on what you believe strongly, and automatically get ignored. Evolution has been proven, at least, just as much as any other Scientific theories.
This is incorrect. Creationism is actually a hypothesis. It's simply failed every attempt to move beyond that stage.
A hypothesis requires it to be falsifiable. ID/Creationism can't be falsified, seeing as you can't demonstrate what is created by intelligence and what isn't in nature. It's simply an assertion. Sure, some claims of it can be falsified, but the overall concept can't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music."
The bottom line: Religion was created for people to believe in something, because they didn't understand how the world works. Religion is beginning to be obsolete because we know more and more about the universe every single day. Just look at the charts and you'll see.
Actually, just replacing god by "everything" would make you into a scientist.
Hell, even god's definition is "being able to do anything and everything and be everywhere and nowhere at the same time". That definition PERFECTLY fits into the universe's. Being a part of a religion is thus just being heavilly ignorant and not agreeing to new ideas and reason.
"Religion is becoming obsolete." I doubt it. Christianity is still the largest religion in the world and has been for some time. I don't see it going away anytime soon.
My philosophy professor described made the distinction between rational, irrational an arational assertions. Rational assertions are falsifiable and based on truth; irrational assertions are based on falsehoods and will be proven false; arational assertations are based on nothing and are not falsifiable. Religion, he said, is arational.
A certain other professor (well, one of biology) made the same distinction for me. I wonder if it's common in intellectual circles to consider it arational, or if they're just isolated incidents.
Theory of evolution
Theory of relativity
Theory of plate tectonics
Big Bang theory
Cell theory
String theory
Atomic theory
Chaos theory
Germ theory
Quantum Field theory
These are apparently "just" theories, so why should you believe them? They're all backed by evidence, but all of them are falsifiable. So if you think you can falsify any of these, feel free to try. You'll be a very wealthy and famous person for doing so.
Psh, germ theory? Get real, we all know demons cause illnesses.
There is a diffrence between Scientific Theory, and theory in the regular world.
Don't bother. I've lost count of the number of times I've explained the exact distinction to him. I've been explaining it to him for almost 6 months now (longer if you consider previous accounts). Every time I don't once get a rebuttal or counter-argument, he just stops saying stuff about "it's only a theory" for a while before inevitably bringing it up yet again as if his ass hasn't been handed to him a countless number of times before.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
A hypothesis requires it to be falsifiable. ID/Creationism can't be falsified, seeing as you can't demonstrate what is created by intelligence and what isn't in nature. It's simply an assertion. Sure, some claims of it can be falsified, but the overall concept can't.
Creationism, especially young Earth creationism, does make specific claims which are falsifiable.
For instance:
- Humans and dinosaurs coexisting.
- A single world wide flood.
- Rapid fossilization of all fossils on Earth.
- Inability of radiometric and carbon dating to correctly make predictions.
Quote from Felthat »
My philosophy professor described made the distinction between rational, irrational an arational assertions. Rational assertions are falsifiable and based on truth; irrational assertions are based on falsehoods and will be proven false; arational assertations are based on nothing and are not falsifiable. Religion, he said, is arational.
This seems to be a somewhat sloppy way to go about it.
An argument which attempts to be rational, but isn't, is simply an invalid argument.
A rational argument is one which is based on deduction, or reason, to arrive at its conclusion. This is actually the traditional theological method to truth, not the scientific one. Remember, science also uses induction not just deduction.
I've never heard of an arational argument because all argumentation uses some form of logic along the way (even if it is invalid logic). The distinction here seems to be whether or not there is proof, but remember, proof is entirely irrelevant for a rational argument.
This is, once again, the split between the empirical approach and the rational approach. Science uses both whereas traditional theology relies solely on reason. Many rationalistic arguments cannot be proven one way or the other empirically.
The idea of falsifiability didn't come about until a quarter of the way through the 20th century. It was a response by Karl Popper to A.J. Ayer's verificationism. Neither verificationism nor falsificationism gave a complete picture of what scientific claims attempt to do, though. For instance, V.W. Quine suggested a web of beliefs which support ideas, meaning that simple falsification was a naive approach considering other evidence can still back up claims if only some of the evidence is contrary. Later, Thomas Kuhn wrote about the accumulation of anomalies which eventually bring about a crisis and cause an eventual paradigm shift. The idea of falsification, in this day of age, is simply not accepted among philosophers of science and epistemology.
Theory of evolution
Theory of relativity
Theory of plate tectonics
Big Bang theory
Cell theory
String theory
Atomic theory
Chaos theory
Germ theory
Quantum Field theory
These are apparently "just" theories, so why should you believe them? They're all backed by evidence, but all of them are falsifiable. So if you think you can falsify any of these, feel free to try. You'll be a very wealthy and famous person for doing so.
Psh, germ theory? Get real, we all know demons cause illnesses.
You forgot the Theory of Gravity. :cool.gif:
Oh wait, all of these things are theories so obviously none of them are true! /me drifts off into space, being eaten by tiny invisible demons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Go then, there are other worlds than these. - Stephen King I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details. - Albert Einstein
The commonly known concept of god may be falsifiable. You cannot create or destroy matter and energy, only convert between them. The idea of a deity generally means they can create energy and matter out of nothing.
The idea that they take the energy and matter from somewhere else is redundant too, because if they did that they would be no different from a regular species.
Anyway,
humans are special in the animal kingdom because they can share information, even after death.
Religion is beginning to be obsolete because we know more and more about the universe every single day. Just look at the charts and you'll see.
Religion is definitely not 'beginning to be obsolete'. That's a far-fetched assumption.
I'd like to see these magical charts you're speaking of that are making religion obsolete.
And just to point it out... By definition of religion, I don't think it's even possible for it to become "obsolete".
Actually, just replacing god by "everything" would make you into a scientist.
No... No it wouldn't. Scientists are people who's careers are to make sense of the world through scientific inquiry and evaluation.
Just arbitrarily labelling yourself, or anyone else, as a 'scientist' is a bit ludicrous.
Hell, even god's definition is "being able to do anything and everything and be everywhere and nowhere at the same time". That definition PERFECTLY fits into the universe's.
That may be one definition of God... of course, not every religion has the same definition. And to note, that one, I think, would be quite lacking for most religions.
As well, if you do see it that way... that is a form of Pantheism. Only one subset of different religions.
Being a part of a religion is thus just being heavilly ignorant and not agreeing to new ideas and reason.
And that is just outright flaming of anyone religious. You have absolutely no basis for this argument and are basically just mocking people.
The least you could have done is expressed some evidence to support your claims, and held back on the insults.
But to just make wild claims with no evidence or support, and make insulting statements?
Why that is just downright rude...
By the way, what did ANY of that have to do with evolution? This topic is about 'Evolution', there is no need to bring religion into the conversation, in such a way.
Don't bother. I've lost count of the number of times I've explained the exact distinction to him. I've been explaining it to him for almost 6 months now (longer if you consider previous accounts). Every time I don't once get a rebuttal or counter-argument, he just stops saying stuff about "it's only a theory" for a while before inevitably bringing it up yet again as if his ass hasn't been handed to him a countless number of times before.
Even on previous accounts? No idea what your talking about unless you mean Slightlyinsane.
I wasn't trying to say that a deity has had any influence, but we have no means to argue against that possibility.
And if there's no definitive proof one way or another, we can't jump to conclusions.
Why should we be agnostic toward something we have absolutely no evidence or proof of? Obviously we cannot disprove the existence of god, but the possibility is so small and unapparent, that there is no point in even considering it.
I know a guy named Christian..
Well there's your problem. We are done speaking with you. There's no point anymore. If you had actually wrote that in the first place you could have saved us all a lot of wasted time.
I will often edit my posts after I have posted them in an attempt to improve their clarity (I value a few high quality posts over several low quality ones; the more lengthy the post, the more time it requires to edit) so you might want to wait for a while if this post is recent and refresh to see if anything has changed before replying to it.
There is a diffrence between Scientific Theory, and theory in the regular world. In the regular world, a theory is something that hasn't been proven, and there is no evidence for besides the idea. A scientific theory is formulated using the observed evidence, and formulates a theory around the evidence. If it doesn't fit with the evidence, it's not even a hypothesis.
I don't get why you deny only the theories that you want too. You don't deny Atomic Theory, Special Relativity, or Gravitation, because they have nothing to do with your beliefs. Evolution and the Big Bang intrude on what you believe strongly, and automatically get ignored. Evolution has been proven, at least, just as much as any other Scientific theories.
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
This is incorrect. Creationism is actually a hypothesis. It's simply failed every attempt to move beyond that stage.
A hypothesis requires it to be falsifiable. ID/Creationism can't be falsified, seeing as you can't demonstrate what is created by intelligence and what isn't in nature. It's simply an assertion. Sure, some claims of it can be falsified, but the overall concept can't.
"Religion is becoming obsolete." I doubt it. Christianity is still the largest religion in the world and has been for some time. I don't see it going away anytime soon.
A certain other professor (well, one of biology) made the same distinction for me. I wonder if it's common in intellectual circles to consider it arational, or if they're just isolated incidents.
You heard that, green and red.
Theory of relativity
Theory of plate tectonics
Big Bang theory
Cell theory
String theory
Atomic theory
Chaos theory
Germ theory
Quantum Field theory
These are apparently "just" theories, so why should you believe them? They're all backed by evidence, but all of them are falsifiable. So if you think you can falsify any of these, feel free to try. You'll be a very wealthy and famous person for doing so.
Psh, germ theory? Get real, we all know demons cause illnesses.
Don't bother. I've lost count of the number of times I've explained the exact distinction to him. I've been explaining it to him for almost 6 months now (longer if you consider previous accounts). Every time I don't once get a rebuttal or counter-argument, he just stops saying stuff about "it's only a theory" for a while before inevitably bringing it up yet again as if his ass hasn't been handed to him a countless number of times before.
Creationism, especially young Earth creationism, does make specific claims which are falsifiable.
For instance:
- Humans and dinosaurs coexisting.
- A single world wide flood.
- Rapid fossilization of all fossils on Earth.
- Inability of radiometric and carbon dating to correctly make predictions.
This seems to be a somewhat sloppy way to go about it.
An argument which attempts to be rational, but isn't, is simply an invalid argument.
A rational argument is one which is based on deduction, or reason, to arrive at its conclusion. This is actually the traditional theological method to truth, not the scientific one. Remember, science also uses induction not just deduction.
I've never heard of an arational argument because all argumentation uses some form of logic along the way (even if it is invalid logic). The distinction here seems to be whether or not there is proof, but remember, proof is entirely irrelevant for a rational argument.
This is, once again, the split between the empirical approach and the rational approach. Science uses both whereas traditional theology relies solely on reason. Many rationalistic arguments cannot be proven one way or the other empirically.
The idea of falsifiability didn't come about until a quarter of the way through the 20th century. It was a response by Karl Popper to A.J. Ayer's verificationism. Neither verificationism nor falsificationism gave a complete picture of what scientific claims attempt to do, though. For instance, V.W. Quine suggested a web of beliefs which support ideas, meaning that simple falsification was a naive approach considering other evidence can still back up claims if only some of the evidence is contrary. Later, Thomas Kuhn wrote about the accumulation of anomalies which eventually bring about a crisis and cause an eventual paradigm shift. The idea of falsification, in this day of age, is simply not accepted among philosophers of science and epistemology.
You forgot the Theory of Gravity. :cool.gif:
Oh wait, all of these things are theories so obviously none of them are true! /me drifts off into space, being eaten by tiny invisible demons.
I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details. - Albert Einstein
Anyway,
humans are special in the animal kingdom because they can share information, even after death.
Brain freeze and headaches ... -.-
A scientific theory is not just a guess.
Not necessarily.
Religion is definitely not 'beginning to be obsolete'. That's a far-fetched assumption.
I'd like to see these magical charts you're speaking of that are making religion obsolete.
And just to point it out... By definition of religion, I don't think it's even possible for it to become "obsolete".
No... No it wouldn't. Scientists are people who's careers are to make sense of the world through scientific inquiry and evaluation.
Just arbitrarily labelling yourself, or anyone else, as a 'scientist' is a bit ludicrous.
That may be one definition of God... of course, not every religion has the same definition. And to note, that one, I think, would be quite lacking for most religions.
As well, if you do see it that way... that is a form of Pantheism. Only one subset of different religions.
And that is just outright flaming of anyone religious. You have absolutely no basis for this argument and are basically just mocking people.
The least you could have done is expressed some evidence to support your claims, and held back on the insults.
But to just make wild claims with no evidence or support, and make insulting statements?
Why that is just downright rude...
By the way, what did ANY of that have to do with evolution? This topic is about 'Evolution', there is no need to bring religion into the conversation, in such a way.
It's certainly more than a guess, but what do you propose would be better?
This is not sufficient reason to say that any did. What good reason do we have to assume this?
Even on previous accounts? No idea what your talking about unless you mean Slightlyinsane.
Why should we be agnostic toward something we have absolutely no evidence or proof of? Obviously we cannot disprove the existence of god, but the possibility is so small and unapparent, that there is no point in even considering it.
I think he means XxEyesightxX.
You heard that, green and red.