|
|
|
Legallee Insane
Skeptic Friend
Canada
126 Posts |
 Posted - 12/08/2002 : 18:16:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I just don't believe it can be proven to 100%.
You are right in the fact that none of these theories (evolution, big bang) can be proven to an absolute, but that is only because no human being witnessed these events.
quote:
Science states that a theory is truth
In all the proof and evidence and data that I have ever read about supporting these two theories is information that makes perfect sense, but nowhere in any of that information did I ever see any claims that it was the absolute truth. I'd say that these theories have been proven to about 98% (only because of lack of witness), which is better than other theories like creationism that have been proven to about 0%. |
--"Only the fool says in his heart: There is no god -- The wise says it to the world"
--"I darn you to HECK!" - Catbert
--"Don't worry, we're not laughing at you, we're laughing near you." |
 |
|
|
Kilted_Warrior
Skeptic Friend
Canada
118 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2002 : 22:13:57 [Permalink]
|
Like i've said, many people just can't accept science because scientists say "probably" or "likely" or "almost for sure", while creationists say "I'm absolutly sure" and "definitely".
If your just a misinformed person, who are you going to believe, the group with all the 'definite' answers, or the group that is pretty sure, but still has a miniscule doubt? |
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2002 : 23:06:27 [Permalink]
|
| Legal and Kilted, you both make valid points |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2002 : 09:42:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fireballn
RD My point was to promote Fireballution. It's a new theory but it's coming along.
No, that is your silly game. Your point is that evolution and creation "can't be proved or disproved", the implication being that there exists some qualitative equivalence between the two. It is the same worthless point made repeatedly by those seeking to have ID taught in our schools - since, after all, both are just theories and neither can be "proved or disproved". What makes this point so thoroughly disreputable is that it intentionally confuses/conflates - the fact of evolution, i.e., the change in allele frequency in populations over generations
- the theories of evolution, e.g., punctuated equilibrium, and
- the doctrine of creation, i.e., God(s) did it.
The most fundamental problem with creationism is not that it's a worse theory, or that it's a less probable theory. The most fundamental problem with creationism is that it is not a scientific theory at all. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 12/09/2002 09:44:08 |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2002 : 11:26:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fireballn
Tim did you call me a little prick? I thought you wanted to be all adult and serious. Maybe you should spend a little time at Yahoo and calm down.
RD My point was to promote Fireballution. It's a new theory but it's coming along.
Riptor-Evolution? I don't know. Isnt it a kind of energy drink?
Great idea, and maybe an educational experience as well. So the first thing to do with your theory is to see how the evidence (facts/observations) fit it. So first state your "theory" (which is as of right now a hypothesis) and let's make some testable hypothesis to test your theory to see how well it fits the data.
If we find parts of your "theory" that does not fit the data then we will have to modify it or maybe scrap it all together.
By the way this is the same process that biologists have been going over for the last 200+ years to validate the concepts of evolution. During that time some theories have been discarded (Lamarckism for instance) and the winning theory has been modified (ala genes).
So until you can take your "theory" through the paces you really can't legitimately call it a scientific theory. |
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2002 : 11:30:35 [Permalink]
|
| If you think this is just a silly game of mine, why dont you just stop playing? It must intrigue you on some level or you'd stop replying. I could care less about ID in schools if I did i would have put it in my post. The most interesting part of this post wasn't the topic, but the reaction to the topic. |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2002 : 11:33:46 [Permalink]
|
| jmcginn-maybe you are right what my hypothesis needs is validation. I think i'll work on that. |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2002 : 12:29:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fireballn
If you think this is just a silly game of mine, why dont you just stop playing? It must intrigue you on some level or you'd stop replying.
I'm not playing the game. I'm denouncing its premise. As for the rest, you confuse disgust with intrigue.  |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2002 : 13:23:26 [Permalink]
|
RD This topic disgusts you? Come on don't be like that. You don't like my premise? This isn't a non sequitur, it's a sophism.
|
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2002 : 14:33:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fireballn
RD This topic disgusts you?
In all honesty, I was not referring to the topic. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2002 : 15:21:10 [Permalink]
|
| Oh RD you disappoint me. I must have created you on a monday or a friday, well can't win em all. |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
Legallee Insane
Skeptic Friend
Canada
126 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2002 : 22:38:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Oh RD you disappoint me. I must have created you on a monday or a friday, well can't win em all.
Why don't you just suck it up and admit your fault a65?
You've lost the argument that you started because through repeated demands you still fail to substantiate some of your early claims. Then you claim you have answered questions to the best of your ability when, in fact, you haven't really answered any questions at all. Worse yet, your obviously a bit of a sore loser because you have resorted to name calling and become angered when people harass you for making outrageous claims with no backup. To top it off, you complain when people are pricks to you in response to you being a prick to everyone else. |
--"Only the fool says in his heart: There is no god -- The wise says it to the world"
--"I darn you to HECK!" - Catbert
--"Don't worry, we're not laughing at you, we're laughing near you." |
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 00:37:15 [Permalink]
|
(a 65 doesn't work here anymore but I think you were referring to me.) I guess there's nothing else on the board to discuss lately. I was done with this 2 pages ago, but someone keeps bringing it up. As I stated before this is a sophism.
Angered? Hardly this is laughable.
I have lost the argument? The premise was: If creation and elvolution couldn't be proven to 100%, couldn't other theories be introduced to give a fresh perspective on the subject. It's a bit of a satire of the whole thing i must admit. The whole creation vs evolution thing is getting so bloody boring. So I came up with a new one. It's more interesting anyway.
Yes I am fully aware of the plentiful amount of scientific evidence supporting natural selection. It might be the most probable line of scientific reasoning, but has it been proven to a fact? The answer to that is simply no. I did take human antiquity in university so I do have some knowledge of the subject.
So did I lose the argument? No. Can an other theory be introduced? Absolutely. I just introduced one that you can't disprove.
Name calling? Get your facts striaght before you accuse someone. |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 00:43:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
[...] Can an other theory be introduced? Absolutely. I just introduced one that you can't disprove. [...]
LOL!
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 02:52:58 [Permalink]
|
Fireballn, my Miriam-Webster's Dictionary states, "sophism: an argument correct in form but embodying a subtle fallacy." Thus, since you openly admit your attempted theory is not falsifiable (as pointed out by Starman), your argument is not even correct in form. Most scientists will agree (this is not authority or numbers, this is expert testimony) that a fundamental condition for a scientific theory is falsifiability.
Please read this excellent article written by Kil: What is a Skeptic and Why Bother Being One? Scroll down to the "Skeptical Inquiry" part if you are feeling lazy. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
