<!--quoteo(post=1691222:date=Oct 23 2008, 08:10 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Oct 23 2008, 08:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691222"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Some would claim that there's a giant conspiracy against creationist ideas, so any paper submitted would get rejected outright unless the paper was perfect. Then again, what paper is perfect nowadays except in special ideal circumstances and with such and such margin of error?[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Some would claim that. If they would claim that, however, others would point out that such papers don't even get submitted in the first place. This problem should first be remedied, so that proper suppression might subsequently be performed.
<!--quoteo(post=1691411:date=Oct 25 2008, 11:27 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Oct 25 2008, 11:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691411"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We have a saying in Texas, I'm sure it's in Denmark, too. Fool me once...
Sorry, just couldn't help myself. I will completely understand if this gets deleted.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't even get that.
___________________
Creationism isn't incompatible with the scientific method, as long as you stick to the method. Current science builds on assumptions as well. For instance, the Standard Model of particle physics assumes the existence of a particle that has been dubbed the "Higgs boson." This particle has never been observed, and therefore it is unknown whether it actually exists or whether the Standard Model is flawed.
The Higgs boson is sometimes called the "god particle," and it shares certain attributes with God: Both have people believing in their existence. Both have people searching for them. Neither is conclusively known to exist. Both could be proven through observation. In this fashion, both are compatible with the scientific method.
There are only two options: Either the particle exists, or it doesn't. Observing the particle will prove that it exists. However, it can never be proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that the particle <i>doesn't</i> exist. It can only be proven beyond <i>reasonable</i> doubt that the particle doesn't exist, by having every attempt at observing the particle fail. This is one of the purposes for which the Large Hadron Collider was built. The LHC will either prove the existence of the Higgs boson, or discredit it. Failure to detect the Higgs boson in the LHC will not disprove its existence, and if this happens subsequent attempts at observing it will certainly be made. But each failure would diminish the plausibility of the Higgs boson, and the Standard Model itself, until reason dictates that the Standard Model is faulty and must be either modified or, failing that, abandoned altogether.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1691442:date=Oct 26 2008, 05:50 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Oct 26 2008, 05:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691442"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I know the expression. I just have no idea what he's applying it to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The saying is "fool me once, shame on you fool me twice, shame on me" and Steve's version is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxxFoM" target="_blank">gwb</a> butchering it.
I don't know what it has to do with taxes or creationism though.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
I read <a href="http://www.usnews.com/blogs/john-farrell/2008/10/28/barack-obama-is-no-socialist.html" target="_blank">this article</a> on the historic tax rates and couldn't help but think of the conversation we had the other day.
<!--quoteo(post=1691419:date=Oct 26 2008, 12:07 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Oct 26 2008, 12:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691419"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Some would claim that. If they would claim that, however, others would point out that such papers don't even get submitted in the first place. This problem should first be remedied, so that proper suppression might subsequently be performed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fun thing, they do try. And yes, proper suppression is the typical result.
Then again, there have been some crazy "scientific" things that have been published in those same magazines.... oh wellz. They are found out by later experiments and peer review.
I totally agree. Science in a simplified form is 1) guess a solution 2) run experiment 3) check guess. The reason for step 1 is to define before you have data what will prove or disprove. Then again, there is a problem where people are influenced by the guess when they interpret the data. That's why the "best" statistical test is the double blind test where data generation and data collection are not biased.
<!--quoteo(post=1691775:date=Oct 30 2008, 02:37 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Oct 30 2008, 02:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691775"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fun thing, they do try. And yes, proper suppression is the typical result.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Man, I wish. Unfortunately, there is still far too much bogus ###### out there. If anyone is suppressing anything, they are clearly doing a very poor job of it.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited October 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1691775:date=Oct 29 2008, 09:37 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Oct 29 2008, 09:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691775"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fun thing, they do try. And yes, proper suppression is the typical result.
Then again, there have been some crazy "scientific" things that have been published in those same magazines.... oh wellz. They are found out by later experiments and peer review.
I totally agree. Science in a simplified form is 1) guess a solution 2) run experiment 3) check guess. The reason for step 1 is to define before you have data what will prove or disprove. Then again, there is a problem where people are influenced by the guess when they interpret the data. That's why the "best" statistical test is the double blind test where data generation and data collection are not biased.
However, in the end, it all starts with a theory.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This may seem pedantic, but really it's the whole point. You don't start with a theory; you start with a hypothesis and then either perform an experiment physically or test it against available data.
Dinosaurs living with humans doesn't fit the available data. In the fossil record we see mass extinctions, the rise of birds, and millions of years later we see the first ape like mammals, and millions of years later we see the first humans. There's a very visible progression.
Preemtive Edit: Gaps don't make much difference either because of the time scale we're talking about. It's like watching a man walking on the other side of the street in NYC an there are cars passing by and when the cars are passing you claim the man is in China.
<!--quoteo(post=1691784:date=Oct 30 2008, 05:49 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Oct 30 2008, 05:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691784"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Man, I wish. Unfortunately, there is still far too much bogus ###### out there. If anyone is suppressing anything, they are clearly doing a very poor job of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's your fault for believing the interwebs are authoritative. =] j/k, I know what you're getting at.
OK, OK, I used the wrong term. Sorry. It's <b>hypothesis</b>, experiment, check. Theories are the culmination of several ideas (individually should be proved or at least logical) to explain the whole picture. Theory of evolution takes several ideas to illustrate the big picture. Similar to String theory. Plenty of individual parts that are true, or at least logical, it's just the big picture isn't quite proved yet. We're still working on that part, for both theories.
Technically Creation doesn't even fall under scientific theory since it's mostly arguments that poke at the holes of the other theory, and is not made up of individual facts. There's some re-interpreted facts that sorta make sense, but as pointed out by others not as robust as evolution.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1691775:date=Oct 30 2008, 01:37 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Oct 30 2008, 01:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691775"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fun thing, they do try. And yes, proper suppression is the typical result.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you give an example of this? I've never come across anything that could reasonably be regarded as "suppression".
<!--quoteo(post=1691867:date=Oct 31 2008, 12:17 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Oct 31 2008, 12:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691867"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Theory of evolution takes several ideas to illustrate the big picture. Similar to String theory. Plenty of individual parts that are true, or at least logical, it's just the big picture isn't quite proved yet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes and no. Technically speaking, you can never completely "prove" anything, as there'll always be some tiny chance that it's wrong. However, there's more than sufficient data for the scientific community at large to consider it, basically, as fact. Research these days is much more focussed on individual specifics, rather than establishing that evolution is real.
You can never really prove that lifeforms exist on earth because they evolved... There's always that off absurd chance that aliens did it and covered their tracks or God just sneezed really big or something like that. But you can prove the component parts. That's really the way with any history, it's never really objective, it's just good guesses based on evidence.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
There's no reason to assume something happened until you have evidence for it.
Technically *yes*, it is possible that a god that has never interacted with mankind and apparently goes out of it's way to convince people that it doesn't exist was responsible for creating life.
But it's equally possible that a sentient subwoofer from Alpha Centauri did it. That does not mean it's likely, or that it deserves any serious consideration, because we have exactly "0" evidence for either of them, other than some people thinking it'd be cool if god did it.
<!--quoteo(post=1691883:date=Oct 31 2008, 11:09 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Insane @ Oct 31 2008, 11:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691883"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Can you give an example of this? I've never come across anything that could reasonably be regarded as "suppression".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry if the wording was misleading. Scientific journals regularly check the stuff submitted to them prior to publication. The act of not publishing them is what I referred to as suppression. Not that it's immoral or whatever, it's just something they do with stuff that isn't scientific. Perhaps a better choice of words would have been "don't print" or "don't accept".
And congrats to everyone. For some reason, people thought I was trying to pull the "it's just a theory card" while in fact I was trying to define properly what a theory is. It's an aggregate sum of individual ideas. You don't really prove the theory as much as try to prove the individual ideas in support of that theory. And yes, it's impossible to prove the past, we can merely make judgments on evidence. Yay! Cake for everyone!
<!--quoteo(post=1691966:date=Oct 31 2008, 06:17 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Oct 31 2008, 06:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691966"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry if the wording was misleading. Scientific journals regularly check the stuff submitted to them prior to publication. The act of not publishing them is what I referred to as suppression. Not that it's immoral or whatever, it's just something they do with stuff that isn't scientific. Perhaps a better choice of words would have been "don't print" or "don't accept".
And congrats to everyone. For some reason, people thought I was trying to pull the "it's just a theory card" while in fact I was trying to define properly what a theory is. It's an aggregate sum of individual ideas. You don't really prove the theory as much as try to prove the individual ideas in support of that theory. And yes, it's impossible to prove the past, we can merely make judgments on evidence. Yay! Cake for everyone!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm so sorry that a scientific journal don't print stuffs that isn't scientific.
<!--quoteo(post=1691896:date=Oct 31 2008, 08:35 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman @ Oct 31 2008, 08:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691896"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's no reason to assume something happened until you have evidence for it. Technically *yes*, it is possible that a god that has never interacted with mankind and apparently goes out of it's way to convince people that it doesn't exist was responsible for creating life.
But it's equally possible that a sentient subwoofer from Alpha Centauri did it. That does not mean it's likely, or that it deserves any serious consideration, because we have exactly "0" evidence for either of them, other than some people thinking it'd be cool if god did it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> When you're trying to track down a mastermind criminal murderer known for misdirection and framing people, it's futile to look for fingerprints. There's a good reasonable amount of evidence of intelligent design, but it's all entirely circumstantial. Even if God is real and he's absolutely responsible, we'll never find non-circumstantial evidence of it. If it's aliens, maby, but once again, we're not really looking in the right places.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1692145:date=Nov 2 2008, 04:12 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Nov 2 2008, 04:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692145"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's a good reasonable amount of evidence of intelligent design, but it's all entirely circumstantial.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's no evidence, at all. It's misinterpreted facts by people with an agenda, such as claiming DNA is a language so it has to have a designer, or things being irreducibly complex.
AbraWould you kindlyJoin Date: 2003-08-17Member: 19870Members
<!--quoteo(post=1692160:date=Nov 2 2008, 08:15 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman @ Nov 2 2008, 08:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692160"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's no evidence, at all. It's misinterpreted facts by people with an agenda, such as claiming DNA is a language so it has to have a designer, or things being irreducibly complex.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This.
I'm not giving creationists or "intelligent design" an inch of my respect.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When you're trying to track down a mastermind criminal murderer known for misdirection and framing people, it's futile to look for fingerprints.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If thats the case then clearly God wants you to believe in evolution, since he went through all the trouble of faking the mounds of evidence for it. So why do you defy him?
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1692184:date=Nov 2 2008, 10:28 PM:name=SkulkBait)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SkulkBait @ Nov 2 2008, 10:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692184"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If thats the case then clearly God wants you to believe in evolution, since he went through all the trouble of faking the mounds of evidence for it. So why do you defy him?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So would an <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060714-evolution.html" target="_blank">example of evolution</a> occurring under scientific study actually be a divine miracle?
<!--quoteo(post=1692184:date=Nov 2 2008, 10:28 PM:name=SkulkBait)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SkulkBait @ Nov 2 2008, 10:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692184"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If thats the case then clearly God wants you to believe in evolution, since he went through all the trouble of faking the mounds of evidence for it. So why do you defy him?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I believe in evolution. I question weather natural selection, and variances of such, were the only selective factor ever present in the history of evolved species on earth. I don't BELIEVE it was not, I just don't strongly believe it was either. If for no other reason, I just like the possibility of a universe more dynamic, dramatic, and interesting than one in which everything we see is always exactly the way the evidence makes it appear at first glance. It also seeds a lot more potential for good fictional backdrops in epic story lines and what not... Which is something I like to keep under my thumb for a rainy day.
I just find it really petty to decide that evolution works X way and happened Y way in history, just to spite the creationists. We just don't have that much evidence.
IMO an example of evolution in real time is pretty miraculous. That's not something you see every day.
<!--quoteo(post=1692201:date=Nov 2 2008, 10:16 PM:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut @ Nov 2 2008, 10:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692201"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><img src="http://img.waffleimages.com/ecfef467a7824644d1dcc20eeba5bb79595ae1a0/finalday.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Remember Americans if you mess this up the moon will crash into the planet.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1692200:date=Nov 3 2008, 06:10 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Nov 3 2008, 06:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692200"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I believe in evolution. I question weather natural selection, and variances of such, were the only selective factor ever present in the history of evolved species on earth. I don't BELIEVE it was not, I just don't strongly believe it was either. If for no other reason, I just like the possibility of a universe more dynamic, dramatic, and interesting than one in which everything we see is always exactly the way the evidence makes it appear at first glance. It also seeds a lot more potential for good fictional backdrops in epic story lines and what not... Which is something I like to keep under my thumb for a rainy day.
I just find it really petty to decide that evolution works X way and happened Y way in history, just to spite the creationists. We just don't have that much evidence.
IMO an example of evolution in real time is pretty miraculous. That's not something you see every day.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) We've seen examples of natural selection guiding evolution all over the place, from darwin's finches, to Lenski's citrus eating e. Coli (recently published) etc.... There are even some more subtle examples, such as the fact that African elephants are essentially losing their tusks, since the ones with larger tusks are being poached more. It's a selective advantage to have smaller / no tusks in that sense (even if it makes it harder for them to find food/water).
2) We have no reason to suspect it was any different in the past. "It would be cool if it was" is not a reason. There is literally no evidence, or logical reason to assume, anything was different regarding evolution in the past.
While again, technically it's possible, it's technically possible that Amylase is the physical manifestation of Suglor, the God of sugar and hating Starch. <b>Or</b>, it's simply an enzyme.
What I'm saying here is that possible alternatives are all well and good. No scientist worth his salt would deny a possible alternative <i>if presented with the proper evidence</i>. The fact is, there has never been *any* evidence presented to refute evolution via natural selection, and until there is evidence that anything was different, no one is going to seriously consider the possibility.
"It'd be cool" "It doesn't seem fair" "I want it like this" "Surely that can't be it"
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
edited November 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1692200:date=Nov 3 2008, 06:10 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Nov 3 2008, 06:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692200"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just find it really petty to decide that evolution works X way and happened Y way in history, just to spite the creationists. We just don't have that much evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except it doesn't happen that way. It's not a case of just "deciding". It's more like evidence A, B, C, D... etc. suggest that evolution works X way and happened Y way in history.
Science is not done to spite creationists. Plus, we have a great deal of evidence. Loads.
<!--quoteo(post=1692255:date=Nov 3 2008, 01:22 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Nov 3 2008, 01:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692255"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This thread jumped the rails about four miles back, I think. Now it's sort of rolling down into a canyon.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A canyon of awesome.
Comments
Some would claim that. If they would claim that, however, others would point out that such papers don't even get submitted in the first place. This problem should first be remedied, so that proper suppression might subsequently be performed.
<!--quoteo(post=1691411:date=Oct 25 2008, 11:27 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Oct 25 2008, 11:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691411"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We have a saying in Texas, I'm sure it's in Denmark, too. Fool me once...
Sorry, just couldn't help myself. I will completely understand if this gets deleted.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't even get that.
___________________
Creationism isn't incompatible with the scientific method, as long as you stick to the method. Current science builds on assumptions as well. For instance, the Standard Model of particle physics assumes the existence of a particle that has been dubbed the "Higgs boson." This particle has never been observed, and therefore it is unknown whether it actually exists or whether the Standard Model is flawed.
The Higgs boson is sometimes called the "god particle," and it shares certain attributes with God: Both have people believing in their existence. Both have people searching for them. Neither is conclusively known to exist. Both could be proven through observation. In this fashion, both are compatible with the scientific method.
There are only two options: Either the particle exists, or it doesn't. Observing the particle will prove that it exists. However, it can never be proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that the particle <i>doesn't</i> exist. It can only be proven beyond <i>reasonable</i> doubt that the particle doesn't exist, by having every attempt at observing the particle fail. This is one of the purposes for which the Large Hadron Collider was built. The LHC will either prove the existence of the Higgs boson, or discredit it. Failure to detect the Higgs boson in the LHC will not disprove its existence, and if this happens subsequent attempts at observing it will certainly be made. But each failure would diminish the plausibility of the Higgs boson, and the Standard Model itself, until reason dictates that the Standard Model is faulty and must be either modified or, failing that, abandoned altogether.
Fool me once.... shame on.... shame on you. You fool me, can't get fooled again.
The saying is
"fool me once, shame on you
fool me twice, shame on me"
and Steve's version is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxxFoM" target="_blank">gwb</a> butchering it.
I don't know what it has to do with taxes or creationism though.
Fun thing, they do try. And yes, proper suppression is the typical result.
Then again, there have been some crazy "scientific" things that have been published in those same magazines.... oh wellz. They are found out by later experiments and peer review.
I totally agree. Science in a simplified form is 1) guess a solution 2) run experiment 3) check guess. The reason for step 1 is to define before you have data what will prove or disprove. Then again, there is a problem where people are influenced by the guess when they interpret the data. That's why the "best" statistical test is the double blind test where data generation and data collection are not biased.
However, in the end, it all starts with a theory.
Man, I wish. Unfortunately, there is still far too much bogus ###### out there. If anyone is suppressing anything, they are clearly doing a very poor job of it.
Then again, there have been some crazy "scientific" things that have been published in those same magazines.... oh wellz. They are found out by later experiments and peer review.
I totally agree. Science in a simplified form is 1) guess a solution 2) run experiment 3) check guess. The reason for step 1 is to define before you have data what will prove or disprove. Then again, there is a problem where people are influenced by the guess when they interpret the data. That's why the "best" statistical test is the double blind test where data generation and data collection are not biased.
However, in the end, it all starts with a theory.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This may seem pedantic, but really it's the whole point. You don't start with a theory; you start with a hypothesis and then either perform an experiment physically or test it against available data.
Dinosaurs living with humans doesn't fit the available data. In the fossil record we see mass extinctions, the rise of birds, and millions of years later we see the first ape like mammals, and millions of years later we see the first humans. There's a very visible progression.
Preemtive Edit: Gaps don't make much difference either because of the time scale we're talking about. It's like watching a man walking on the other side of the street in NYC an there are cars passing by and when the cars are passing you claim the man is in China.
That's your fault for believing the interwebs are authoritative. =] j/k, I know what you're getting at.
OK, OK, I used the wrong term. Sorry. It's <b>hypothesis</b>, experiment, check. Theories are the culmination of several ideas (individually should be proved or at least logical) to explain the whole picture. Theory of evolution takes several ideas to illustrate the big picture. Similar to String theory. Plenty of individual parts that are true, or at least logical, it's just the big picture isn't quite proved yet. We're still working on that part, for both theories.
Technically Creation doesn't even fall under scientific theory since it's mostly arguments that poke at the holes of the other theory, and is not made up of individual facts. There's some re-interpreted facts that sorta make sense, but as pointed out by others not as robust as evolution.
Can you give an example of this? I've never come across anything that could reasonably be regarded as "suppression".
<!--quoteo(post=1691867:date=Oct 31 2008, 12:17 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Oct 31 2008, 12:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691867"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Theory of evolution takes several ideas to illustrate the big picture. Similar to String theory. Plenty of individual parts that are true, or at least logical, it's just the big picture isn't quite proved yet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes and no. Technically speaking, you can never completely "prove" anything, as there'll always be some tiny chance that it's wrong. However, there's more than sufficient data for the scientific community at large to consider it, basically, as fact. Research these days is much more focussed on individual specifics, rather than establishing that evolution is real.
Technically *yes*, it is possible that a god that has never interacted with mankind and apparently goes out of it's way to convince people that it doesn't exist was responsible for creating life.
But it's equally possible that a sentient subwoofer from Alpha Centauri did it. That does not mean it's likely, or that it deserves any serious consideration, because we have exactly "0" evidence for either of them, other than some people thinking it'd be cool if god did it.
Sorry if the wording was misleading. Scientific journals regularly check the stuff submitted to them prior to publication. The act of not publishing them is what I referred to as suppression. Not that it's immoral or whatever, it's just something they do with stuff that isn't scientific. Perhaps a better choice of words would have been "don't print" or "don't accept".
And congrats to everyone. For some reason, people thought I was trying to pull the "it's just a theory card" while in fact I was trying to define properly what a theory is. It's an aggregate sum of individual ideas. You don't really prove the theory as much as try to prove the individual ideas in support of that theory. And yes, it's impossible to prove the past, we can merely make judgments on evidence. Yay! Cake for everyone!
And congrats to everyone. For some reason, people thought I was trying to pull the "it's just a theory card" while in fact I was trying to define properly what a theory is. It's an aggregate sum of individual ideas. You don't really prove the theory as much as try to prove the individual ideas in support of that theory. And yes, it's impossible to prove the past, we can merely make judgments on evidence. Yay! Cake for everyone!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm so sorry that a scientific journal don't print stuffs that isn't scientific.
Technically *yes*, it is possible that a god that has never interacted with mankind and apparently goes out of it's way to convince people that it doesn't exist was responsible for creating life.
But it's equally possible that a sentient subwoofer from Alpha Centauri did it. That does not mean it's likely, or that it deserves any serious consideration, because we have exactly "0" evidence for either of them, other than some people thinking it'd be cool if god did it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When you're trying to track down a mastermind criminal murderer known for misdirection and framing people, it's futile to look for fingerprints. There's a good reasonable amount of evidence of intelligent design, but it's all entirely circumstantial. Even if God is real and he's absolutely responsible, we'll never find non-circumstantial evidence of it. If it's aliens, maby, but once again, we're not really looking in the right places.
There's no evidence, at all. It's misinterpreted facts by people with an agenda, such as claiming DNA is a language so it has to have a designer, or things being irreducibly complex.
This.
I'm not giving creationists or "intelligent design" an inch of my respect.
If thats the case then clearly God wants you to believe in evolution, since he went through all the trouble of faking the mounds of evidence for it. So why do you defy him?
So would an <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060714-evolution.html" target="_blank">example of evolution</a> occurring under scientific study actually be a divine miracle?
Praise to Saint Finch!
I believe in evolution. I question weather natural selection, and variances of such, were the only selective factor ever present in the history of evolved species on earth. I don't BELIEVE it was not, I just don't strongly believe it was either. If for no other reason, I just like the possibility of a universe more dynamic, dramatic, and interesting than one in which everything we see is always exactly the way the evidence makes it appear at first glance. It also seeds a lot more potential for good fictional backdrops in epic story lines and what not... Which is something I like to keep under my thumb for a rainy day.
I just find it really petty to decide that evolution works X way and happened Y way in history, just to spite the creationists. We just don't have that much evidence.
IMO an example of evolution in real time is pretty miraculous. That's not something you see every day.
Remember Americans if you mess this up the moon will crash into the planet.
I just find it really petty to decide that evolution works X way and happened Y way in history, just to spite the creationists. We just don't have that much evidence.
IMO an example of evolution in real time is pretty miraculous. That's not something you see every day.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) We've seen examples of natural selection guiding evolution all over the place, from darwin's finches, to Lenski's citrus eating e. Coli (recently published) etc.... There are even some more subtle examples, such as the fact that African elephants are essentially losing their tusks, since the ones with larger tusks are being poached more. It's a selective advantage to have smaller / no tusks in that sense (even if it makes it harder for them to find food/water).
2) We have no reason to suspect it was any different in the past. "It would be cool if it was" is not a reason. There is literally no evidence, or logical reason to assume, anything was different regarding evolution in the past.
While again, technically it's possible, it's technically possible that Amylase is the physical manifestation of Suglor, the God of sugar and hating Starch. <b>Or</b>, it's simply an enzyme.
What I'm saying here is that possible alternatives are all well and good. No scientist worth his salt would deny a possible alternative <i>if presented with the proper evidence</i>. The fact is, there has never been *any* evidence presented to refute evolution via natural selection, and until there is evidence that anything was different, no one is going to seriously consider the possibility.
"It'd be cool"
"It doesn't seem fair"
"I want it like this"
"Surely that can't be it"
Those are not scientific arguments.
Except it doesn't happen that way. It's not a case of just "deciding". It's more like evidence A, B, C, D... etc. suggest that evolution works X way and happened Y way in history.
Science is not done to spite creationists. Plus, we have a great deal of evidence. Loads.
A canyon of awesome.
*off-topic-preaching-to-deaf-people*