PC LOAD LETTER:
Science works from nature as its starting point. Philosophy beings with wonder, Plato said, and Science is a branch of Philosophy. We still grant Doctors of Philosophy to scientists.

Incidentally, I'm working on my Doctorate of Philosophy in a field with the term "science" (Computer Science) that in my opinion isn't really science in the proper sense.

shocker66s: Nice try but its only a matter of time before someone disproves that formula. Math and science are very dynamic.

Not at all accurate. When a mathematical proof is given, it is accurate and impossible to disprove. Please give me one example of a mathematical proof that's been disproven.

CaptainJuan:
Not at all accurate. When a mathematical proof is given, it is accurate and impossible to disprove. Please give me one example of a mathematical proof that's been disproven.

Sorry, addendum: it must be a conclusive, exhaustive proof. Also, no conditional proofs.

abb3w: Bevets: or argue about trivial tangents.

I'd hardly call my discussion of the fundamental premises of logical inference "trivial".

Right... i forgot. abb3w is trivial. Right.

What was that about set theory again?

PC LOAD LETTER: shocker66s: Nice try but its only a matter of time before someone disproves that formula. Math and science are very dynamic.

there many scientific ideas
some have changed over the years and are proven wrong
therefore all scientific ideas change over the years and are proven wrong


Fallacy: Biased Sample

Also Known as: Biased Statistics, Loaded Sample, Prejudiced Statistics, Prejudiced Sample, Loaded Statistics, Biased Induction, Biased Generalization
Description of Biased Sample

This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased or prejudiced in some manner. It has the following form:

1. Sample S, which is biased, is taken from population P.
2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.

The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization:

1. X% of all observed A's are B's.
2. Therefore X% of all A's are Bs.

You can use all the fancy words you like but history still says ALL scientific theories have been proven wrong. It is in mankind's nature to seek the truth but the only real truth is that you will never find it. There is always a better answer.

Nobody paged me :(

Oh well

shocker66s: You can use all the fancy words you like but history still says ALL scientific theories have been proven wrong. It is in mankind's nature to seek the truth but the only real truth is that you will never find it. There is always a better answer.

Translation: "I don't understand what you're talking about because i have not been educated in it to the extent that you have. Therefore I choose to believe that you're completely wrong.

whatshisname: ancker: Try watching "The Universe" on the Science Channel or Discovery channel. Count how many times they say "Theory" in front of Big-Bang. Granted, this isn't a classroom, but I guarantee there are thousands of science teachers recommending the show to their students. Evolution is the same way on these channels.

(tangent: Now the dinosaur extinction, I've never heard a theory that wasn't prefaced by "Theory" in giant bold letters)

Further, a quick google for "Define scientific theory" yields: [A hypothesis that is widely accepted by the scientific community.] Yep, that's what I expected it to be. While the scientific community might understand that it's a theory, it certainly isn't presented that way in the vast numbers of science books and television programs on the subject.

Do you think that in order to present a theory, one needs to use the word "theory" every time they mention it? That would make for some great TV. Usually, the introduction explains it's a theory then they just get on with the evidence.

You used the word "show" in your response above. Why didn't you specify that it was a television show? Maybe people could have thought you were talking about a Broadway show. You see - once you've explained the context, it's not necessary to repeat something.

I invite you to watch the show mentioned above and count. I challenge you to hear the word 'theory' even once in appropriate context.

You see - when I make a point by referring to a specific show, and then you disprove my point by claiming 'other' shows mention that its a theory, you'll see that you're guilty of exactly what I'm complaining about.

The scientific community knows it's theory but they present it as fact.

I won't even get into how I used 'television program' in my previous post to describe the 'show,' predicting that you'd try to use it against me. :)

/ancker

CaptainJuan: CaptainJuan:
Not at all accurate. When a mathematical proof is given, it is accurate and impossible to disprove. Please give me one example of a mathematical proof that's been disproven.

Sorry, addendum: it must be a conclusive, exhaustive proof. Also, no conditional proofs.

Someone once thought that you couldn't divide by zero...

CaptainJuan: shocker66s: You can use all the fancy words you like but history still says ALL scientific theories have been proven wrong. It is in mankind's nature to seek the truth but the only real truth is that you will never find it. There is always a better answer.

Translation: "I don't understand what you're talking about because i have not been educated in it to the extent that you have. Therefore I choose to believe that you're completely wrong.

Translation:I need more history lessons

improvius: In any case, I will once again invite anyone to come up with a theory other than common descent to explain the similarities between human and chimp DNA. You know, just in case anyone wants to deal with some actual facts...

Well it is not a theory in the scientific sense, but I do have a conjecture that could explain everything. God simply wants to trick all those science types that evolution happened so he designed everything to look exactly like it was evolved.

Well it does explain everything...

...by explaining nothing.

shocker66s: Someone once thought that you couldn't divide by zero...

Um... in algebra, you cannot. There are advanced mathematical fields in which you can, but dividing by zero still remains an undefinable operation in real number algebra. Different fields and systems of mathematics exist where Zero is defined in different ways, and the operations involving zero work differently. Proving an assertion wrong under set of rules X does not mean that the assertion is wrong under an entirely different set of rules.

shocker66s: You can use all the fancy words you like but history still says ALL scientific theories have been proven wrong. It is in mankind's nature to seek the truth but the only real truth is that you will never find it. There is always a better answer.

Congratulations, you've successfully managed to combine Zeno's paradox and solipsism.

PC LOAD LETTER: I am a "Unix Engineer". Having known actual engineers who do things like design nuclear subs and such, I always crack up about this stupid job title.

How does the joke go again? If it has science in the title, it really isn't. Something like that...

/Computer "Science" major

PC LOAD LETTER: Helios1182: Incidentally, I'm working on my Doctorate of Philosophy in a field with the term "science" (Computer Science) that in my opinion isn't really science in the proper sense.

I am a "Unix Engineer". Having known actual engineers who do things like design nuclear subs and such, I always crack up about this stupid job title.

Most "software engineers" aren't engineers is the traditional sense of the word. There are ways to program in a manner that would meet engineering standards, but it doesn't happen in practice. It is difficult, expensive, hard to scale, and most dishearteningly -- people are used to crap software.

Great Odins Raven: Those that argue that Florida is not a southern state should be referred to this article.

Also, scientific theory of flight, gravity.

FTFY

CaptainJuan: shocker66s: Someone once thought that you couldn't divide by zero...

Um... in algebra, you cannot. There are advanced mathematical fields in which you can, but dividing by zero still remains an undefinable operation in real number algebra. Different fields and systems of mathematics exist where Zero is defined in different ways, and the operations involving zero work differently. Proving an assertion wrong under set of rules X does not mean that the assertion is wrong under an entirely different set of rules.

Good, now do you understand or are you trying to be argumentative? Think!

ancker: The scientific community knows it's theory but they present it as fact.

Again, I'm not sure you understand the definition of a scientific theory, nor do you realize that some scientific theories are essentially facts.

Do scientists insist that Christians always preface "Christianity" with "religion"? NO. Because it's common knowledge that Christianity is a religion, just as it is common knowledge that Evolution is a scientific Theory, and a fact.

People who insist that evolution be prefaced with "theory" every time it's stated are just trying to diminish the validity of evolution because it goes against their imaginary world view.

Read the S.J. Gould link I posted. He explains this stuff way better than I do.

improvius: shocker66s: You can use all the fancy words you like but history still says ALL scientific theories have been proven wrong. It is in mankind's nature to seek the truth but the only real truth is that you will never find it. There is always a better answer.

Congratulations, you've successfully managed to combine Zeno's paradox and solipsism.

Who cares? Do you understand?

shocker66s: CaptainJuan: shocker66s: Someone once thought that you couldn't divide by zero...

Um... in algebra, you cannot. There are advanced mathematical fields in which you can, but dividing by zero still remains an undefinable operation in real number algebra. Different fields and systems of mathematics exist where Zero is defined in different ways, and the operations involving zero work differently. Proving an assertion wrong under set of rules X does not mean that the assertion is wrong under an entirely different set of rules.

Good, now do you understand or are you trying to be argumentative? Think!

I think you missed the point. An old theory wasn't proved wrong -- a new set of initial assumption were made. Remember, these are more like philosophical frameworks than scientific discovery.

I bet it would blow your mind that in some geometries all lines (including parallel) intersect.

shocker66s: CaptainJuan: shocker66s: Someone once thought that you couldn't divide by zero...

Um... in algebra, you cannot. There are advanced mathematical fields in which you can, but dividing by zero still remains an undefinable operation in real number algebra. Different fields and systems of mathematics exist where Zero is defined in different ways, and the operations involving zero work differently. Proving an assertion wrong under set of rules X does not mean that the assertion is wrong under an entirely different set of rules.

Good, now do you understand or are you trying to be argumentative? Think!

...all that i've managed to take away from your posts so far is that you have an absolutely incorrect understanding of a) science b) the word 'theory' c) mathematics and d) philosophy.

Bevets is anti-viagra.

let that sink in for a minute...

PC LOAD LETTER: shocker66s: You can use all the fancy words you like but history still says ALL scientific theories have been proven wrong. It is in mankind's nature to seek the truth but the only real truth is that you will never find it. There is always a better answer.

Define "scientific". Do you think thinking that thunder was caused by a sharp expulsion of wind was science? Or was that just thinking and wondering and giving it your best shot.

All theories in the world have been proven wrong. But the Earth and Sun still revolve around a common center of mass, which, since the Sun is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth in mass, means the Earth effectively revolves around the Sun. So that's a scientific "theory". If you think this will be proven wrong, then I pity you.

Its an interesting point but if your just going to shut your mind to another possible explanation that might arise that might be better then I pity you.

CaptainJuan: shocker66s: CaptainJuan: shocker66s: Someone once thought that you couldn't divide by zero...

Um... in algebra, you cannot. There are advanced mathematical fields in which you can, but dividing by zero still remains an undefinable operation in real number algebra. Different fields and systems of mathematics exist where Zero is defined in different ways, and the operations involving zero work differently. Proving an assertion wrong under set of rules X does not mean that the assertion is wrong under an entirely different set of rules.

Good, now do you understand or are you trying to be argumentative? Think!

...all that i've managed to take away from your posts so far is that you have an absolutely incorrect understanding of a) science b) the word 'theory' c) mathematics and d) philosophy.

Great, go back to school

electricblue: acording to research only 30% of women can vaginally orgasm.

oddly 100% of the women I've boinked have all had vaginal O's.

"I can has vaginal orgasm?"

PC LOAD LETTER: shocker66s: Who cares? Do you understand?

If the design was intelligent, why do you exist?

Easy, to keep people like you in line.

You know, I truly believe that there is more to this reality than can be perceived. That is why idoliterers (is that a word?) like bevets make me sad.

I'd like to say that those who interpret the bible literally, while foolish, display an admirable tenacity in the pursuit of understanding their religion, but sadly, like bevets, the majority of those who do so do not read and write arameic, ancient greek or even latin.

Literally interpreting the King James bible, which was largely meant to be prosaic as well as vernacular is a mind boggling fail.

Moreover, as a Christian I believe that one is meant to worship that which is Christ as opposed to his name; ergo, a kind, generous hindu who has never even seen the bible is a better Christian than some buffoon who worships the bible (idolytry) and uses the ink on its pages to judge others.

I am a servant of that which is infinetely greater than us all. I am a servant of kindess and forgiveness. My lord does not fit in a book. Any one religion is nothing moe than a window upon that which we do not understand.

Anyone who claims to have "the" answer is either a fool, a man in possession of infinite wisdom (unlikely) or someone that worships a mere book.

Bevets

You still need to edit your web page. That second Patterson quote needs the addition of an asterisk and a statement to the effect of "This is taken grossly out of context due to the fact that one paragraph later he says the exact opposite of this.

I'd rather you be honest about *all* your quotes, but we gotta start somewhere.

Testing your credibility/honesty is no different than testing a witness in a trial. It's not argumentum ad hominem to show that the witness is an untrustworthy source. You have been discredited and failed to address the accusation. Difficulty: Lewontin still has nothing to do with your dishonesty. Care to defend yourself yet?

Bevets: John 14.6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."
John 10.37 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

"John said Jesus said."
How do we know John is not mistaken?

aglassonion: G If any of you have anything additional to say, recommendations of things to read, etc., please drop me an e-mail.

My http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/wishlist/3HM76CCE1QMVU
records all the books recommended in these threads for folks interested in broadening their horizons. Didn't see an email in your profile, so hopefully you see this.

I find it interesting that Bevets seems to hold the word of God as ultimate truth. I assume this goes back to his study of the bible. What's funny is that the bible is simply a compilation of stories written by men, edited by men, translated by men, and ultimately debated by and compiled by men. Pope Athanasius says this goes here, that goes there. Cut the Book of Jubilees, add the Acts of the Apostles, etc. Others interpret and translate what it all means, and presto - you've got the word of God.

Biblical canon is just a series of man-made hand picked editorials. The Gospel of Mary ended up on the cutting room floor only because someone thought she didn't quite fit right in flow of their new book. The whole process of creating the word of God sounds suspiciously similar Bevets' description of evolution - just a bunch of stuff thrown together with inconsistencies intentionally downplayed or ignored.

shocker66s: improvius: shocker66s: You can use all the fancy words you like but history still says ALL scientific theories have been proven wrong. It is in mankind's nature to seek the truth but the only real truth is that you will never find it. There is always a better answer.

Congratulations, you've successfully managed to combine Zeno's paradox and solipsism.

Who cares? Do you understand?

I understand that you're wrong.

PC LOAD LETTER

If the design was intelligent, why do you exist?



Full of win.

dennysgod: Why in the heck is this news...I've read articles, watched TV and sat through lectures discussion evolution and about 85-90% of the time they use the phrase "theory of evolution"...because it is.

People tend to look down on the word "theory" like it's just a fancy word for guessing which is it not, that would be hypothesis, theories are hypothesis with a crap load of data to back it up and is widely accepted in the scientific community. But the funny thing about theories is that most will never be made "fact" because there will always be that one person who says "well that sounds good, but I think it works more like this" which is good, because with out the one guy asking questions science would be boring and never go any where.

people who are not scientists or work in the field of science often lose the distinction between hypothesis and theory...

CaptainJuan: electricblue:

The whole 'vaginal O =/= clitoral O' thing is a fallacy. All the nerves in the vagina have their roots in the little man in the boat.

*snicker*

improvius: shocker66s: improvius: shocker66s: You can use all the fancy words you like but history still says ALL scientific theories have been proven wrong. It is in mankind's nature to seek the truth but the only real truth is that you will never find it. There is always a better answer.

Congratulations, you've successfully managed to combine Zeno's paradox and solipsism.

Who cares? Do you understand?

I understand that you're wrong.

And that is how a person with low intellect responds. Oh well

shocker66s: And that is how a person with low intellect responds. Oh well

Disagreeing with solipsism is unintelligent? Well then, I suppose the vast majority of important philosophers throughout history have been a bunch of complete retards.

Billy-Bob Kenobi: aglassonion: There are many atheists who are intelligent designers.

Can you cite some examples?

L. Ron. Hubbard, Tom Cruise, half of Hollywood...

shocker66s: And that is how a person with low intellect responds. Oh well

And does the phrase "Who cares?" connote higher intelligence than that?

Also, I think sometimes Science is a religion for all intents and purposes.

The world is round and not flat? Yes, I agree. But go ahead and prove it. Being scientifcally schooled we all accept that the world is round, but we very unscientifically haven't the wherewithal to prove it. Instead we accept that the world is round because everyone who teaches us says it is and all our books tell us that. So we accept this fact religiously.

The world being round is a silly example. Let's move on.

Certain people can't earn enough to feed themselves. It is because they don't have skills sufficiently desirable to market in return for a liveable wage. Or so says the science of economics anyway. I believe that each and every one of my fellow humans has a certain intrisic value and that to argue otherwise in the name of economics is to attribute a simplicity to our existance very similar to that of a religious fundamendalist who finds the answer to life the universe and everything in a farking book.

I don't understand the universe. Neither do you.

Bevets:

John 14.6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."

John 10.37 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

Well... there it is then. Thanks for showing us those quotes. That clears it all up for me.

VegasVinnie: I find it interesting that Bevets seems to hold the word of God as ultimate truth. I assume this goes back to his study of the bible. What's funny is that the bible is simply a compilation of stories written by men, edited by men, translated by men, and ultimately debated by and compiled by men. Pope Athanasius says this goes here, that goes there. Cut the Book of Jubilees, add the Acts of the Apostles, etc. Others interpret and translate what it all means, and presto - you've got the word of God.

I've got emails out to a number of Biblical Historians on this subject, since the evidence for this I was able to cull from the internet wasn't enough to satisfy Bevets that the bible was "heavily edited".

CaptainJuan: shocker66s: And that is how a person with low intellect responds. Oh well

Disagreeing with solipsism is unintelligent? Well then, I suppose the vast majority of important philosophers throughout history have been a bunch of complete retards.

Easy killer. Where did you get that from? I never said that I disagreed with solipsism nor did I ever say that was unintelligent.
I was referring to

I understand that you're wrong.

Try and follow along

shocker66s: improvius: shocker66s: improvius: shocker66s: You can use all the fancy words you like but history still says ALL scientific theories have been proven wrong. It is in mankind's nature to seek the truth but the only real truth is that you will never find it. There is always a better answer.

Congratulations, you've successfully managed to combine Zeno's paradox and solipsism.

Who cares? Do you understand?

I understand that you're wrong.

And that is how a person with low intellect responds. Oh well

You're notion that "all scientific theories have been proven wrong" is complete and utter crap. It is a baseless assertion that is trivially easy to prove incorrect. The earth is roughly spherical. Our planet circles the sun. Hell, even Newtonian mechanics still work in most applications.

And with that, I'm done responding to your junk philosophizing. Let me know if you can come up wtih any substantial challenges to evolution.