One of my teachers once said that evolution is a fact, not a theory. What do you guys think?
Or how about the atomic "theory" is a fact, not a theory?
Or how about the atomic "theory" is a fact, not a theory?
Good scientific discussion
- Thread starter Magrathean
- Start date
Cr4zyIrishJohn
Member
Evolution doesn't just make a simple case, it's very persuasive, and somewhat true. Things do evolve. They get bigger, stronger, smarter. BUT, IMO where evolution is screwed is the beginning. Atoms, cells, they had to come from something. Which is what makes me believe in God. There has to be a beginning, something that created the system that the theory of evolution 'evolved' from... But that's just my opinion.. 
Rincewind
Find tranquillity in dark
I think evolution is a fact, but also all creatures are too perfect in a way that all have everything to maintain alive and develop, not considering people who fuck up everything in nature...I just think there must be something bigger than just atoms combining by accident at the begining
Nemesis_lxix
Drunk Lord's Greasy $@#%*
rahvin
keeper of the flame
as usual i'll do my best to miss the actual point of this thread.
in my opinion, the problem with calling things facts instead of, say, "very persuasive theories" is merely a lack of knowledge of the philosophical implications. i wouldn't dream of disputing the correctness of either theory undo mentioned, to be honest, but i understand how some people calling them facts would put them on some sort of metaphysical pedestal, as if they had been proven true better and more drastically than other theories. i prefer less exhuberant means of expressing one's convictions, which would also help us realize that facts are only theories whose validity is so commonly accepted (implicitly or explicitly) and all-encompassing that it would serve no purpose - and actually collide with the very framework of logic we use in everyday life - to doubt them. the point-zero-zero-zero-zero-one percent chance of them being false is a statistical anomaly that makes even the concept of true and false almost irrelevant.
aside from that, and down the road everybody is going with their posts, faith in god does not imply a rejection of evolutionary theories, merely a refusal to believe that evolution is all there is to it. more people on both sides should take the time to get an education on the subject.
in my opinion, the problem with calling things facts instead of, say, "very persuasive theories" is merely a lack of knowledge of the philosophical implications. i wouldn't dream of disputing the correctness of either theory undo mentioned, to be honest, but i understand how some people calling them facts would put them on some sort of metaphysical pedestal, as if they had been proven true better and more drastically than other theories. i prefer less exhuberant means of expressing one's convictions, which would also help us realize that facts are only theories whose validity is so commonly accepted (implicitly or explicitly) and all-encompassing that it would serve no purpose - and actually collide with the very framework of logic we use in everyday life - to doubt them. the point-zero-zero-zero-zero-one percent chance of them being false is a statistical anomaly that makes even the concept of true and false almost irrelevant.
aside from that, and down the road everybody is going with their posts, faith in god does not imply a rejection of evolutionary theories, merely a refusal to believe that evolution is all there is to it. more people on both sides should take the time to get an education on the subject.
marduk1507
Member
Yes, yes. Actually, the 'intelligent design' theory - which at the moment is on everyone's lips as a competitor to mainstream evolutionism, i.e. darwinism - objects to the chaotic nature of evolution, not to its very existence. catastrophism, which was the popular alternative some decades ago, again did not object to the existence of darwinian evolution, but rather maintained that it worked for the majority of time, i.e. all the span between structural breaks (it also maintained that said breaks were responsible for the general direction that the physical world would take, which is a critique more aggressive than the current ones).
and let us not forget that darwinism is just one version of classical evolutionism. it owes its popularity to historical circumstances - which sort of proves its point, yes -, i.e. the fact that the marxist movement liked darwin's writing very much and popularized it greatly. right now, i think that the playing field between competing hypotheses is more level than it was in the past.
and yes, i missed the point of the thread, too.
going back on track, i.e. fact vs theory, a theory is such when it can be falsified by removing non-physical assumptions. this does not apply to facts. ask popper. or jeeves.
and let us not forget that darwinism is just one version of classical evolutionism. it owes its popularity to historical circumstances - which sort of proves its point, yes
-, i.e. the fact that the marxist movement liked darwin's writing very much and popularized it greatly. right now, i think that the playing field between competing hypotheses is more level than it was in the past.and yes, i missed the point of the thread, too.
going back on track, i.e. fact vs theory, a theory is such when it can be falsified by removing non-physical assumptions. this does not apply to facts. ask popper. or jeeves.
solefald
Vheissu
well as I believe in god I think he is responsible for all things.but how he did create the universe, well I dont care if in seven days or 7billioon years and so on. but I think theres some kind of logic behind all physical laws and perhpas he did it with some kind of evolution theory or something else. I dont care. Mankind will never check out how god works. if they do so, they would be god.
fact is we dont know if the ET is right or not. its a theory and there are others around.
I think its not important where we come from, its more important to think about where do we go?
fact is we dont know if the ET is right or not. its a theory and there are others around.
I think its not important where we come from, its more important to think about where do we go?
Rincewind
Find tranquillity in dark
@Nemesis_lxix: Not necessary, call it as you wish,since I can't say I really believe in God, or some superior being...just something bigger from a pure "accident"
My question exactly.S4R said:
Of course atoms (make that subatomic particles) had to come from somewhere. From where we will never know, but that's why there are theories (i.e. the "big bang" theory and so on) which make a decent attempt at explaining what might have been the reason for the existence of everything. Obviously, you can always go back one step and ask "but why?", but that's just being stubborn. I do believe it's all just particles and energy coming together and interacting.
I'd even go as far as saying that monotheistic religions are one of the two greatest evils of all time, but that would only spur philosophical/theological debate which would never end.Illnath said:
The thing is that they have been proven true better and more drastically than other theories. Especially the atomic theory. While i do agree that, strictly speaking, they're just "very persuasive theories", i don't think there's one bit of knowledge (actual knowledge, not metaphysical suppositions) that contradicts the existence of atomic and subatomic particles. It might be that next week an article will come out in Science which will prove such a theory to be wrong, but i find it less probable than a cow spontaneously developing wings (in all seriousness).rahvin said:
It does imply, however, that the god(s) who created everything thought up stuff as complex as subatomic physics, evolution, organic chemistry, biochemistry and astrophysics, which is highly unlikely. It would be more logical that everything were much simpler, that no "uncertainty principle" existed which doomed all life never to come to know everything about the universe and that people didn't have more curiosity than their science could satisfy. Unless, of course, said god(s) is/are extremely evil and leisurely.rahvin said:
Also, one argument against "intelligent design" is that living organisms aren't really perfect. They're highly susceptible to disease, predation, hunger (lack of essential resources to keep the cell alive), mutation, and large-scale natural disasters. An "intelligent design" would work to improve resistance to this before attempting to create new species (actually, the very definition of 'species' is rather subjective). The only reason the fittest survive is that the unfit die out. If there were a malaria epidemic which wiped out every living being except anemic people (which are resistant/immune to malaria), you wouldn't say anemics are "fitter" than non-anemics, only that for a strange and completely unlikely reason they survived.
Claudia: Darwin was wrong in some of his points, yes, but evolution in general (not darwinism in particular) is what can be thought of as a fact (or a "very persuasive theory", to quote rahvin
).After all, biology is chemistry and chemistry is physics, so living organisms function according to physical "assumptions". Removing non-physical assumptions, we're left with the molecular basis of life (and evolution, for the purpose of this thread). A mutation occurs for a physical or chemical reason, the affected gene has an effect on the phenotype of the organism, a new species is born. I believe this proves evolution rather than falsifying it.hyena said:
But that's neither the point of this thread nor a scientific discussion. :\solefald said:
Nemesis_lxix
Drunk Lord's Greasy $@#%*
^something you can't define,may be an entity,may be an ideology,may be a higher power.All the same,it is something we mast realise even if we call it by deferent names.
@alex: so god has to be stupid? i'm puzzled by the assumption. i would never believe in a stupid god, if only for the idea that i was created in his resemblance. 
i would never believe in a stupid god, if only for the idea that i was created in his resemblance.
Well, if there were a smart god the world wouldn't be so fucked up, would it?
Unless, of course, he's über-smart and his reason(s) for letting the world be so fucked up is/are totally beyond me...
Unless, of course, he's über-smart and his reason(s) for letting the world be so fucked up is/are totally beyond me...
GONE Ridin' Hood
Professor.
- Jul 8, 2005
- 1,805
- 2
- 38
- 38
UndoControl said:Well, if there were a smart god the world wouldn't be so fucked up, would it?
Unless, of course, he's über-smart and his reason(s) for letting the world be so fucked up is/are totally beyond me...
If there were a god, ANY, smart or stupid, he/she/it/whatever would have not created mankind.
Why?
If he were a "god" he would not be sooooo damn stupid to create such stupid creatures as humans (well...it is said:" God created man on his own image"
).I don't think there is any god or superior being, it is just a way to control the masses, specially with the catholic religion (which ironically enough is satrting to loose a lot of followers here in Latin America -I am one of those-).
This may seem very sci-fi, but an interesting theory a profesor told that he had read was that mankind was an alien experiment that went out of control.
It sounds really sci-fi, but if you think about it, nature itself is perfect. Then how come we humans come into the picture and fuck-up everything?
I mean, nature always has a balance, if that balance is broken then nature fixes it. Then how come nature cannot overcome us humans? Maybe because we are not from this world so nature does not know what to do with us.
The rightful heirs of the Earth are actually the dolphins.
And I think evolution is a fact. Things evolve in order to get accostumed to the changes that affect them in order to survive.
Nice thread, although I guess it should be on "The Philosopher" section of UM. But I do not mind
.PS: Did you know that dolphins are the only creatures beside humans that mate for pleasure, not in order to maintain the species?
RampageSword
AWARE! BEWARE! WAR!
I don't believe in god nor science, blindly. I believe we, as human beings, through curiosity, are willing to understand the world around us. However, this world was not created (I don't want to say I believe it was created by someone else either...) by us and we've been a part of it since only a few millenias. Also, our observations and compilations are all explained and proven through man-made languages (mathematics, physics, chemistry etc...) Now these sciences are all based on systems that are in the human logical way, perfect. The problem that I see there is that these sciences have been developped by humans who are not much but a very small part of the universe. I think that because we will never be able to look at life or the universe from a very detached point of view we could never truly discover everything about life and evolution. In order to really understand life, which is infinitely complex and precise, science must reach the same level of complexity and precision. I doubt any of us will ever see the day this happens, if it ever.
Similar threads
