Why this debate forum doesn't matter

Speedwell · Feb 22, 2018

xianghua said:
speciation isnt realy evolution since its basically the same creature. so i will call it variation rather then evolution.

What about the flying dog?

xianghua · Feb 22, 2018

KyleSpringer said:
You’re saying we observe variations within kinds and you classify that as a reasonable explanation for evolution???

yep. its only variation or speciation rather then a real evolution for a new kind of creature. according to evolution banana and human share a common descent. no one can prove such a claim.

loveofourlord · Feb 22, 2018

Ygrene Imref said:
I am completely apathetic to the theory of evolution. I have no desire to argue or (dis)prove the theory because it isn't an important part of my scientific understanding of the world and universe around me.

I don't know what you call a creationist, but if you believe a creationist is someone who believes God created the cosmos and earth as He said in the canon, then I would say you haven't met enough creationists. I personally know several of my colleagues who are, perhaps, not believers that the earth is 6000 years old, but they certainly believe Genesis 1 account. I am not a creationist in the colloquial sense of the world. I don't even know the dogma. However, mathematicians inherently understand physics. Physics is simply applied math; this is why physics is controversial but mathematics not so much. You have to create theories that are derived from mathematics.

For example, the idea of vector and scalar potential arises from the mathematical application of the vector and scalar product to the physical theory of electromagnetism. It is based on math.

Transport phenomena of cell is based on differential equations.

Obviously SR, GR and QM is based almost primarily on math - applied mathematical concepts to physical theories. My research is quantum topological field theory - which is simply computational physics. Analysis, geometry and algebra become the focus on higher level physics; [multivariable] calculus is the basis. Since Classical Mechanics is obsolete, physics has become synonymous with math; the concepts are not so far removed. Even computer science overlaps physics (especially beyond undergraduate).

As far as this cultural vendetta against creationists, or evolutionists: as I said, in my opinion it is silly. It is a game of ego.

being a mathmetician no more makes you able to understand higher physics like quantum, then being a surgen makes you able to do brain surgery, different fields and specialties and knowledge, especially when it comes to more complicted things like big bang and such.

Jjmcubbin · Feb 22, 2018

xianghua said:
even if you will check every one of those suppose "evidence" you will find that they base on faith rather then science. there is no real scientific evidence for evolution.

Please go to page one of this thread and read my posts. And when you don't understand it, quit saying evolution lacks evidence because you don't understand it.

xianghua said:
speciation isnt realy evolution since its basically the same creature. so i will call it variation rather then evolution.

Now you display no knowledge of biology, not just evolution. Look up Ernst Mayer and his biological concept of species.
We're done here.

Ygrene Imref · Feb 22, 2018

loveofourlord said:
being a mathmetician no more makes you able to understand higher physics like quantum, then being a surgen makes you able to do brain surgery, different fields and specialties and knowledge, especially when it comes to more complicted things like big bang and such.

That is not true at all. Higher level physics is all based on mathematics, and by the time you have reached graduate level physics the content becomes applied mathematics.

Relativity is based on mathematics: specifically tensors, topology and differential geometry.

Introductory quantum mechanics utilizes algebra and analysis. (I am speaking about QM I&II, QED, QCD, QFT.)

All of physics is based on multivariable calculus and differential equations at the base.

It is asinine to say that a mathematician no more makes you able to understand physics (especially like quantum) than being a surgeon makes you able to do brain surgery. Physics is not a specialty of math; it is applied math.

KyleSpringer · Feb 22, 2018

xianghua said:
yep. its only variation or speciation rather then a real evolution for a new kind of creature. according to evolution banana and human share a common descent. no one can prove such a claim.

Pretty much. There’s really no need in arguing it any further.

Bungle_Bear · Feb 22, 2018

xianghua said:
yep. its only variation or speciation rather then a real evolution for a new kind of creature. according to evolution banana and human share a common descent. no one can prove such a claim.

I love how the argument against evolution is "it's only speciation". Makes me smile every time I see it.

pitabread · Feb 22, 2018

Bungle_Bear said:
I love how the argument against evolution is "it's only speciation". Makes me smile every time I see it.

I just find it bizarre how creationists will fully embrace the mechanisms and process of biological evolution, but then turn around and deny that it has occurred. There is some sort of mental disconnect there.

Ygrene Imref · Feb 22, 2018

pitabread said:
I just find it bizarre how creationists will fully embrace the mechanisms and process of biological evolution, but then turn around and deny that it has occurred. There is some sort of mental disconnect there.

I don't.

I personally entertain everything, but there are more ways to "skin a cat."

Science, as it were, works. But, it isn't the unique solution to life. There are plenty of other ways to get "answers" - most of which people believe are silly. But, one gets results nonetheless.

To me, it is ridiculous to wait for "science" to vindicate what I knew ten years ago. There are people all over the world that can explain the meaning(s) of life processes and the physical universe without requiring $4,000,000 in grant money. When you don't treat an institution (academia) as your arbiter of truth, you are free to see the facets of philosophy. If you are stuck on the academic paradigm, you will be at the whim of its snail-paced discoveries to the public.

Jjmcubbin · Feb 23, 2018

Ygrene Imref said:
I don't.

I personally entertain everything, but there are more ways to "skin a cat."

Science, as it were, works. But, it isn't the unique solution to life. There are plenty of other ways to get "answers" - most of which people believe are silly. But, one gets results nonetheless.

To me, it is ridiculous to wait for "science" to vindicate what I knew ten years ago. There are people all over the world that can explain the meaning(s) of life processes and the physical universe without requiring $4,000,000 in grant money. When you don't treat an institution (academia) as your arbiter of truth, you are free to see the facets of philosophy. If you are stuck on the academic paradigm, you will be at the whim of its snail-paced discoveries to the public.

The thing, IMO is that science is not meant to give meaning, it is meant to be applied. There is no way to apply philosophy in any way that helps the community.
Speaking by biology, there is no "meaning" of life processes and the universe. Scientists don't see a moral purpose in everything. Scientists take Grant money to do research that can practical applications.
Anybody can make up a meaning of the world and parade it around. Look at all the art of living stuff.
Philosophy, Imo is great for the placebo it gives, but science is great for the applications it gives to communities (which philosophy, IMO does not).

DogmaHunter · Feb 23, 2018

KyleSpringer said:
Applying that nature selects anything is reification.

Ow boy. It seems you haven't done your homework.
"natural selection" is just a name for a phenomena. There is no "entity" doing any "selecting".

But your cat won’t decide to ride the elevator one day instead.

Why would it need to?
Also... where did those goalposts go again?

Without intelligence it would be impossible to make a truck

Yes, so?

Your position stands on the Christian worldview for its foundational presuppositions, that would otherwise hold no water.

huh? What does that have to do with trucks? It seems you are all over the place...
And what "presupposition" of the christian worldview do I apparantly stand on?

The fact that you can expect anything insinuates the idea that your “just good enough” brain isn’t autonomous and driven by the forces of nature, rather you’re perfectly content living a lie.

Huh??
I can't follow your trail of thought. You're all over the place and dancing all around.
Do you even have a point? It sounds like random babbling.

How do I explain it? We were made perfectly. Adam and Eve were perfectly healthy and there was never intended to be death or illness or confusion. We were made by an intelligent mind with consciousness for relationship.

Errr...........................

So you explain an imperfect brain by saying that we were created perfectly?

Owkay....

DogmaHunter · Feb 23, 2018

Ygrene Imref said:
You are experiencing a very new paradigm in which science and faith are just beginning to juxtapose. Enlightenment was categorically against organized religion.

I am not talking about the silly creationist/evolution feud that occur on the internet.

You are experiencing a very new paradigm in which science and faith are just beginning to juxtapose.

No idea what your point is here.

And, this current pope is not necessarily the "People's Champion."

ow, I certainly agree with that. Catholics, not so much.

Devout by whose standards?

There own standard. And clearly their religious faith is important to them. That's pretty obvious when you watch/read interviews of them on that subject.

The only thing I am projecting is disdain for the incredible deception academia has delivered to the population for over thousands of years

Thousands of years, ey?
"incredible deception", ey?

So, how's that internet capable device treating you?
Have been to any doctors recently?
Had any illnesses cured that would have killed you only 50 years ago?
Life is nice in the 21st century, isn't it?

- and the population's willingness to accept what they feel makes sense. Organized philosophy (academia) is just as bad as organized spirituality (religion.)

Uhu, uhu...... all those evil researches coming up with new technologies, cures for deseases, new and better ways to grow food,.... how evil, right.

It all ends up corrupt, yet people ignore that corruption for a greater good feeling that is nothing more than an illusion of exploitation mistaken for progress.

Right, right.... So I guess next time you need to have your appendix removed or whatever, you'll just pray the pain away?

DogmaHunter · Feb 23, 2018

Ygrene Imref said:
Except that whoever doesn't believe those theories are "crackpot conspiracy theorist religitards who haven't seen a science book in their life."

Nope.... not just those who "don't believe those theories". But rather "those who actively argue against it, while not knowing the first thing about it, with as only motivation that it doesn't play nicely along with their a priori religious beliefs".

You know.... the same treatment that flat-earthers get.

It doesn't matter if I am a mathematician, for example; if I vehemently disagree with the physical interpretation of the Big Bang (I am completely apathetic toward Evolution,) then I lose credibility amongst my peers

That would entirely depend on how you motivate that disagreement.

Either people need to actually believe scientific theories are just theories, or they need to stop treating people as if they are intellectually green for 1) choosing to have an mind independent of the academic status quo, and 2) having the audacity to challenge the status quo.

But that's just it..... creationists ARE NOT "challenging" anything.
They are just screaming very loudly that it's false. And when asked to clarify, they wave a bronze age book around.

That's not challenging established science. That's just being incredibly ignorant and having unscientific, religiously motivated objections.

Science actually requires theories to be challenged and questioned all the time. It's how science makes progress. But "challenging" involves a wee bit more then stuffing fingers in your ears, screaming lalala and waving a bible around.

As said multiple times in this thread already, the typical creationists who feels qualified to "challenge" (read: argue against) evolution and big bang, is typically someone who doesn't have a clue about what these theories are really all about.

And I'm not even talking about technical details..... But like very basic stuff.

Yes, when some radical fundamentalist comes up, makes a bunch of claims that don't hold up (and in many cases are like demonstrably wrong) and then goes on to demonize scientists, calling them "corrupt" and "liars" and "god haters" and then saying silly things like "evilution is a lie from the devil".... Do you REALLY expect any scientist to take them seriously? What else can a scientist do, but to ignore such people?

If you have valid objections to established theories of science - by all means, bring them! Scientists will actually welcome you with open arms. They like learning and making progress, you know.

But off course, we all know that none of these creationists actually have any valid objections. How could they? Most of them don't even have a clue about what exactly they are arguing against.....

I would admit it if it was the truth. I have said several times I have no problem with science; you clearly do not pay attention in context or quality - or you missed it. I have expressed many times on these forums that my problem is academia, and academics. There is a distinct difference.

Actually, there isn't. Science is done by academia/scientists.
In that sense, they are basically the same thing.
If remove the "academia", then science stops.

The typical accusatory, "conspiracy theorist religitard" cliche...
Excellent.

Is it wrong?
Because in your entire rant here, you haven't given me a single reason to think otherwise.

Complain? You mean make an argument that is as unbiased as possible?

Argument?? What argument?
All you've done here is complain about how evil academia are, accusing them of all kind of things. I didn't see any argument. Just accusations.

Absolutely. I have in the past, I have lost and gained advisors because I have no problem challenging the status quo of academia. As I said earlier, I was disillusioned with education, and then academia. I wasn't even a Christian until I completed my thesis, but in the mean time I trusted myself - and I didn't depend on my advisors or committee to hold my academic hand while I encountered new intellectual challenges.

Likewise, because I was fortunate enough to have some very cool advisers, and brilliant people as my readers, I was encouraged to keep the same suspicion about the academic status quo (instead of discouraged, as some of my undergraduate and graduate advisers treated the case.) What they did for me was invaluable. It prepared me for a career in academia, and dealing with people like you in real life - whilst being able to keep my professional name and academic success insulated from the collateral damage of challenging the academic status quo.

Academia is not science; academia is a political system within the scientific community. You must be dishonest with yourself, and others if you believe academia is a benign beast - especially because you may be a part of it. I understand you feel strongly your position, and judging by how it is going it would be futility for us to continue arguing, no?

It just sounds to me that you are engaged in a gigantic ad hominim.
What does any of this have to do with the validity of evolution and big bang theory?

I am genuinely asking; if you think I am just projecting my own dogmatic beliefs without an understanding of what I am speaking - who is also incapable of entertaining other perspectives for the purposes of protecting what would be a fragile ego - then we should stop here. I can distribute my words to other parties that would appreciate the conversation (without necessarily believing/accepting it.)

I'm also genuinly asking: what is your problem with evolution and/or big bang theory, and can you answer that question without ranting about "academia"?

DogmaHunter · Feb 23, 2018

xianghua said:
speciation isnt realy evolution since its basically the same creature. so i will call it variation rather then evolution.

You can call it "big yellow cheesecake" if you want, but it won't change the facts.
It's a speciation event and it is covered by evolution theory.

DogmaHunter · Feb 23, 2018

xianghua said:
yep. its only variation or speciation rather then a real evolution for a new kind of creature.

You have been explained an inumerable amount of times that in evolution, speciation doesn't mean "changing a 'new kind' of creature".

So why do you still repeat this falsehood?

Are you that insecure and intellectually dishonest, that you need to continue lying about this?

according to evolution banana and human share a common descent

Common ancestry.

. no one can prove such a claim.

A geneticist can.

Ygrene Imref · Feb 23, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
Nope.... not just those who "don't believe those theories". But rather "those who actively argue against it, while not knowing the first thing about it, with as only motivation that it doesn't play nicely along with their a priori religious beliefs".

You know.... the same treatment that flat-earthers get.

That would entirely depend on how you motivate that disagreement.

But that's just it..... creationists ARE NOT "challenging" anything.
They are just screaming very loudly that it's false. And when asked to clarify, they wave a bronze age book around.

That's not challenging established science. That's just being incredibly ignorant and having unscientific, religiously motivated objections.

Science actually requires theories to be challenged and questioned all the time. It's how science makes progress. But "challenging" involves a wee bit more then stuffing fingers in your ears, screaming lalala and waving a bible around.

As said multiple times in this thread already, the typical creationists who feels qualified to "challenge" (read: argue against) evolution and big bang, is typically someone who doesn't have a clue about what these theories are really all about.

And I'm not even talking about technical details..... But like very basic stuff.

Yes, when some radical fundamentalist comes up, makes a bunch of claims that don't hold up (and in many cases are like demonstrably wrong) and then goes on to demonize scientists, calling them "corrupt" and "liars" and "god haters" and then saying silly things like "evilution is a lie from the devil".... Do you REALLY expect any scientist to take them seriously? What else can a scientist do, but to ignore such people?

If you have valid objections to established theories of science - by all means, bring them! Scientists will actually welcome you with open arms. They like learning and making progress, you know.

But off course, we all know that none of these creationists actually have any valid objections. How could they? Most of them don't even have a clue about what exactly they are arguing against.....

Actually, there isn't. Science is done by academia/scientists.
In that sense, they are basically the same thing.
If remove the "academia", then science stops.

Is it wrong?
Because in your entire rant here, you haven't given me a single reason to think otherwise.

Argument?? What argument?
All you've done here is complain about how evil academia are, accusing them of all kind of things. I didn't see any argument. Just accusations.

It just sounds to me that you are engaged in a gigantic ad hominim.
What does any of this have to do with the validity of evolution and big bang theory?

I'm also genuinly asking: what is your problem with evolution and/or big bang theory, and can you answer that question without ranting about "academia"?

ok.

Ygrene Imref · Feb 23, 2018

Jjmcubbin said:
The thing, IMO is that science is not meant to give meaning, it is meant to be applied. There is no way to apply philosophy in any way that helps the community.
Speaking by biology, there is no "meaning" of life processes and the universe. Scientists don't see a moral purpose in everything. Scientists take Grant money to do research that can practical applications.
Anybody can make up a meaning of the world and parade it around. Look at all the art of living stuff.
Philosophy, Imo is great for the placebo it gives, but science is great for the applications it gives to communities (which philosophy, IMO does not).

"There is no way to apply philosophy in any way that helps the community."

Ok.

loveofourlord · Feb 23, 2018

Ygrene Imref said:
That is not true at all. Higher level physics is all based on mathematics, and by the time you have reached graduate level physics the content becomes applied mathematics.

Relativity is based on mathematics: specifically tensors, topology and differential geometry.

Introductory quantum mechanics utilizes algebra and analysis. (I am speaking about QM I&II, QED, QCD, QFT.)

All of physics is based on multivariable calculus and differential equations at the base.

It is asinine to say that a mathematician no more makes you able to understand physics (especially like quantum) than being a surgeon makes you able to do brain surgery. Physics is not a specialty of math; it is applied math.

there is a saying, if you think you know quantum physics you don't, it's based on math, but much more complicated then straight up math and far more then just knowing it. Being good at math doesn't make someone capable of debunking or understanding big bang or other such things automaticly.

Jjmcubbin · Feb 23, 2018

Ygrene Imref said:
"There is no way to apply philosophy in any way that helps the community."

Ok.

I've written community because philosophy does help personally, but not so much in a community.
Please give a few examples if you disagree.
Even if it does have a few applications, science has way more. The cities we live aren't a product of philosophy, is it?

Ygrene Imref · Feb 23, 2018

loveofourlord said:
there is a saying, if you think you know quantum physics you don't, it's based on math, but much more complicated then straight up math and far more then just knowing it. Being good at math doesn't make someone capable of debunking or understanding big bang or other such things automaticly.

Ok.

Why this debate forum doesn't matter

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Whoot!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads