Watch and consider V (hillarious)

[OldWiseGuy]

Evolution is an applied science in various fields of applied biology. That, coupled with being the only scientific theory that currently explains the biodiversity of life on Earth, I don't think it's going away any time soon.

So "So God made all sorts of critters on the earth" isn't? (My paraphrase.)

 

[pitabread]

So "So God made all sorts of critters on the earth" isn't? (My paraphrase.)

Afraid not.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Afraid not.

But, as an agnostic, you don't know for sure, right?

 

[pitabread]

But, as an agnostic, you don't know for sure, right?

Perhaps the universe was created last Thursday with everyone's memories intact. Such thinking doesn't really get us anywhere useful, though.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Perhaps the universe was created last Thursday with everyone's memories intact. Such thinking doesn't really get us anywhere useful, though.

Define "useful".

 

[pitabread]

Define "useful".

My point is that going down the rabbit hole of philosophical relativism about our existence isn't a fruitful exercise, so I'm not going there.

My agnosticism is simply based on the view that my own opinion about the origin of the universe isn't going to change the origin of the universe.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

My point is that going down the rabbit hole of philosophical relativism about our existence isn't a fruitful exercise, so I'm not going there.

My agnosticism is simply based on the view that my own opinion about the origin of the universe isn't going to change the origin of the universe.

I like this. Thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Define "useful".

Try finding oil using creationism as a base for your science.

Real science can be used to make predictions, very often as in the case of oil exploration useful predictions. The road to scientific advance is through the scientific method. Observations are made. A hypothesis is formed to explain those observations, and then this is the important part, scientists try to prove it wrong. They think of tests that could show it to be wrong if it is wrong. A hypothesis must be falsifiable. That is one of the main reasons that ID is not scientific. ID supporters do not make testable hypotheses. Or at least they haven't since the failed "irreducible complexity" claims.

Take Darwin's theory of evolution. One of the predictions it made was that traits were inheritable. It was made independent of Mendel's work. Darwin did not know for sure if traits could be inherited. Mendel's work showed that traits were and inheritable then DNA explained exactly how traits were passed on.

If Darwin was shown to be wrong on the inheritability of traits his theory would have been refuted. Instead testing confirmed that he was correct.

This is a core concept of science, if you do not have a testable hypothesis then you do not have scientific evidence for your beliefs by definition. In other words if you are not sure enough of your idea, and if you don't want to get to the truth of the matter by testing, then all you have is psuedoscience.

That is why I so often ask how you would refute your idea if you are wrong. If you can't answer that question you don't have a scientific idea.

 

[Speedwell]

Science is such a small part of the general curriculum that it's largely irrelevant. It's almost a red herring.

You're right. A two-week unit of biology, which where I went to high school was a "pass"course of the kind taught by a PE coach on his off period.
What it is, is a Trojan Horse for a cranky religious minority with a political agenda.

 

[Speedwell]

The only reason evolution theory persists is because it hasn't been debunked.......yet. It's like a long-standing record in sports. It becomes the stuff of legend.

But you haven't got anything to replace it with. Saying, "It must be designed because evolution couldn't have done it" just is not enough.

 

[pshun2404]

Well let us consider the non-liars the non-idiots...let's pretend that once upon a time Aliens really seeded life on earth with their creation. Would they be intelligent beings? Were the first cellular forms designed by them? Or the molecules they would have seeded us with designed to become living cells? Or were the never found never demonstrated self-replicating strands of RNA or proteins natural to the backs of early crystals? Or did they just happen to attach themselves by chance the 100s of 1000s of times necessary for a single cell? Yes much more likely, I apologize for previously doubting the factual possibility of such insightful thought. So if the first scenario is a reasonable plausibility then Intelligent Design is real (only no a God), and if the second were the correct possibility then chance is the answer (which brings us to a problem similar to the monkeys in a room dilemma). Brilliant! Wow! I guess I should believe them now...

 

[Speedwell]

Intelligent Design is real (only no a God)...,

That certainly sounds like the worst of all worlds. I prefer a God and no Intelligent Design.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well let us consider the non-liars the non-idiots...let's pretend that once upon a time Aliens really seeded life on earth with their creation. Would they be intelligent beings? Were the first cellular forms designed by them? Or the molecules they would have seeded us with designed to become living cells? Or were the never found never demonstrated self-replicating strands of RNA or proteins natural to the backs of early crystals? Or did they just happen to attach themselves by chance the 100s of 1000s of times necessary for a single cell? Yes much more likely, I apologize for previously doubting the factual possibility of such insightful thought. So if the first scenario is a reasonable plausibility then Intelligent Design is real (only no a God), and if the second were the correct possibility then chance is the answer (which brings us to a problem similar to the monkeys in a room dilemma). Brilliant! Wow! I guess I should believe them now...

The problem is that there do not seem to be any. And if you don't know what Dawkins was asked you can't really understand the answer that he gave. His reply was not meant to be taken seriously. He was asked to imagine a scenario where life came to Earth from an intelligent source and he named the only one possible.

As to abiogenesis, there is no reason to assume that life cannot arise naturally and more and more problems of abiogenesis are answered every year.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But you haven't got anything to replace it with. Saying, "It must be designed because evolution couldn't have done it" just is not enough.

Sans the ToE stuff still looks like it was designed.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Try finding oil using creationism as a base for your science.

Real science can be used to make predictions, very often as in the case of oil exploration useful predictions. The road to scientific advance is through the scientific method. Observations are made. A hypothesis is formed to explain those observations, and then this is the important part, scientists try to prove it wrong. They think of tests that could show it to be wrong if it is wrong. A hypothesis must be falsifiable. That is one of the main reasons that ID is not scientific. ID supporters do not make testable hypotheses. Or at least they haven't since the failed "irreducible complexity" claims.

Take Darwin's theory of evolution. One of the predictions it made was that traits were inheritable. It was made independent of Mendel's work. Darwin did not know for sure if traits could be inherited. Mendel's work showed that traits were and inheritable then DNA explained exactly how traits were passed on.

If Darwin was shown to be wrong on the inheritability of traits his theory would have been refuted. Instead testing confirmed that he was correct.

This is a core concept of science, if you do not have a testable hypothesis then you do not have scientific evidence for your beliefs by definition. In other words if you are not sure enough of your idea, and if you don't want to get to the truth of the matter by testing, then all you have is psuedoscience.

That is why I so often ask how you would refute your idea if you are wrong. If you can't answer that question you don't have a scientific idea.

I meant useful in the sense that it can solve our problems.

Regarding "heritable traits" did Darwin actually predict that a person's children would look a lot like them? Brilliant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I meant useful in the sense that it can solve our problems.

Regarding "heritable traits" did Darwin actually predict that a person's children would look a lot like them? Brilliant.

Please, you are not being honest. You are only showing that you know that you are wrong.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Please, you are not being honest. You are only showing that you know that you are wrong.

Not at all. It was an honest question (with a little trolling thrown in). What is the 'usefulness' of science in solving our most pressing problems? They give us statistics but no solutions. Telling us that we descended from apes doesn't solve the crime problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not at all. It was an honest question (with a little trolling thrown in). What is the 'usefulness' of science in solving our most pressing problems? They give us statistics but no solutions.

Wrong, the snide remark was that of a desperate man. It was not honest.

And I am also sorry that you do not understand how science is used to solve countless problems.

 

[Speedwell]

Sans the ToE stuff still looks like it was designed.

"...looks like it was designed..." What does design look like to you? How do you tell if something "looks designed?"

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Wrong, the snide remark was that of a desperate man. It was not honest

If that's the way you took it I can't argue.

And I am also sorry that you do not understand how science is used to solve countless problems.

You have to see it from my point of view. I'm like a coach. I appreciate what my players do correctly. It's what they are missing that really concerns me.