Dumbed Down Evolution For The Masses

[MerlinsByte]

Evolutionary theory is very weak and becoming weaker. This can be demonstrated by the tautologies and circular reasoning that is used to provide “evidence” for large scale evolution. This wishful thinking is undeniable with regard to the circularity invoked in dating rock layers.

Today geologists and paleontologists look for wiggle room via catastrophe as a normal occurrence in history. although they usually avoid the word catastrophe. So, many geologists now see rare, short-lived “event” as being the principal contributors to geologic sequences. The periods of relative quiet contribute only a small part of the record! What a complete reversal of theory!

The procedure geologists now use to date rocks, and the fossils that they contain is far from ideal and the geologic ranges of fossils are constantly being revised (usually extended) as new occurrences are found. Substitute the word revised for made up and you will understand everything you need to know about the current state of affairs in geological dating. Its simply not accurate and probably nothing more than wishful thinking.

As of today evolution requires far more faith than any religion.

mb

[Matt W]

It's called science, mb. We revise our opinions based on evidence. Faith-based creationists....don't. Do we have to have this argument yet again?

[RickSp]

Your post, old pagan wizard, is about what I would expect. Ridiculous and almost amusingly absurd. Evolution is the functioning paradigm for all of biology these days. Regarding geology, you are demonstrating either your lack of knowledge or merely your distain for that knowldege.

The critics of science and reason find flaw in advances, weakness in new discovery and understanding. Things really haven't changed much since Galileo except perhaps that the church has less power.

[Caduceus]

From what I understand, the current evolutionary charts we have are man-made. If you enter all available evolutionary data into a comptuer and allow it to draw up a chart on its own, it tends to draw a tree with branches but no trunk to which they're attached.

IMO, though a Christian, I acknowledge I could be wrong (that's one of the points of having faith, you never know for sure). All I ask is that people be reminded that evolution is a theory, not an empirical fact, and that they stop using it as a political bludgeon against theists.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Caduceus All I ask is that people be reminded that evolution is a theory, not an empirical fact, and that they stop using it as a political bludgeon against theists.

All I ask is that those who continue to repeat the "only a theory" mantra, either learn the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientic context, or failing that, take a flying leap from a tall building in order to test gravity, which is after all, "only a theory" just like evolution.

Most theists are not hostile to science. It is amusing that you claim that evolution is being used as a "political bludgeon". It appears that the fundamentalists, still a minority among theists, are trying to use their current political clout as a bludgeon against the rest of use who do not share their anti-science bias.

[Caduceus]

or failing that, take a flying leap from a tall building in order to test gravity, which is after all, "only a theory" just like evolution.

Hey, I'm a poli sci major, science is not my thing, so I'd appreciate it if you dropped the ad hominem. Why don't you explain, then, what a "theory" is in scientific contexts?

It is amusing that you claim that evolution is being used as a "political bludgeon"

From my experience, the whole of political secularism is predicated on the notion that they are intellectually superior to theists because science and evolution is on their side, so they are quite clearly using it as a political bludgeon.

If you disapprove of some theists doing the same, don't indulge in it, it's that simple.

[rcne]

The amazing thing about evolution is that the entire concept only originated a few years ago, about 150 I think. And yet it has become the gospel of science.

I'm all for science and investigating the world around us in order to further our understanding of who we are and where we come from.

Evolution provides a fairly sound track on which to base projections on. Are all the suppositions correct, probably not.

For a new field it has provided much to consider, and I'm sure as more discoveries are made the line that evolution draws will be less spotty.

"The Beak of the Finch", attempted to prove an evolutionary process. It may have been normal variation and not a speciation. The jury is still out, or shall I say the debate goes on.

[belverron]

Quote by: Caduceus Why don't you explain, then, what a "theory" is in scientific contexts?

Quote by: Wikipedia In the sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon (thus either originating from observable facts or supported by observable facts).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science

[Prometheus]

I would normally jump in on this one, but me and merlin have already done the rounds a couple of times, and he consistantly refuses to see reason. His straw man arguments always pop up the same way. I would bother putting down his arguments again only if there were people who actually believed what he said, but since everyone here sees how ludicris his claims are, I won't waste my time.

[MerlinsByte]

It seems to me , and forgive me Matt, Prometheus, and ricksp, but you have never addressed the specifics in my counter augments to evolution. Allow me to re direct your attention to this very thread.

the intent of this thread was to show that evolutionary proof for large scale change , specifically geological dating , is faulty to the point of being unbelievable. I made two points. None of you whiz kids addressed either one.

geologic dating employs (1) tautologies and (2) circular reasoning of which both are unacceptable in science.

Your rants included the usual veiled insults and just plain mumbo jumbo but no meat against these two very simple accusations.

I’m waiting guys.

: } >

[Pooeypants]

Explain how and why Geological dating is an unacceptable scientific method. Please present to me the fine details to which you have worked inorder to come to this conclusion.

Please stop trolling and present a real argument.

[MerlinsByte]

the lie

In the sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon (thus either originating from observable facts or supported by observable facts).

the truth

In the sciences a theroy is a leap of faith that is never consistent, a myth (or fairy tale) describing the behaviour of the entire universe, and everything in it, thus originating from a suspect old man, in a history of frauds , lies, smoke and mirrors, and supported by the originators of the lie.
mb

[MerlinsByte]

re read the thread and post #10 pooey. I dont mind clarifying if you truly dont understand.

[belverron]

geologic dating employs (1) tautologies and (2) circular reasoning of which both are unacceptable in science.

I would enjoy seeing examples. You've made the claim, but efforts to substantiate it seem absent.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Caduceus Hey, I'm a poli sci major, science is not my thing, so I'd appreciate it if you dropped the ad hominem. Why don't you explain, then, what a "theory" is in scientific contexts?

He's not ad homing, Doc, even if it sounds like one. He's making a point... gravity is only a theory, in that we do not know exactly what gravity is or how it works. All we really know is that it does work. Same for evolution. We can theorise about how it does or doesn't work, but the fact that it does work is obvious, because the evidence is everywhere. The difference is that the theory of gravity does not conflict with the text of a 2,000 year old collection of scriptures.

Quote by: Caduceus From my experience, the whole of political secularism is predicated on the notion that they are intellectually superior to theists because science and evolution is on their side, so they are quite clearly using it as a political bludgeon.

Then perhaps if the theists would simply accept that science is what it is, they wouldn't be handing the "political secularists" such an easy club to bash them with.

Quote by: rcne The amazing thing about evolution is that the entire concept only originated a few years ago, about 150 I think. And yet it has become the gospel of science.

The same could be said from electro-magnetism, plate tectonics, aeronautics, micro-biology and any number of scientific arenas, to say nothing of quantum physics, computer science, space medicine and gawd knows what else. Things have moved really fast in the last 200 years...So what?

Quote by: MerlineByte In the sciences a theroy is a leap of faith that is never consistent, a myth (or fairy tale) describing the behaviour of the entire universe, and everything in it, thus originating from a suspect old man, in a history of frauds, lies, smoke and mirrors, and supported by the originators of the lie.

Merline, human beings have flown to the moon and back, conquered diseases, created unimaginable machines and built a world vastly different from what it was a few hundred years ago and a few hundred before that, and a few hundred before that, all based on, in your words, a history of frauds, lies, and smoke and mirrors supported by the originators of lies.

Do you find all sciences so flawed or only those which offend your spiritual sensibilities?

.

[RickSp]

Quote by: MerlinsByte It seems to me , and forgive me Matt, Prometheus, and ricksp, but you have never addressed the specifics in my counter augments to evolution. Allow me to re direct your attention to this very thread. the intent of this thread was to show that evolutionary proof for large scale change , specifically geological dating , is faulty to the point of being unbelievable. I made two points. None of you whiz kids addressed either one. geologic dating employs (1) tautologies and (2) circular reasoning of which both are unacceptable in science. Your rants included the usual veiled insults and just plain mumbo jumbo but no meat against these two very simple accusations. I’m waiting guys. : } >

Not surprisingly, you seem to mistake assertion for argument. You claim that geological dating is unreliable without suggesting why or what the source of unreliability might be. Do you know anything about the topic? There are seven different techniques commonly used. Do you even know which technique is used in determining the age for a given strata?

If you want a response to an argument, it best to first make one.

And as an aside, even if dating was to one degree or another unreliable, a point I would not concede, it does very little argue against the fundamental theory of evolution.

[RickSp]

Quote by: MerlinsByte In the sciences a theroy is a leap of faith that is never consistent, a myth (or fairy tale) describing the behaviour of the entire universe, and everything in it, thus originating from a suspect old man, in a history of frauds , lies, smoke and mirrors, and supported by the originators of the lie. mb

So now you assert all of science, as it is built on theory, is a lie. Why bother to post on the science board if you consider it so?

You obviously live within your own fantasies. Such a pity that you choose to share them with us.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Sonart He's not ad homing, Doc, even if it sounds like one. He's making a point... gravity is only a theory, in that we do not know exactly what gravity is or how it works. All we really know is that it does work. Same for evolution. We can theorise about how it does or doesn't work, but the fact that it does work is obvious, because the evidence is everywhere. The difference is that the theory of gravity does not conflict with the text of a 2,000 year old collection of scriptures.

I would quibble slightly with you here Sonart. We know a lot about gravity because so many over the centuries have used the scientific method to record it, hypothesize and then test their hypotheses.

The debate we see today has direct parallels in history. Evolution is based not on dogma but observations. Likewise, it was the observation of Jupiter's moons and the phases of Saturn by Galileo with a crude telescope that lead Galileo to be condemned to house arrest by the Inquisition in 1633. Despite his imprisonment Galileo did manage to continue his research and arrange to have smuggled out his "Discourse on Two New Sciences" in which he measured the acceleration of gravity and lay the groundwork for Newton who expressed the fundamental relationship between mass and gravity in an elegantly simple equation.

So, ironically, even the study of gravity was once opposed by religious zealots who favored dogma over observation and the scientific method. Not much has really changed.

[MerlinsByte]

Do you find all sciences so flawed or only those which offend your spiritual sensibilities?

Sonart my dear secular friend, only the scientific methods that one of even below average intellegence would question are suspect, and yes those offend my my COMMON sense ibilities....: } >

[MerlinsByte]

You obviously live within your own fantasies. Such a pity that you choose to share them with us.

Rick good buddie, Its a pity that you cannot understand the question, much less the intent of a thread or the content, so to dumb it down a bit more...

I do believe that none of you guys that are poking fun at ole merlin understood my thread to begin with sooo, , for sake of brevity, (I detest a page full of general basic science that everyone should know and this is an attempt to cut to the chase). Tell me, any of you secular scientist guys, or any theists or atheists, or secular/atheists, what method do you feel is most prevalent method used to date fossils and or strata.

And please be brief and make one point at a time I will give you space and time for rebuttal.