Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is Not a Science Folks!!
Matt
Inactive Junior Member


Message 1 of 27 (16831)
09-07-2002 2:48 AM


It is a belief system (a.k.a. a religion). This theory can't even be scientifically proven and neither can Creationism. They are both taken upon faith alone and nothing else. We can't "prove" that anything happened in the past the way we think it did. That's a fact. That time is gone and we were never there. So it's scientifically and logically heretical to suggest that we once came from a non-human.
It disappoints me when people who send billions of dollars in tax money to the goverment so it can be lobbied towards public schools for the brainwashing of my kids. I am now sending them to a private school that teaches a well-rounded curriculum guiding them "how to think" and not "what to think". I can't contemplate this socialist style "ram it down your throat" type of education.
I don't pay the schools to teach my kids anything that deals in origins or politics. Those topics have too much of an influence on the basic moral principles upon which all humans learn through life. I would rather stick with proven historically accurate principles rather than take up a humanistic philosophy(love of man's created and envisioned wisdom). We are foolish to believe that we "hit the nail on the head" at this moment in time. There is so much time left in the future for other theories and yet "evolution" is just but one. Time is the great equalizer.
There is more to life than just "existing".
-----
Added by edit (on 9/9/02) by Adminnemooseus:
A previously existing topic "Evolution is Not Science", started by Jet, can also be found in this same forum, at:
http://EvC Forum: Evolution is Not Science -->EvC Forum: Evolution is Not Science

-----
[This message has been edited by Matt, 09-07-2002]
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-09-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nos482, posted 09-07-2002 7:58 AM Matt has not replied
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 09-07-2002 8:56 AM Matt has not replied
 Message 5 by joz, posted 09-07-2002 12:16 PM Matt has not replied
 Message 13 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-14-2002 12:31 AM Matt has not replied
 Message 16 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-24-2002 7:23 PM Matt has not replied
 Message 24 by jcgirl92, posted 12-01-2002 11:15 PM Matt has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5759 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 2 of 27 (16845)
09-07-2002 7:34 AM


Hmm, somebody has been into the Hovind tapes or lectures. You should check the local police blotters to see what Hovind has been up to. Furthermore, I suspect your posts were the result of a teenage frenzy of boredom. Do you have some scientific evidence to support any of your claims? By the way, it's best not to rely on Hovind for the information.
Cheers
Joe Meert

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 27 (16847)
09-07-2002 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Matt
09-07-2002 2:48 AM


Originally posted by Matt:
It is a belief system (a.k.a. a religion). This theory can't even be scientifically proven and neither can Creationism. They are both taken upon faith alone and nothing else. We can't "prove" that anything happened in the past the way we think it did. That's a fact. That time is gone and we were never there. So it's scientifically and logically heretical to suggest that we once came from a non-human.
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/evolution.html
It disappoints me when people who send billions of dollars in tax money to the goverment so it can be lobbied towards public schools for the brainwashing of my kids. I am now sending them to a private school that teaches a well-rounded curriculum guiding them "how to think" and not "what to think". I can't contemplate this socialist style "ram it down your throat" type of education.
Yeah, they should stop these tax vouchers to funding of religious schools with public tax money. BTW, you don't know what socialism is either.
I don't pay the schools to teach my kids anything that deals in origins or politics. Those topics have too much of an influence on the basic moral principles upon which all humans learn through life. I would rather stick with proven historically accurate principles rather than take up a humanistic philosophy(love of man's created and envisioned wisdom). We are foolish to believe that we "hit the nail on the head" at this moment in time. There is so much time left in the future for other theories and yet "evolution" is just but one. Time is the great equalizer.
Science isn't about being fair. It is about the facts. You would have to live in a cave in order not to see all of the mountians of data in favor of Evolution. Even the Catholic Church had to accept it as a fact and the vast majority of Christians in the world are Catholic. Yes, time is the great equalizer since almost every day more and more information comes in in favor of Evolution.
There is more to life than just "existing".
Never said that there wasn't. Life is what you make of it. In other words it is you who gives real meaning to your own life. You shouldn't have it dictated to you by some cleric.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Matt, posted 09-07-2002 2:48 AM Matt has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5274 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 4 of 27 (16848)
09-07-2002 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Matt
09-07-2002 2:48 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Matt:
It is a belief system (a.k.a. a religion). This theory can't even be scientifically proven and neither can Creationism.

Matt,
Care to tell us what crieria must be met to make it "scientific"?
And for the record, nothing is "proven" in science. That is, with a 100% certainty.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Matt, posted 09-07-2002 2:48 AM Matt has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 27 (16858)
09-07-2002 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Matt
09-07-2002 2:48 AM


Ok so we`ve got the old can`t be proved cos no one was there one...
If theres a loud bang from the back of the house and when everyone gets there the master is dead and the butlers hands smell of cordite does everyone say we weren`t there we can never know or....
THE BUTLER DID IT!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Matt, posted 09-07-2002 2:48 AM Matt has not replied

  
Matt
Inactive Junior Member


Message 6 of 27 (16882)
09-08-2002 1:33 AM


Ah. Just forget it. If you don't get it then please stop posting heretical claims. I must confess that there is a type of phsycological hysteria abound here. Chaotic reasoning is not the answer...
I have studied ideology for nearly a quarter century, and my approach is thoroughly rationalist: I believe that ideological belief systems coincide with irrational thought, whereas nonideological belief systems coincide with rational thought. This rationalism implies that adherents to nonideological belief systems should all think alike -- they are all following the same "correct" form of logical reasoning. But it says nothing about the nature of irrationality -- it does not explain why deviations from "correct" logical reasoning all seem to follow a few simple psychological forms.
[This message has been edited by Matt, 09-08-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Admin, posted 09-08-2002 8:13 AM Matt has not replied
 Message 8 by nos482, posted 09-08-2002 8:21 AM Matt has not replied
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 09-08-2002 9:21 AM Matt has not replied
 Message 11 by Mister Pamboli, posted 09-08-2002 1:25 PM Matt has not replied
 Message 12 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 09-09-2002 12:10 PM Matt has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 7 of 27 (16901)
09-08-2002 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Matt
09-08-2002 1:33 AM


Matt,
The reason your thread didn't garner much in the way of serious responses may be because this idea has often been raised here in the past, but once discussed only reveals arguments based on semantic games with dictionary definitions and a lack of familiarity with the nature of science. You appear to be following in the same vein since you provide no reasons or discussion why you believe evolution is religion but merely bemoan the fact that evolutionists don't understand that they're doing religion and not science. I think once you support your premise with facts and argument that serious discussion might follow.
I'm moving this thread to the "Is It Science?" forum.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Matt, posted 09-08-2002 1:33 AM Matt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-08-2002 11:44 AM Admin has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 27 (16902)
09-08-2002 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Matt
09-08-2002 1:33 AM


Originally posted by Matt:
Ah. Just forget it. If you don't get it then please stop posting heretical claims. I must confess that there is a type of phsycological hysteria abound here. Chaotic reasoning is not the answer...
I have studied ideology for nearly a quarter century, and my approach is thoroughly rationalist: I believe that ideological belief systems coincide with irrational thought, whereas nonideological belief systems coincide with rational thought. This rationalism implies that adherents to nonideological belief systems should all think alike -- they are all following the same "correct" form of logical reasoning. But it says nothing about the nature of irrationality -- it does not explain why deviations from "correct" logical reasoning all seem to follow a few simple psychological forms.
They may follow it, but you stop at the first stages as if that is all that is needed to "prove" your beliefs. There are many steps in the process which you have failed to apply and thus what you are spouting is complete and utter nonsense. In other words logical arguements and word games are not evidence in and of themselves as you may think they are. Evolution fits the requirements in regards to evidence which is gathered through the use of the scientific method. It is complete enough that even the RCC had to accept it as a scientific fact. Evolution is not a belief system.
Far too many creationists spend far too much time trying to disprove the science in evolution rather than trying to apply real science to their belief system.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Matt, posted 09-08-2002 1:33 AM Matt has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5274 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 9 of 27 (16907)
09-08-2002 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Matt
09-08-2002 1:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Matt:
Ah. Just forget it. If you don't get it then please stop posting heretical claims. I must confess that there is a type of phsycological hysteria abound here. Chaotic reasoning is not the answer...
I have studied ideology for nearly a quarter century, and my approach is thoroughly rationalist: I believe that ideological belief systems coincide with irrational thought, whereas nonideological belief systems coincide with rational thought. This rationalism implies that adherents to nonideological belief systems should all think alike -- they are all following the same "correct" form of logical reasoning. But it says nothing about the nature of irrationality -- it does not explain why deviations from "correct" logical reasoning all seem to follow a few simple psychological forms.
[This message has been edited by Matt, 09-08-2002]

Matt,
I repeat, this is a crucial point in the discussion, what makes a theory scientific?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Matt, posted 09-08-2002 1:33 AM Matt has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3946
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 10 of 27 (16910)
09-08-2002 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Admin
09-08-2002 8:13 AM


Note: I tried moving this topic, but the move process wouldn't work for me. Thus, I contacted the great Admin. That the topic is now moved shows how powerful the great Admin is.
The previously existing topic "Evolution is Not Science", started by Jet, can be found in this same forum, at:
http://EvC Forum: Evolution is Not Science
Most humble Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Admin, posted 09-08-2002 8:13 AM Admin has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7656 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 11 of 27 (16913)
09-08-2002 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Matt
09-08-2002 1:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Matt:
I have studied ideology for nearly a quarter century, and my approach is thoroughly rationalist: I believe that ideological belief systems coincide with irrational thought, whereas nonideological belief systems coincide with rational thought.
Interesting. Is this belief of yours ideological or nonideological? How would you distinguish between them in the case of your own beliefs?
You may be tempted to do so based on your linking of nonideology with rationality - my belief is rational, therefore nonideological - but this is circular, because the premise depends on the conclusion.
This also raises the difficulty that logical - or rational thought -relies not only on rational argument, but on true premises. Rational thought based on false premises can lead to monstrous incongruities. As G K Chesterton put it "The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason."
So ...
How are we to distinguish irrational from rational thought?
How are we to distinguish rational thought building on true premises from rational thought building from false premises?
How are we to establish any coincidence between ideology and rationality?
How are we to determine whether our belief in that coincidence is rational or irrational, ideological or nonideological without recourse to questioning the rationality of our belief?
I am surprised that a quarter century of study has not raised these issues for you, or enabled you to express them less ambiguously. I suspect, to use your own phrase, that there is a "simple psycholigcal form" at work: that of the biased, ideologicalally driven inquirer.
I do hope your second quarter century of research is better directed and more fruitful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Matt, posted 09-08-2002 1:33 AM Matt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by forgiven, posted 12-08-2002 11:41 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3296 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 12 of 27 (17005)
09-09-2002 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Matt
09-08-2002 1:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Matt:
Ah. Just forget it. If you don't get it then please stop posting heretical claims. I must confess that there is a type of phsycological hysteria abound here. Chaotic reasoning is not the answer...
Matt, as others have said, the reason that your post recieved the replies that it did was that many others have posted the same basic concept as you but with a much better line of reasoning cited. You claim that evolution is not scientific but then fail to make any statements as to WHY it is not scientific. Not to mention that, with respect to scientific validity, the term heretical is better left in the dark ages than in a modern (or pseudo-modern) on-line discussion of the pro's and con's of evolutionary theory.
quote:
I have studied ideology for nearly a quarter century, and my approach is thoroughly rationalist: I believe that ideological belief systems coincide with irrational thought, whereas nonideological belief systems coincide with rational thought. This rationalism implies that adherents to nonideological belief systems should all think alike -- they are all following the same "correct" form of logical reasoning. But it says nothing about the nature of irrationality -- it does not explain why deviations from "correct" logical reasoning all seem to follow a few simple psychological forms.
And all of this means exactly what to your stated position that evolution is not science? I am not engaging in ad hominim attacks here but your statements as they are do not bear out a rationalist basis for your position concerning evolution. You have not stated a rational position for your assertion. Allow me to state some contrary to your views.
1) all human endevors have a philosophical basis, this incudes science and religion;
2) science makes the philosophical assumption that the natural world can be understood in natural terms based on natural laws or trends;
3) science operates under a series of concpets that incude induction, deduction, falsification and historical and physical constraint (this is a mixture of the views of a number of different schools of the philosophy of science),
4) observations of nature imply that the physical world that we live in has changed as have the organisms living in this world, this is evolution. The theory of evolution, generally Natural Selection of better, Descent with Modification gives a rational and natural world based reason and mechanism for the observed world using what is generally termed the scientific method and is therefore science.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Matt, posted 09-08-2002 1:33 AM Matt has not replied

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 27 (17399)
09-14-2002 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Matt
09-07-2002 2:48 AM


Hmmm, This is going to be an interesting reply to an old and interesting topic
"It is a belief system (a.k.a. a religion). " Religion - a way to live one's life by, a system of ethical values, a system that dictates what is right or wrong, a system that tell us the MEANING of us being here.
Last time I looked evolution does not address these things. It is outside the Magesterium of Science to address these things. This would be the Magesterium of Religion's place to address these. You have taken two completely different Magesteria and have overlapped them. They are Non-Overlapping Magesteria - NOMA. You cannot encroach upon the borders of science with the Magesterium of Religion.
Science takes evidence and tried to explain how these processes have occured or are occuring. They do not say what the meaning of this is in relation to how we should live our lives.
Science and Evolution in particular do not dictate that we should live our lives around them. It is not the point of science to answer the questions HOW WE SHOULD LIVE as RELIGION does.
Creationism - ahhhh. To have creationism it implies you have had to have a Creator. Well, this is another question that is out of the Magesterium of Science. Science does not deny nor prove the existence of any such being. IT is NOT in the Magesterium of Science to do so.
MAGESTERIUM OF SCIENCE - Deals with factual questions about NATURE that can be answered conclusively and with a great deal of certainity
MAGESTERIUM OF RELIGION - deals with quesitons about supernatural and or quesitons about ethics, morals, value, and meaning
So by the opening statement in your paragraph you have tried to lump these two different Magesteria as one and the same. It does not work.
You are not brainwashed. You choose what you want to believe in. If you wish to believe in a certain theory over another, that is your personal choice - this is obviously out of the Magesterium of Science - this is my own answer to your statement that kids are getting things rammed down their throats. Hey I agree with you, do not like the system, send your kids where you want them to be educated. Then the public schools teachings will not be 'RAMMED DOWN THEIR THROATS' But what are you doing, are you not deciding what things are going to be rammed down their throats? You are sending them to a place that conforms to your beliefs, and in a way you are ramming your beliefs down their throats. Seems to me you took the practice of socialism out of the public school's hands and put it into yours and the school where you send your kids too. I am not being mean, but if we are going to set forth standards[Magesterium of Religion], then let's call both sides to accountablity.
Proven historically sound principles????? And what history may I ask has not been altered or changed. If you wish to find accurate history, please withdraw your kids from wherever they are attending becuase there is not accurate history being taught in school. Your kids will hear of evolution one of these days, and they will face it. You cannot make the decision for them in what they should believe. They will have to make it themselves. I do applaud you in the case that you are concerned for them. But is really not exposing it to them now going to help them in the future?
It did not with me. More on this if you would like to know. Believe me I had parents who shared your same sentiments, but I have come to grips that the Magesterium of Religion is not what ALL that it is about. There are more Magesteria out there.
Sure we can prove things happened in the past. But how are you defining "proof". We have scientific evidence that evolution did happen. And based off this evidence many people believe that the evolution is true. NOTE belif - you can believe in gravity, does this mean gravity is my religion? NO.
We can't "prove" that anything happened in the past the way we think it did. That's a fact. That time is gone and we were never there. So it's scientifically and logically heretical to suggest that we once came from a non-human.
"Heretical" - hmmmm having to do with heresy. That word is used forever and ever in the Magesterium of Religion, not in Science. And was it really a logical jump from we cannot prove the past to we did not come from a non-human? Just asking.
Thoery of Relativity was not able to be tested for its validity until recently. Did we dismiss it, no we did not. Now that it has been proven true, wonderful. Evolution may never be proved true or false but nevertheless we do not dismiss it, becuase there is substantial scientific evidence supporting it. Also look into the early models of cell membranes and the atom. We had to do major revision on those early models, becuase they were not consistent with our data, but by accepting those models to be 'WORKING' models, we have learned from them, and cell biology and chemistry made great strides of accomplishments.
Well, I think that is enough. Good post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Matt, posted 09-07-2002 2:48 AM Matt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-14-2002 12:47 AM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3946
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 14 of 27 (17404)
09-14-2002 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by acmhttu001_2006
09-14-2002 12:31 AM


Anne:
It would help the readibility of your messages, if you would put a blank line between your paragraphs. You can use the "edit" feature to modify your existing messages.
I have added the spaces between paragraphs to one of your messages. But it's not practical for me to be chasing them all down, to do the same.
Regards,
Adminnemooseus (Moose in admin mode)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-14-2002 12:31 AM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-14-2002 1:28 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 27 (17408)
09-14-2002 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Minnemooseus
09-14-2002 12:47 AM


Thanks,
I will remember this. I did not realize how much it was annyoing. I will do so to all my messages.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-14-2002 12:47 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024