Evolution has been Disproven

Sorry, I was just trying to be a smart alec. I'll go and have a lie down and everything will be alright.

See, that's the part I don't understand. What's the point in ever applying empiricism if, via belief, you can just jump to any conclusion you like? I have a hard time believing that you don't put empiricism over belief as a general rule in your interactions with the physical world, because otherwise you'd probably be dead now. What made you think that belief over empiricism was a good idea to apply to just this one area?

Applying belief to your everyday world is something everyone does all the time.
Example:
You get up in the morning and slap your alarm clock's Snooze button in the belief that it will turn off and in the belief that someone hasn't replaced it with a contact bomb during the night.
Applying empiricism you would have to run a test on your alarm clock before you hit the snooze. (Past experience is no proof for current situations - scientific process.)The reason people will apply belief to something like the origin of the world is difficult to explain, and I'm no theologist, but I would say it's because I believe it never will be conclusively proven, and I choose to believe in one of the options (Evolution/Creation) because to believe in neither is foolishness.

no, that would be hume.past experience is not proof, no. but it is past experience. working understandings and predictions come from past experience. that is precisely what the scientific method does.if you drop a ball from a building 100 times, and every time it hits the ground, what will happen the 101st time?it's not a matter of faith. faith is blind. trust has evidence.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-14-2005 11:45 AM

Well I wouldn't put blind faith in the drivers seat.

quote:

---

if you drop a ball from a building 100 times, and every time it hits the ground, what will happen the 101st time?

---

That's the point: you don't know. When you drop the ball that 101st time, who knows? Maybe it will hit a bird. Maybe it will land in the mouth of a pelican. Maybe it will fall down a manhole. Maybe the planet is struck by a passing asteroid and the ball falls up and hits you in the left eye.Previous experience is a good indicator of what might happen, but there is no way to remove every variable in a universe that operates solely on randomness. (Quantum mechanics works almost completely randomly.)Scientific method is trying to reduce the stray chances to a point where you can reasonably assume the result has not been corrupted. However, you will never be able to remove all the variables.I hope I made sense...

Of course, that makes sense.And it is why people, when they are speaking very carefully don't like to use the word "proven" inregards to any theory. There must always be some openness to new data that may force a change to the ideas.However, not being 100.00000% sure doesn't mean that we might not be waaaaay over 99 % sure. At some point it becomes a waste of resources to keep thinking that a particular idea is wrong. Every so often you may go back and think about the possibility a bit but you are almost cetainly wasting time unless there is some new evidence that suggests that a rethink is needed.

Your 'faith' in your alarm clock is not "blind" faith. In fact, if we carefully define our terms I think "trust" is a better word.You have a lot of real world evidence that the chances of your alarm clock blowing you through the roof is very, very small. You understand the lack of motive, the cost and risk of doing it. It is this evidence that allows you to trust the alarm clock.If you were a mobster with a contract out on you. You will be much less trusting. If you are a leader of Hamas you may well not trust cell phones. You have emperical evidence that there are dangers under those circumstances.

I only have that belief because, empirically, it's never happened. Also, deductively, I conclude that nobody wants to kill me that bad. I did. I ran a test called "induction", which is the source of scientific knowledge. Er, no, in fact, that's how scientific reasoning proceeds - inductvely, by extrapolating from past experience. You would be right, however, to realize that induction is fallacious.Funny, that. Scientific knowledge is fallacious. That would be why the conclusions of science are tentative, not certain. Now, I'm comfortable with a fair bit of tentativity in my life. That's why I keep an open mind. But apparently, someone terrified to death of the thought of having to proceed from an inherently uncertain basis, chooses to scrap the whole enterprise and simply have unwavering faith in their own made-up fantasy. One way to go, I guess, but I don't see in what way that's better.(Oh, and about your state. Only in Wisconsin would they name your fair city after the sound a quarter makes when you drop in in a toilet. Bloit!)This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-14-2005 02:39 PM

so you live in a state of permanent terror that your alarm clock is about to explode?

Yes, I agree - trust is really, however, hoping the statistics come out in your favor. If there is a 99% chance it will be an alarm clock, then I would trust it to do so. IE, hoping the chances fall into the vary large 99% portion.(Oh and BTW - no I am not afraid of my alarm clock.)

Do you believe that there is anything that is 100% proven? To date, the vast majority of theories only work 99% percent of the time, if not less. Personally, I rely on percentage of occurrence and validity, instead of what is most accepted.I have to admit, it is pretty funny talking about exploding alarm clocks and all. I'm truly petrified.

I believe you can prove something to the 99.99%, but you can never prove anything beyond all doubt.My main source of proof for this is the fact that, at the subatomic level, the entire universe is randomness.Even if gravity has been proven 100,000 times, it might just be random atoms striking each other, every time. A slim chance, admitted, but a chance nonetheless.

Yeah, I do believe that, if only on the empirical level.Concepts can be 100% correct, but only concepts. Nothing else.And the universe is randomness. Humans are random beings as well, because no two beings have the exact same reactions, even if their DNA structures are identical. However, the two organisms (no matter what class) will have SIMILAR reactions and actions.However, chaos does not beget order. Remember that. No matter what anything or anyone tells you. Even if it is random.Because even the random things have order.This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 05-03-2005 01:29 PM

However, chaos does not beget order. Remember that. No matter what anything or anyone tells you. Even if it is random.
-------------
...and this is one of the founding principles of Scientific Creationists. I don't know what side you have, but it's obvious you're logical.Because even the random things have order.
-------------
This is a contradiction in and of itself. Please explain what you mean - rules, or a discernible pattern? And what random thing are you mentioning?