Girl saying the tsunami in Japan is an answer to her prayers.

Man is the image of god, but then what is the woman?

Was the woman just created to keep the man with company ?

In short

 

No evidence for either side of what?

 

surgery sucked. Apparently all your teeth being pulled doesn't require recuperation or pain control. Sent me home with some Peridex and percocet, and said have fun.

Also, they dislocated my jaw.

 

Holy crap... I hope the percocet does the trick for you. I'm in pain just thinking about that. I mean seriously, I've had nightmares like that...

 

I went to digging around about scientific theory, falsification, and the likes. I tried to take what you said as constructively as possible though I still considered the comments to be pretty rude. I'll admit that no, I guess I don't know as much about scientific theory as I thought I did. But, I'm not sure that many of us really do know as much as we think we do. I may be slightly ignorant of things which have not been explained to me, but I think I'm at least smart enough to know when to admit that I might be wrong.

I found a few articles that I think you'll find thought provoking, interesting, and humbling (at least to me it was).
The Proof is in the Pudding, Not the Recipe
Problems with Defining Science Using the Falsification Criterion This is part two, and part one is equally intriguing but part two caught my attention first (and also has a link to the first).

I started my search because randomly I thought, "Hey wait, how do you falsify evolution? For that matter how would you even start? I mean people go around saying evolution is fact, and you can't falsify a fact" I don't want an answer to those questions. Given light of what I have just read, I don't think the answers to that are as important as I had believed.

 

The second article doesn't show much, as evolution can be falsified with valid and reliable results. Upon a quick read, there appear to be a few problems with some of the points it makes. It mentions that a proposition is not scientific untless it can be falsified. However, upon being falsified the proposition is not then definitely scientific, as it says, but rather it is disproven, and tests can be repeatedly carried out to make sure of this, before being certain that it is incorrect.

It's a bit irrelevant, but it also mentions that an emerald would not be green if the person looking at it has red-green colourblindness. However, this would not be useful evidence, as the original statement they made is that all emeralds are green, not that all emeralds are seen to be green by everyone. The emerald is still green even if the person looking at it is colourblind, they just won't be able to detect this.

I know you said you didnt want an answer to this, but there is a small issue with it. It isn't that you can't falsify evolution, there are many ways one could go about this, such as discovering a species which has not changed at all over time, and rather it just appeared looking like that and has remained so since.

Problems such have this have been looked into, and no such evidence against it has been found that goes against evolution. Therefore evolution is falsifiable, but it has passed numerous tests and still appears to be true.

 

It is very difficult to falsify a scientific theory that was originally derived using observation and even more so in fields where the predictions have been tested by means of experimentation, but it is still possible and this is why the falsification criteria is very important. In order for a new theory to be adopted by scientists, it has to at the bare minimum, explain any shortcomings of the existing scientific theory and if you can also explain all of the predictions of the originally theory, this is a huge plus, otherwise you have to define the circumstances where the old theory applies and those where your theory is more accurate.

Now, since I am a 3rd year physics student, the place in science where I am most familiar existing theories being replaced is in Aristotelian mechanics and it's replacement, Newtonian mechanics.


Aristotelian mechanics had never been tested, this form of science had been dreamed up by a Greek Philosopher as part of a mental exercise on how he thinks the world should work and it had been accepted as fact for nearly 2,000 years. It contains a mixture of, for their time period, untestable claims about the composition of matter and experimental absurdities like the idea that an objects' ideal velocity is proportional to it's mass. This theory was an absolute failure and Newton's great work was to simply test it by dropping objects down an inclined plane and measuring their velocity. The debate between Biblical Creationism and Evolution is more or less at this state since Biblical Creationism has been unable to produce any observations to verify the account and not only does evolution have evidence tracing essential every single species back to unicellular life, but it has experimental backing due to climate change, antibiotic resistance, and invasive species (you can totaly blame Man for these BTW).


Now, Newtonian mechanics has some massive failures that any first year physics student can tell you about. It's principles on optics completely ignore the particle-wave duality of photons and his laws on mechanics fail with very small objects and objects moving at very high speed. This failures were not apparent when Newton derived his work, but in the 19th and 20th centuries, technology had advanced to the point that they were apparent. Newtonian mechanics is wonderful at describing the optics for telescopes, but it did not predict interference patterns in light or the discovery that the measured speed of light is constant. These discoveries, while seemingly insignificant, lead to the development of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity respectively since these theories serve as a more accurate representation of Newtonian Mechanics. These theories are not perfect, they apply to their own situations and this is just one of the quarks that physicists are still working on, but they are still slightly better. Any competing theory to Evolution is going to have to do just this.

Your goal:
Create a theory that solves one of evolution's problems, namely, you have to find a species that seems immune to Natural Selection so it hasn't changed dispute millions of years of environmental pushes. Irreducible complexity is another avenue of approach, but it is near impossible to remove the possibility of 'scaffolding' so whenever it's been used in the past with organ(elles) like the eye and flagellum, it's failed under scrutiny. But, you should be aware, once this discovery has been located, it still doesn't disprove human evolution or the evolution of other species unless it is one of our ancestors or humans, you just have found a special case situation where evolution is inadequate.

This last criteria is because say you find a way to prove that a rabbit for instance did not evolve on the Earth or is not subject to evolutionary forces, it says nothing about the other million species on this planet. If however, you find that one of the first mammals, an animal which we supposedly evolved from, fails to obey the predictions of evolution, some interesting prospects occur that will have to be resolved.

 

You have to keep in mind that a few of us are trained scientists. I am a scientist-practitioner. We do have a reasonable grasp on this science thing. When someone bases his argument on an inaccurate understanding of science, we reasonably point this out. No rudeness intended.

Good articles. The first points out the danger of circular reasoning. However it makes a few statements that I disagree with.

First, it suggests that recipes have no rules. My wife used to be a chef, and she will tell you that they do. Physics and how humans (are wired to) taste and digest put some boundaries on things. A really good chef knows which rules to bend, or occasionally even break (cf. Heston Blumenthal) but the rules do exist.

Second, it criticises the scientific method by pointing out its imperfect start. This is like criticising a piano virtuoso based on his first attempts at "chopsticks" when he was five. We all have to start somewhere. The scientific method as it is now has produced more progress over the last century than humanity has managed in 100.000 years before. It works. Very well.

Third, it argues that all scientific progress produces a radically new understanding of the world. Not necessarily so; often it is very gradual and stands on the shoulders of preceding knowledge.

The other article really just illustrates the recursive process between scientific understanding and how that informs your next inquiry. As we are becoming more aware of how (our perception) of light works, we are becoming aware that "All emeralds are green" is a flawed hypothesis, and that a more accurate, proven hypothesis is: "All emeralds reflect light in the range of 520mm to 570nm wavelength". Don't confuse experiential qualia with physical properties...

Science is recursive. The more we find out, the more we know where we have to look next, and what questions we have to ask. Just like Mendelev's periodic table shows up the gaps.

 

For or against Evolution/Intelligent Design.

 

sounds aweful.. hope you got the hot nurse at least

yeah you know your stuff.. but when something doesn't make sense like we all came from 2 around 100 thousand years ago- that's when the bs meter goes off

after looking it up, it seems your right on the genetics though.. I read quite a while back they believed we came from one b monkey around 50 thousand- that's why I've been so against the atheist view for quite some time

because under that scenario.. it makes no sense, scenarios with the monkeys in the prison shower made about as much sense.. thousands of breeding pairs located around the globe does though- fits with evolution as a theory.. and the branch going back and splitting much earlier and having the long bake time would also have to happen.. especially when your looking at 20 years per gen

see though.. like krazeh- he'll believe anything an evolutionist tells him one breeding pair 50 thousand years back and he's all over that without question! jk man

long as it makes sense.. like I'm pretty confident skynet is not going to happen

I talked to my pops and he disagrees, said at&t has an ai and he's seen it in action.. but after asking him about the code- he said it was 8 lines and written by an american indian back in the 90's xD.. doesn't make sense, but he's my pops so ai it is

 

That's not what scientists are saying though --that's what creationists are saying: Adam and Eve.

Thing is, many people don't understand evolution --they just think they do --and then perceive the flaws in their understanding of it as flaws in the theory itself.

So am I. Not because I don't think AI is possible, but because I think it will be nothing like human intelligence with human motivations.

 

I'm always stunned at how doctors underestimate pain and overestimate the effectiveness of weak-ass painkillers. I would at the very least prescribe some dihydrocodeine for breakthrough pain, co-dydramol and cocodamol for a staggered come-down. Not a fan of percocet --too many dicey side-effects.

I sympathise, dude...

 

It should do because it is BS.

You seem to be getting my way of learning and accepting things mixed up with yours. You see I actually take the time and effort to learn and understand things which is why I don't sit in discussions about evolution banging on about some super monkey i've invented in my head and talking general nonsense. Am amused by the irony of the comment tho given your statement about having read something somewhere about us coming from one monkey around 50 thousand years ago and that being the reason you were against the 'atheist' view.

Perhaps you'd like to point out where I've even come close to implying I believe anything of the sort?

 

Pssst... I think he is just winding you up!

 

Think she needs to get back on her meds asap.

Also she can get on her knees, but its got nothing to do with praying!

 

you know what I mean though.. creation makes sense if they did find we were traced back even 100-200 thousand.. and I remember drawings of the monkey eve that just made me laugh

I know both ways of looking at it need to stretch into the unknown.. and they could really put a nail into creationists if scientists were able to clone a person.. see a lot of people who are studied christians don't see it that way, because in revelations there is talk of half man, half insect

it's hell on earth after these abominations are created.. I read revelations and I see prison shower talk.. just me though- the new testament is truly a set of, well imo the best set of books ever written, especially romans

reading some of these posts too.. can see people who don't understand the creationist view at all and always go back to the old testament for all of their fuel

like if god created man in his own image.. what about the woman =] I mean it'd be easy for anyone who's up to just say the rib.. it's not hard- or be a richard dawkins know it all and say read a book bitch

also most would agree we are not the same species.. like a shark and a fish or whale might look alike.. lion and tiger makes a liger.. monkey is a monkey

like this is how I see a lot of conversations on evolution vs creation.. all out of control by the end and spirals because people aren't looking for the truth- they are looking to protect their belief or it's an agenda

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/08/08rstraight.phtml

yeah krazeh, I'm just kidding.. that was kind of a dick thing for me to post sorry.. I drank too much coffee yesterday and posted that at 4am xD couldn't sleep

 

Argh, misinterpretation of my point(s).

When I said life couldn't come out of nothing, I wasn't eluding that a cosmic jewish zombie was the guiding hand at all, that is total the opposite of what I inferring. What I meant was a supernatural being was not involved, there was no magic ju-ju or 'will of God' to create life from the raw ingredients; nexxo's spontaneous theory makes alot more sense, especially when you consider scientists have just discovered life can flourish where it has no business to ( Clicky).

That would make my second point/ quote make much more sense; I question creationist theories & intelligent design theories & view them with extreme disdain. The myth of an all powerful creator who must not be challenged and is all knowing & all wise is laughable, as are basic christian/ religious teachings- for example:

Parent: "You have to be a good boy or father christmas wont bring you any presents this year"
Child: "If Im really good, will he bring me lots of presents?"
Parent: "Yes!, now do as I tell you and go to sleep."

vs

Priest etc: "You have to be a good christian or you will go to hell"
Congregation: "If we're really good, and repent our sins, will we go to heaven?"
Priest etc: " Yes!, now be a good christian and donate some money to the church, and don't tell the police I touched up your kids..."

notice any similarities? Im more than capable of being a nice person & a force for good without being told to- Religion serves little purpose to that end. Anyone who is scared of death and what happens next needs to relax and stop worrying about that which they cannot control ( death I mean, since the concept of fate is a mid-**** too )...

 

hmm just for the heck of it looked around on creationist thinking..

http://creation.com/a-shrinking-date-for-eve

this is what I don't like about the old testament.. they've set time spans in stone and with genetics proving otherwise

I wish I knew more about genetics.. have to trust the math was done right

 

I think that they are dissembling --especially on point 4. No evolutionary biologist ever said that Neanderthals are not real humans. Quite the contrary.

I also think that it is quite ironic how evolutionist principles are used to argue for a creationist viewpoint.

 

This is a great stumbling block for old-earth creationists and intelligent designers alike (not that they're any different, really). You interpret that a selection pressure is a physical entity with some sort of goal, taking it entirely out of any sort of context, whereas in reality what you're talking about is anything but an entity with a goal. Stop thinking of evolution requiring that forms such as what we see are produced as a result, as that is as much a fallacy as the ideas behind creationism and the arguments for such a limited, ignorant viewpoint.

Evolution through natural selection is a process by which replicating organisms become more accustomed to their environment and better suited for cycling energy through a process of mutation via their inbuilt reproductive nature. So-called "selection pressure" is any environmental facet that necessitates a change or modification so as to better cycle energy - this can be something as small as more efficient digestive processes through the uptake of a catalyst alongside their main foodstuffs, to modification of their locomotive process within their environmental medium to better procure foodstuffs. Natural evolution through descent (which is what we're talking about, remember) therefore necessitates that there isn't a guiding hand outside of the existing environment the organism lives in. If such a case were true we would expect to find clear cases of organisms better suited to their environment than slow adaptation would suggest, with clear-cut physiology not showing seemingly haphazard advantageous mutations

It is so asinine an idea to interject a "helping hand" into adaptation through modification within descent that it necessarily shows the ignorance towards the subject of the person pushing the idea forward. This isn't to say that the person making the suggestion is stupid, merely that they do not fully grasp the over-arching subject, or they are trying to push a personal agenda via nefarious means whilst completely ignoring the reality of the situation and evidence to the contrary.

I'll try and flesh out this absurd concept as best I can with all of it's far reaching implications within the context it is pushed, ignoring anything not related to the subject (such as the originating instigation of replicating organic matter, as that is completely and absolutely different from what we are discussing, no matter what your personal opinion is).

First we must assume several things before we look too deeply, as without it the rest doesn't make sense. Things like the helping hand being able to affect anything at any time, which we will limit within this thought experiment to only organic matter from the the smallest particle of matter up to the biggest multicellular creature without exception, and that the helping hand had a distinct plan for the outcome of an entire planet within a singular solar system with the absolute, uncompromising foreknowledge of one hundred percent of the future extrasolar and intrasolar events over the proceeding time up until the end-goal, the finish of it's plans. We must also assume this helping hand knew each and every single facet of the blue planet we occupy, knew each and every single volcanic event, every movement of the tectonic plates, how the environment would react, change, and shape over time, and be able to use this to it's advantage with utmost efficiency and practicality without question.We also must assume that in no way can even a single molecule of matter ever move freely of the absolute control of the helping hand, as to do otherwise would compromise everything and allow for other, unexpected selection pressures or mutations to take place.

Those are the precepts, so where does it go from here? After inception of the first replicating organic "life", whatever that process was (remember: we're very specifically not discussing this within the realm of directed or otherwise evolution - it's so different a topic as to not matter in this context), the helping hand would have to act constantly, unwaveringly on every single organic molecule in existence and by extension the organism it is contained within, choosing where it goes, what or whom it interacts with, how it interacts, the outcomes on both sides, the take-away effect, what it consumes, whom it reproduces with, what comes from that event, slowly modifying over vast amounts of time the offspring of these replicators, seemingly "reacting" to external influences whilst only further exerting it's own, specific, predetermined plan, despite actually inciting the reactionary events on both sides every time, all the time. Every single thing that has ever existed, that has ever been "alive" would have been in absolute, direct control by this helping hand, as otherwise a single creature may have eaten something it shouldn't have, or produced offspring with a slightly incorrect mutation, and the world we know today would never have existed. For the past three point seven billion years we are to assume that this helping hand has been in absolute control of everything, everywhere, all the time, without exception. Simultaneously affecting and controlling every single particulate of organic matter on earth and otherwise simply to make us into what we are today.

The control we are talking about would have to be so finite, perfect, and without question as to make the argument of freewill asinine to an absurd degree. To say that one day this helping hand just switched off all control and let us the reigns would be to ignore the constant "observed" interjection into our world through the medium of "miracles" and "divine inspiration" those of religious faiths proclaim. In no way could one assume we have freewill or any power over our lives in such a situation, because not only do we have three point seven billion years pointing to a constantly controlling deity, but evidence of further, constant control through our time as well. This is an argument of defined, absolute slavery devoid of freewill and any power over even our own mind.

This is a view so callous, so bigoted as to be offensive to any thinking person the world over, and no respect should be paid to anybody proclaiming such an idea. This is why no real scientist would ever even consider the idea of a directed universe or evolution, and why people laugh at those wanting to teach this garbage in schools to the only people who will listen: children. If you want to use your biblical scripture to push an agenda to get more people to see and agree with your sadistic, manipulative, violent dogmatic propaganda courtesy of pre-historic fear-mongers, don't hide under the cloak of "creative interpretation" of the scriptures such as this, just come out and say you reject reality outright and think the world was created in six literal days so we can laugh at you and be on our way to do something productive with our lives. It'll save us both time.