Scientific Theories. Lets look at those.

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 9
Next Last

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#1 Jan 3, 2014
I figured it is about time for me to start a thread.

Lets look more closely at what you believe:

Scientific theory - It is an excepted explanation of what is thought to be known right to date but can be/has been/will be changed at any time when more knowledge/understanding/eviden ce is acquired or comes along. So it is nothing set in stone. Thought of as "good for now but can be changed at any time".

It is an oxymoron statement to say "we know this is right based on a testable theory that has evidence to back it up,,,,, but can be falsified and changed at any time". << which means the evidence is nothing but a theory itself.

Those tests that support those theories are just like the theories their self. The tests are only valid with knowledge known to date but can be/has been/will be changed at any time when more knowledge/understanding/eviden ce is acquired. Most of the tests are only theories as well when it comes down to reality.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#2 Jan 4, 2014
I have been busy elsewhere lately, but this thread has a little promise.

Let's try to clear up some concepts first. When you accept or "believe in" a theory the correct was to treat it is as if it were provisionally true. In other words you give the creators of the theory credit for having made their point and until something better comes along you will believe it.

Scientists are a fickle lot when it comes to theories, they are always looking for a bigger better deal. Of course some theories surpass others and withstand the test of time. Since this is the evolution branch of Topix let's look at that theory. It has withstood all sorts of tests for over one hundred and fifty years. Many of the tests were proposed by people who were trying to disprove it. It has passed them all, otherwise it would no longer be a theory.

Which brings us to tests and predictions. A theory has to be testable to even consider being a theory. There are all sorts of tests that would debunk it. I even heard Kent Hovind bring one up in a debate and he clearly did not understand it. If an animal had anomalous cells from a far removed species would it debunk the theory? Today the answer is "not necessarily" since there is the very small possibility that the animal was the result of genetic research experiments, but barring that finding such would be deadly to the theory. Good old Kent thought that evolutionists would handwave it away but that only showed his lack of understanding of biology.

Very often the tests that kill a theory are brought about by those that oppose it. There is nothing wrong with that. And yet again creationists have not been able to come up with such a test.

A theory should also be a tool that makes predictions. One example is the finding of Tiktaalik. It was known that both the environment and age of the strata that they eventually found Tiktaalik in were the "right" ones. It was the first fossil that was found based upon predictions rather than just digging in a layer known to have fossils in it.

Now I am not saying that it is impossible to overturn the theory of evolution, but then it is not impossible to overturn the theory of gravity. It is just extremely unlikely to overturn either one. Both seem to be very correct and at most they will be tweaked and corrected as the years go by, Correcting and improving a theory is not overturning it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#3 Jan 5, 2014
replaytime wrote:
I figured it is about time for me to start a thread.
Lets look more closely at what you believe:
Scientific theory - It is an excepted explanation of what is thought to be known right to date but can be/has been/will be changed at any time when more knowledge/understanding/eviden ce is acquired or comes along. So it is nothing set in stone. Thought of as "good for now but can be changed at any time".
It is an oxymoron statement to say "we know this is right based on a testable theory that has evidence to back it up,,,,, but can be falsified and changed at any time". << which means the evidence is nothing but a theory itself.
Those tests that support those theories are just like the theories their self. The tests are only valid with knowledge known to date but can be/has been/will be changed at any time when more knowledge/understanding/eviden ce is acquired. Most of the tests are only theories as well when it comes down to reality.
Its not an oxymoron. Its a clear understanding of the limits of our knowledge and how we can come to know something. We can know something of the real world "beyond all reasonable doubt" but we cannot know it with mathematical certainty. Part of the reason is that our observations and measurements can never be perfect. Another is that in principle, more than one theory can successfully explain the same things.

Thus Newton's gravity was true...but after 250 years with further measurements, found to be "not quite" true. Einstein's gravity got everything right that Newton had, and also explained those few anomalies. Now, when our measuring devices are a million times better than today's, will Einstein's gravity predictions still be true? We have no way of knowing.

So if I say "I support theory X", then if you understand science and know where I am coming from, you will understand the caveats. Theory X is right because:

1. Its explained what has been observed.

2. Its made predictions suggesting new things that would be observed, and they since have been.

3. Its made predictions about what should NOT be observed if its true, and they have not been.

Do we have any way of knowing whether some discovery from left-field will one day force us to modify or abandon the current theory X ? No - we have no way of knowing that.

Consider it a lesson in humility and honesty - the scientific method cannot claim to reveal Grand, Eternal, Unalterable Truths - or at least, even if it does, we cannot know with certainty that they ARE Grand, Eternal, Unalterable Truths! We can only say that our confidence in a truth grows as it withstands more and more testing, year after year, decade after decade, and still meets conditions 1, 2, 3, above.

It furthermore says - these are the only kinds of truth humans can arrive at, and that assertions of TRUTH! that fail to meet 1,2, 3, are basically useless and worse, dogmatic.

Meaning they set themselves up as something to be believed in without ever giving us good reason to believe them. Which is why, in the end, those kinds of assertions are usually backed, in the end, by guns or emotional appeals to fear, hope, or bribery, etc. Believe this and wonderful things will happen to you!!! Don't believe it and terrible things will happen! Who are YOU to question this Religion / Party / great Philosopher...etc.

There is a better way. Evidence and reason. Do not accept a claim without examining these. Be willing to accept uncertainty as a real and unalterable condition of living honestly.

To paraphrase Churchill, the scientific method delivers the lowest standard of TRUTH...except for all the other methods we have tried!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#4 Jan 5, 2014
And in my view, its the acceptance of dogmatic truths and the short circuiting of your faculties of reason and observation that enable mass manipulation to occur in groups.

And that is what makes dogmatism evil.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#5 Jan 5, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
Scientists are a fickle lot when it comes to theories, they are always looking for a bigger better deal.
That is very true and I'm very proud of rejecting several mainstream, government approved conspiracy theories, such as
in favor of grand conspiracy theory: http://everythingimportant.org
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#6 Jan 5, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
And in my view, its the acceptance of dogmatic truths and the short circuiting of your faculties of reason and observation that enable mass manipulation to occur in groups.
And that is what makes dogmatism evil.
Hi Chimney. Your axiom set is obviously faulty. All conclusions depend on presuppositions. Furthermore, there is abundant evidence to validate Noam Chomsky's thesis that the major cause of what short circuits the faculties of reason and observation is the inclination to serve power systems regardless of the merits of valid arguments. http://everythingimportant.org/intellectuals

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#7 Jan 5, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Hi Chimney. Your axiom set is obviously faulty. All conclusions depend on presuppositions. Furthermore, there is abundant evidence to validate Noam Chomsky's thesis that the major cause of what short circuits the faculties of reason and observation is the inclination to serve power systems regardless of the merits of valid arguments. http://everythingimportant.org/intellectuals
I see no conflict between the notions that "inclination to serve power systems" and the acceptance of dogma (convictions lacking empirical and logical support). In fact I would say they are two sides of the same coin - a willingness to suspend personal judgement and reason in subjugation to imposed solutions. And I see the motivation to do this as evidence of human difficulty with the notion of uncertainty and doubt, because they cannot handle the insecurity.

The antidote is the understanding that any security derived from false certainty is illusory anyway. Better to accept the uncertainty and know that this is probably a part of the human condition.

You kid yourself that rejecting the mainstream of science makes you intellectually independent, while in actuality you have hooked your wagon to the ultimate indoctrination of absolute faith with zero evidence.

As to the presuppositions I accept, these are based on the scientific method with the understanding that even this is not fully defensible in a philosophical sense, but has shown that it is useful and effective in telling us things about the world that we were previously ignorant about. Not only that, but these discoveries have had positive practical implications; that is, if you happen to regard comfort, health, longevity, and physical security as positive implications. For many a hair shirted man-hating ascetic, this may not be the case as they would rather see humans wallow in the muck of bare subsistence. But I am not one of them.

Your mathematics is a beautiful though impotent tool unless wedded to the practical dimension that empirical science can offer, whereupon mathematics comes to have some utility. You scorn the empirical while burying yourself in the maths, and its not an unusual thing to see people like you who fear the fuzzy imperfections of the empirical world.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8 Jan 6, 2014
replaytime wrote:
I figured it is about time for me to start a thread.
Lets look more closely at what you believe
Our beliefs are irrelevant.

Doesn't matter how many times I ram that into your thick skull you seem to think it's important.

It ain't.
replaytime wrote:
Scientific theory - It is an excepted explanation of what is thought to be known right to date but can be/has been/will be changed at any time when more knowledge/understanding/eviden ce is acquired or comes along. So it is nothing set in stone. Thought of as "good for now but can be changed at any time".
It is an oxymoron statement to say "we know this is right based on a testable theory that has evidence to back it up,,,,, but can be falsified and changed at any time".
And this applies to EVERY scientific theory. Theories can change at any time if new evidence is discovered and requires a theory to be modified, or perhaps even changed completely. All scientific need this quality - it's called the potential for falsification. It's what's used to make scientific predictions. Simple example - apple falls up, theory of gravity falsified.

This is what distinguishes science from dogma.
replaytime wrote:
<< which means the evidence is nothing but a theory itself.
Wrong.

The evidence is observable phenomena. The theory makes scientific predictions BASED on that phenomena. The evidence is NOT the theory, the THEORY is the theory. It is the explanatory framework which makes sense of the evidence.
replaytime wrote:
Those tests that support those theories are just like the theories their self. The tests are only valid with knowledge known to date but can be/has been/will be changed at any time when more knowledge/understanding/eviden ce is acquired. Most of the tests are only theories as well when it comes down to reality.
No, the tests are practical applications of the theory in question. If the theory is making successful predictions then it's a good indicator that the theory is correct. But there is always the possibility, no matter how small, that new evidence will require the theory to change.

This is how science works. Pointing out that science has the potential for falsification is NOT a problem for science. For without that potential it wouldn't BE science.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#9 Jan 6, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> That is very true and I'm very proud of rejecting several mainstream, government approved conspiracy theories, such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Zs_quLjUHwMXX in favor of grand conspiracy theory
Yeah, it's all a big massive gummint conspiracy against invisible Jewish magic. This is why no-one takes you seriously.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#10 Jan 6, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Hi Chimney. Your axiom set is obviously faulty.
Ah shaddap Shoob, you uber-dogmatic nut.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#11 Jan 6, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
You kid yourself that rejecting the mainstream of science makes you intellectually independent, while in actuality you have hooked your wagon to the ultimate indoctrination of absolute faith with zero evidence.
Grand conspiracy theory ( everythingimportant.org ) has tons of evidence. Your very denial of that is proof that you are a victim of ultimate indoctrination and absolute faith with zero evidence.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#12 Jan 6, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Grand conspiracy theory ( everythingimportant.org ) has tons of evidence. Your very denial of that is proof that you are a victim of ultimate indoctrination and absolute faith with zero evidence.
Your foil hat must have sprung a leak.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#13 Jan 6, 2014
The Dude wrote:
Yeah, it's all a big massive gummint conspiracy against invisible Jewish magic. This is why no-one takes you seriously.
Our gummamint is just as much a willing Dupe as you are. They are not in control.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#14 Jan 6, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Grand conspiracy theory ( everythingimportant.org ) has tons of evidence. Your very denial of that is proof that you are a victim of ultimate indoctrination and absolute faith with zero evidence.
No, I do not deny it as I have not read it. Nor will I revisit your silly site. If you want to bring evidence to this forum you are welcome, but I am not plying your game of trying to boost the visitor count to your little website.

However as I recall, you seem to think the existence of large, robust creatures in earlier epochs proves that devolution, not evolution, is the process operating in living creatures. You conveniently ignore that the period of the largest and most robust creatures, the Jurassic, is relatively recent and preceded by 200 million years of land based evolution where the predecessors to the Jurassic giants were far smaller. Not only that but its a childish mistake to equate size with progress anyway. Periods of giantism have come and gone as climate factors changed the environmental optima time and again.

The evidence I cite in favour of evolution lies in the fossil record and the genome primarily with secondary lines of evidence in support. Both major lines of evidence display the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution with common ancestry and this is not "zero evidence" but compelling evidence. Not compelling for any dogmatic reason but for the perfectly logical one that it is a prediction of ToE and its confirmed repeatedly by empirical evidence.

Feel free to attempt your critique of that evidence. Claiming it does not exist is merely lying. Claiming that it only exists through a grand conspiracy against the "real" truth is insane paranoia, especially considering that the evidence for evolution has continued to strengthen over 150 years across national boundaries, regimes antithetic to the theory, and countless falsification attempts by scientists and religionists alike.

You have a brain Shubee, but you have merely used it to provide yourself with better rationalisations for your dogmatic belief system than most, and its transparently obvious to everyone but yourself. You combine paranoia with an intense egotism, comparing yourself with intellectual giants that you aspire to rival while in reality you offer nothing.
FREE BIRD BREEZE

Jacksonville, FL

#15 Jan 7, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Our beliefs are irrelevant.
Doesn't matter how many times I ram that into your thick skull you seem to think it's important.
It ain't.
<quoted text>
And this applies to EVERY scientific theory. Theories can change at any time if new evidence is discovered and requires a theory to be modified, or perhaps even changed completely. All scientific need this quality - it's called the potential for falsification. It's what's used to make scientific predictions. Simple example - apple falls up, theory of gravity falsified.
This is what distinguishes science from dogma.
<quoted text>
Wrong.
The evidence is observable phenomena. The theory makes scientific predictions BASED on that phenomena. The evidence is NOT the theory, the THEORY is the theory. It is the explanatory framework which makes sense of the evidence.
<quoted text>
No, the tests are practical applications of the theory in question. If the theory is making successful predictions then it's a good indicator that the theory is correct. But there is always the possibility, no matter how small, that new evidence will require the theory to change.
This is how science works. Pointing out that science has the potential for falsification is NOT a problem for science. For without that potential it wouldn't BE science.
Are there any good ID theories that you have seen?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#16 Jan 7, 2014
Still not caring Mikey.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#17 Jan 7, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
You have a brain Shubee, but you have merely used it to provide yourself with better rationalisations for your dogmatic belief system than most, and its transparently obvious to everyone but yourself. You combine paranoia with an intense egotism, comparing yourself with intellectual giants that you aspire to rival while in reality you offer nothing.
It is true that I have called myself the David Hilbert of theology but how crazy is that compared to Jesus of Nazareth who called himself "the way, the truth, and the life"?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#18 Jan 7, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
If you want to bring evidence to this forum you are welcome,
I doubt that but here you go:


https://www.youtube.com/watch...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#19 Jan 8, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I doubt that but here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Zs_quLjUHwMXX
https://www.youtube.com/watch...
911 Truther videos are not evidence in a forum about a supposed 150 year conspiracy to support evolution and suppress any evidence to the contrary.

Since you have just asked if you are as crazy as Jesus and now present "evidence" of one conspiracy as evidence of another far bigger one, then I have to say, yes, you are nuts. Now it looks to me that you have found refuge in conspiracy theories to explain to yourself why nobody is taking your "brilliant" ideas seriously.

Its so much easier for a crazy man to believe that everyone else is a dumb dupe to a conspiracy of Masters pulling the puppet strings, than to accept that quite possibly, his own ideas are just plain wrong and THAT is why people are ignoring them.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#20 Jan 8, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
Since you ... now present "evidence" of one conspiracy as evidence of another far bigger one,
You are mistaken. Grand conspiracy theory ( everythingimportant.org ) is merely a scientifically credible collection of true and very important conspiracy theories that fit into a untied framework. For example, since it is widely believed that science can be applied to unravel past events, then certainly the scientific paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,- Niels H. Harrit et al," published in a peer-reviewed journal, is a valid example of empirical science.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 19 min Blitzking 163,575
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 2 hr GTID62 63
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr Chimney1 141,315
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Tue Kathleen 19,031
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) May 18 SoE 178,597
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) May 18 MADRONE 1,870
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) May 15 emrenil 1,243
More from around the web