LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksA link to share with you regarding the misconception of the evolutionary theory. [Link to bookstore site deleted] - by a moderator for irrational reasons. (NNFR - No Need For Religion)
7Likes
May 14th, 2014, 08:25 AM
A link to share with you regarding the misconception of the evolutionary theory. [Link to bookstore site deleted] - by a moderator for irrational reasons. (NNFR - No Need For Religion)
Last edited by EvolvedAtheist; May 15th, 2014 at 07:44 AM. Reason: Irrationality - (Lol)
Well it can be a belief, in the same sense that all scientists tend to believe in the theories or models that science uses.Originally Posted by EvolvedAtheist
It is very hard, day to day, to maintain the strictly proper degree of objective distance from our models. They tend to become for us reality itself, when more properly we should regard them as best current approximations to reality. This is the sense in which all theories of science are, strictly speaking, "only a theory".
But of course there are different degrees of confidence in the various theories we use, based on the degree to which they have been corroborated, by different forms of observation and successful predictions from them. And by those criteria, the basic structure of the theory of evolution (though not all details of course) is one we can be very confident of indeed.
So, if we view it correctly, evolution is not a belief but a successful model, based on its ability to account for disparate observations and its predictive power.
Just like relativity, and both Newtonian and quantum mechanics, in fact.
EvolvedAtheist, I've deleted the link to your blog/bookstore.
There are a couple of paragraphs of your blog entry that you could use here to advance your argument.
Which is no sense at all unless you completely change the definitions or like many religious apologist try to hijack the term to pursue a fallacy of false equivalence.Well it can be a belief, in the same sense that all scientists tend to believe in the theories or models that science uses.
--
Not really. Many times getting the raw measurement requires a simple model to convert some physical characteristic into what you trying to measure (pressure, temperature etc). Then, for complex systems, reanalysis of raw data can only done by models to check against physical consistency or set it on a observation grid. It is absolutely essential for turning data into knowledge. This integration of data by and into models is essentially the same as the observation.It is very hard, day to day, to maintain the strictly proper degree of objective distance from our models. They tend to become for us reality itself, when more properly we should regard them as best current approximations to reality. This is the sense in which all theories of science are, strictly speaking, "only a theory".
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; May 14th, 2014 at 12:59 PM.
I think the process you are describing is that of seeing whether new data fit the model or not. I quite agree the extension of knowledge comes from whether the new data fit the model, add to it, modify it, or invalidate it in some respect.Which is no sense at all unless you completely change the definitions or like many religious apologist try to hijack the term to pursue a fallacy of false equivalence.Well it can be a belief, in the same sense that all scientists tend to believe in the theories or models that science uses.
--
Not really. Many times getting the raw measurement requires a simple model to convert some physical characteristic into what you trying to measure (pressure, temperature etc). Then, for complex systems, reanalysis of raw data can only done by models to check against physical consistency or set it on a observation grid. It is absolutely essential for turning data into knowledge. This integration of data by and into models is essentially the same as the observation.It is very hard, day to day, to maintain the strictly proper degree of objective distance from our models. They tend to become for us reality itself, when more properly we should regard them as best current approximations to reality. This is the sense in which all theories of science are, strictly speaking, "only a theory".
But I still contend that we tend to believe relativity, for example is true, rather than always pedantically keeping in mind that is just our best current model. The provisional nature of scientific truth is something we do not - for entirely practical reasons - always have at the forefront of our minds.
I agree. My main point is there's not separation between models and data...they are intrinsically linked to one another in a spectrum from simple models used to obtain raw data (e.g. relationship between thermal expansion (or metal electrical resistance) and molecular movement (temperature), to reanalysis to quality check new data and put into a useful dimensional forms (e.g., superimposing that temperature data onto a grid), to more abstract predictive forms.I think the process you are describing is that of seeing whether new data fit the model or not. I quite agree the extension of knowledge comes from whether the new data fit the model, add to it, modify it, or invalidate it in some respect.Which is no sense at all unless you completely change the definitions or like many religious apologist try to hijack the term to pursue a fallacy of false equivalence.Well it can be a belief, in the same sense that all scientists tend to believe in the theories or models that science uses.
--
Not really. Many times getting the raw measurement requires a simple model to convert some physical characteristic into what you trying to measure (pressure, temperature etc). Then, for complex systems, reanalysis of raw data can only done by models to check against physical consistency or set it on a observation grid. It is absolutely essential for turning data into knowledge. This integration of data by and into models is essentially the same as the observation.It is very hard, day to day, to maintain the strictly proper degree of objective distance from our models. They tend to become for us reality itself, when more properly we should regard them as best current approximations to reality. This is the sense in which all theories of science are, strictly speaking, "only a theory".
But I still contend that we tend to believe relativity, for example is true, rather than always pedantically keeping in mind that is just our best current model. The provisional nature of scientific truth is something we do not - for entirely practical reasons - always have at the forefront of our minds.
Yes I see what you mean. A given measurement or observation has to make its way through a hierarchy of the relevant bits of various theories before it can be assessed against the model that is actually the object of scrutiny. Quite right.I agree. My main point is there's not separation between models and data...they are intrinsically linked to one another in a spectrum from simple models used to obtain raw data (e.g. relationship between thermal expansion (or metal electrical resistance) and molecular movement (temperature), to reanalysis to quality check new data and put into a useful dimensional forms (e.g., superimposing that temperature data onto a grid), to more abstract predictive forms.I think the process you are describing is that of seeing whether new data fit the model or not. I quite agree the extension of knowledge comes from whether the new data fit the model, add to it, modify it, or invalidate it in some respect.Which is no sense at all unless you completely change the definitions or like many religious apologist try to hijack the term to pursue a fallacy of false equivalence.Well it can be a belief, in the same sense that all scientists tend to believe in the theories or models that science uses.
--
Not really. Many times getting the raw measurement requires a simple model to convert some physical characteristic into what you trying to measure (pressure, temperature etc). Then, for complex systems, reanalysis of raw data can only done by models to check against physical consistency or set it on a observation grid. It is absolutely essential for turning data into knowledge. This integration of data by and into models is essentially the same as the observation.It is very hard, day to day, to maintain the strictly proper degree of objective distance from our models. They tend to become for us reality itself, when more properly we should regard them as best current approximations to reality. This is the sense in which all theories of science are, strictly speaking, "only a theory".
But I still contend that we tend to believe relativity, for example is true, rather than always pedantically keeping in mind that is just our best current model. The provisional nature of scientific truth is something we do not - for entirely practical reasons - always have at the forefront of our minds.
What is a belief?
Is the Pythagorean theorem a belief? If it isn't, then you must know with absolute certainty that it is true. If you haven't seen any proofs of the Pythagorean theorem, then you are simply taking peoples' word for it, making it a belief.
If the Pythagorean theorem, to somebody who has never seen a proof, is not a belief, then neither is evolution.
let's make a distinction between a belief where all you can do is take someone's word for it, and a belief where at least in principle you can test the veracity of the things you've taken someone's word for
in short, if i say "the moon is made out of green cheese", there would be ways to figure out whether this statement is correct + you could still take my word for it, but at least there's other options available to you
whereas if i said "a million angels fit on a pinhead" then you have no option but to take your word for it or not, since i know of no way to verify the statement in any other sense
Evolution is not a "belief" if by that you mean an opinion. as in: "there can be no argument over opioins". Any scientific fact can be called a belief if it is held by someone who has not tested it himself. But a belief held because it is attested to by the majority of the scientific establishment, is a far cry from an unsuported opinoin. Calling evolution a belief is a step on the road to trying to devalue it into an opinion, It is a dishonest arguement, only a breath away from being a lie.
The fact is that darwinists believe in microbe-to-man evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator.
And another seagull post from a known loon
It is the purpose of all natural science to seek natural explanations of the physical world. Not supernatural explanations. There is no reason to treat the study of life any differently from any other branch of science. That does not mean scientists are atheistic, just that religious questions are not part of science.
(I'm sure you know this, but I repeat it just for the sake of any other readers that may stumble across your contribution.)
We don't seek an explanation without a creator, we just seek an explanation. "God did it" is not an explanation. It's a cop out in the face of overwhelming ignorance.The fact is that darwinists believe in microbe-to-man evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator.
And your cartoon seems oblivious to the fact that the lab experiments simulate a natural environment, they don't synthetically create life with some kind of design...
What makes you think this is might site anyway, just because my username has 'atheist' in it? It is also a resource website and a blog website, not just a bookstore.
Doesn't really matter. It's generally frowned upon to link to a site trying to make a profit. It's a cheap way to increase pageviews and revenue whether you own the site or not. Since there isn't really a good way to tell, it's best to err on the side of caution. If there is information on that site relevant to your case, place the material here and reference the site appropriately. Otherwise, it looks like spam.What makes you think this is might site anyway, just because my username has 'atheist' in it? It is also a resource website and a blog website, not just a bookstore.
EDIT: I would also suggest taking out the snide comment directed toward the moderator in your OP. Leaving it in the same color as the mod's comment also looks like impersonation. It's best not to heckle the mods at all really. If you want to discuss the removal of the link, just PM the mod who edited it out and explain your case. They're willing to listen.
……..and moreover, oblivious also to the difference between evolution (for which there is a mass of detailed evidence) and abiogenesis (about which we only have a few speculative hypotheses).We don't seek an explanation without a creator, we just seek an explanation. "God did it" is not an explanation. It's a cop out in the face of overwhelming ignorance.
And your cartoon seems oblivious to the fact that the lab experiments simulate a natural environment, they don't synthetically create life with some kind of design...
Obvious troll. Not sure how you mods didnt caught up to that. Noone is this stupid on purpose.
| « Viruses and Computer Viruses | Diel Vertical Migration In Lab? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
