Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
More on bad science
Author Message
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #1
 
Not a perfect article, but a good one.

<a href='http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15591' target='_blank'>http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section...ContentID=15591</a>

[quote]Desperate Times for Darwinism?
We Can Only Hope

By Allan Dobras

March 9, 2005

During the height of the Vietnam War, Vermont Senator George Aitken—a critic of the war—facetiously suggested we should declare victory and go home.&nbsp; Taking a page from Senator Aitken, modern day Darwinists are declaring evolution by natural selection to be a “fact
03-17-2005 04:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Bourgeois_Rage Away
That guy!
*

Posts: 6,965
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 106
I Root For: UC & Bushmills
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGDonatorsDonators
Post: #2
 
OK, I'll bite.

First I'll say, I'm not very spteful of other people's beliefs, I have a core set of beliefs that revolve around tolerance of other people's viewpoints about religion. I believe that some things can never be known, in this life, whether there is a surpreme being or not, or if there even is an afterlife. I generally don't try to make anyone agree with my point of view, because I respect their point of view, and don't wish to tear anyone down because of it, when it comes to religion/philosophy.

I do have a major problem with the whole creationism vs. evolution argument. The people who argue which one is right, are ignoring fundamental differences. Creationism relys on faith for it's evidence, while Evolution relys on observed phenomena.

Apparently Creationism can use the Bible as a source that evolution cannot be correct and intelligent design is the way to go. But Evolution cannot hold up because of a few holes in the theory. Creationists use quote from the Bible as given facts, while evolutionists use observed phenomena to base their conclusions on. Apparently, the earlier you write something down, the more true it is, because Darwin wrote a bunch of stuff down, but scientists don't take it as 100% fact so they do other tests to verify or throw out certain aspects. But since Moses said that God opened flood gates and it rained that is fact, even though we know there are no such gates in the sky. (I'm not a Bible scholar so please don't jump all over me if the Bible uses a different word than "flood gates" you get my drift) :D

Another misconception is that evolution is a guess, a theory. Well the scientific idea of a theory is much more rigorous to attain than just guessing. Most people do not understand what theory means so they write it off as a guess. That's not completely true.

<a href='http://www.answers.com/theory&r=67' target='_blank'>Click for definition</a>

Most people think 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. is what a theory is, but a scientific theory is more like<a href='http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/scientific_theory' target='_blank'>this</a>. nice read if you don't understand theory.

Tangent: As a computer engineer, I have had the opportunity to use genetic algorithms. These are the programs that use prinicples of evolution to accomplish a task. Mine were very simple and yet very complicated. There are many factors that go into the programs and it is difficult to see how the program will react. But through enough iterations many programs will be quite successful to acheive their goal, while others will fail, just like real evolution. As for a piece of software getting up off a creen and becoming an iPod, All I'll say is, not yet. There have been programs written to use genetic algorithms for VLSI design (designing computer chips) and they have show some success. The problem with genetic algorithms is that they take a lot of time (just like real evolution), and many of the results are nothing more than optimized versions of what is already out there, so you don't hear about it a lot. It's just not that exciting.

Finally, evolution never makes any claims about why evolution occured. For that you need religion. Evolution does not say there is no God, or that God is a robot or some other absurd thing. In just the same way, religion should not try to explain how things worked. From what I can tell most people say that God works in mysterious ways. God may take you wife or parents from you, many religious figures will say that it is in God's plan. they do not attempt to explain what that plan is, they just try to except that plan and try to explain why. Perhaps the death leads to better opportunities for the living, finding a new love or a religious lifestyle. Science can try to tell us how that person died, but not why. So why can't evolution and creation co-exist. God may have created the heavens and the earth, but he did it through evolution.

I realize that I cannot change most peoples opinions about these issues, and you probably won't be able to change mine. But I hope you at least had a good read, and maybe understand the differences a little better.
03-18-2005 09:59 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #3
 
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:I do have a major problem with the whole creationism vs. evolution argument. The people who argue which one is right, are ignoring fundamental differences. Creationism relys on faith for it's evidence, while Evolution relys on observed phenomena.
Ugh, thanks for playing the condescending as the "trump card".

First, what is the empirical evidence for evolution? Well? I've been waiting for years to see it.

Fossils? Nope.
Pepper moths? Won't work, and the data was faked anyway.
Mitochondrial clocks? A bit tautologican and sketchy at best.

And, what sorts of empirical evidence goes against the current theories? Reams.

Fossils.
Irreducible complexity.
Understanding the genome.

So, what is evolutionary theory based on? Faith...'cause it sure ain't science.

Second, it's not "creation vs evolution". The new theory is Intelligent Design. And it is most certainly based on empirical evidence. So much so, that the hard core "creationists" bash ID almost as much as evolution.

Quote:Finally, evolution never makes any claims about why evolution occured. For that you need religion. Evolution does not say there is no God, or that God is a robot or some other absurd thing.

Really? Read the literature.

It irks me when people speak up w/ no knowledge of the matter.
03-18-2005 10:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bourgeois_Rage Away
That guy!
*

Posts: 6,965
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 106
I Root For: UC & Bushmills
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGDonatorsDonators
Post: #4
 
Well I wasn't trying to be condescending, hell I didn't even spell relies correctly. I probably shouldn't have posted since I knew this is what would come of it. As for being condescending, I guess saying I have no knowledge in the matter isn't?

I'm curious what books/literature you are reading that makes claims about the "whys" of evolution.

My major problem with ID is their goals are highly dubious. Do they really want to promote a scientific view of ID, or are they just trying to debunk evoultion? See <a href='http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html' target='_blank'>the Wedge Strategy</a>

I suppose I could continue this, but I won't because like I said, I'm not going to change any opinions about this. It's just the nature of the beast, or was that the nuture of the beast?
03-18-2005 10:52 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lethemeul Offline
Fancy Pants
*

Posts: 3,591
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 66
I Root For: Pirates!
Location: Boogie all the time

NCAAbbs LUGDonatorsFolding@NCAAbbs
Post: #5
 
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Tangent: As a computer engineer, I have had the opportunity to use genetic algorithms. These are the programs that use prinicples of evolution to accomplish a task. Mine were very simple and yet very complicated. There are many factors that go into the programs and it is difficult to see how the program will react. But through enough iterations many programs will be quite successful to acheive their goal, while others will fail, just like real evolution. As for a piece of software getting up off a creen and becoming an iPod, All I'll say is, not yet. There have been programs written to use genetic algorithms for VLSI design (designing computer chips) and they have show some success. The problem with genetic algorithms is that they take a lot of time (just like real evolution), and many of the results are nothing more than optimized versions of what is already out there, so you don't hear about it a lot. It's just not that exciting.
The problem with using evolving computer programs as an example of proof of evolution is stated in the article Dr. Torch posted:

Quote:Foremost is the fact that Avida and its hardware had an intelligent designer who placed the necessary characteristics into the program and created an environment in which the program could operate and replicate.&nbsp; The basic conclusion to be drawn from the experiment then, is that evolution could not have happened without an Intelligent Designer.

And I'm going to go back to the corner because most of this stuff is way over my head.
03-18-2005 11:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Bourgeois_Rage Away
That guy!
*

Posts: 6,965
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 106
I Root For: UC & Bushmills
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGDonatorsDonators
Post: #6
 
I wasn't trying use it as proof. It's really more of an interesting note, in my opinion. Interestingly the programs to govern the evolving are written by a programmer (creator? as noted in the article), take from that what you will. They can be highly unstable if the programmer chooses bad governing constants. Basically, the idea behind genetic algorithms took their cue from the idea of evolution, they don't work the exact same way, but they are similar in principle.
03-18-2005 12:05 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fanatical Offline
lost in dreams of hops & barley
*

Posts: 4,180
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 24
I Root For: South Park Cows
Location: Luh-ville
Post: #7
 
Quote:The National Geographic article offers only specious evidence that Darwinian evolution ever occurred and does not explain how minute and essentially useless mutations in a particular life form can be so compelling that the mutated form overwhelms the entire species and eventually turns a dinosaur into an eagle.

Assanine quotes like this don't give the piece a feeling of objectivity. Entire species are not "overwhelmed" but branch off into differing paths.

Interesting article but I would like to see references for its claims of disputing evolutional theory.
03-18-2005 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #8
 
Fanatical Wrote:
Quote:The National Geographic article offers only specious evidence that Darwinian evolution ever occurred and does not explain how minute and essentially useless mutations in a particular life form can be so compelling that the mutated form overwhelms the entire species and eventually turns a dinosaur into an eagle.

Assanine quotes like this don't give the piece a feeling of objectivity. Entire species are not "overwhelmed" but branch off into differing paths.

Interesting article but I would like to see references for its claims of disputing evolutional theory.
Disputing evolution? What's to dispute? It hasn't even been proven. As of now, as someone so eloquently put it, vertical evolution can be proven. I'll yield on that one. We don't need 3rd molars, appendices, or tonsils, however, horizontal evolution, that is, evolution from one species to another, has never been proven. Hence why I ask, what's to dispute?
03-18-2005 02:26 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Bourgeois_Rage Away
That guy!
*

Posts: 6,965
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 106
I Root For: UC & Bushmills
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGDonatorsDonators
Post: #9
 
Apparently nothing, so why is this a topic? :rolleyes:
03-18-2005 02:43 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.