Evidence & Testing in the Scientific Field (Updated 1/8)

[VoijaRisa]

Updated Further Reading section with new link: Why are ID Proponents/Creationists intellectually dishonest?

[Redox Detox]

VoijaRisa, you are my hero.

[VoijaRisa]

speedy23

VoijaRisa, you are my hero.

I seem to be getting that a lot recently.

[VoijaRisa]

Updated with new link to Evolution, Entropy, the Big Bang, and the Second Law.

[fortress_inu_kag]

im a christian

[Jay Bay Bear]

I just wanna say how you've made me realise something.
Back in high school my RE ( Religious Education, more like forced morals and beliefs ) Teacher told us that the big bang theory is so impossible (she was an ordaned [however thats spelled] Viccar) because of this example:
You've probably heard it before but for those that havn't here it is. A watch is taken appart and all the tiny cogs, screws, hands and bits are put into a box. The box is then shaken, the probability that the watch will have come back into place again is almost impossible. That is how she said creating man kind was.
After that I went home and thought about it, thinking surely there must be something missing, and yur post just brought that to light for me.
1. If the old bat had stood there and shook that box for trillions and trillions of years, then possible it could have happened.
2. It didn't all just appear at once, like the watch coming back into one piece instantly. If it were that two pieces of the watch that were meant to be together came together, glue those two, then shake again, if two pieces come together that aren't supposed to, take them appart and shake again.
This example makes so much more sense to me now, thanks for a great read!

[VoijaRisa]

fortress_inu_kag

im a christian

Congratz. Want a cookie?

OoJayoO

I just wanna say how you've made me realise something.
Back in high school my RE ( Religious Education, more like forced morals and beliefs ) Teacher told us that the big bang theory is so impossible (she was an ordaned [however thats spelled] Viccar) because of this example:
You've probably heard it before but for those that havn't here it is. A watch is taken appart and all the tiny cogs, screws, hands and bits are put into a box. The box is then shaken, the probability that the watch will have come back into place again is almost impossible. That is how she said creating man kind was.
After that I went home and thought about it, thinking surely there must be something missing, and yur post just brought that to light for me.
1. If the old bat had stood there and shook that box for trillions and trillions of years, then possible it could have happened.
2. It didn't all just appear at once, like the watch coming back into one piece instantly. If it were that two pieces of the watch that were meant to be together came together, glue those two, then shake again, if two pieces come together that aren't supposed to, take them appart and shake again.
This example makes so much more sense to me now, thanks for a great read!

What your teacher was telling you was essentially a strawman. It pretends that evolution assembles complex systems spontaneously and completely randomly. This is completely wrong. Evolution only has a random component. However, it is guided by natural selection which makes it no longer random.

Additionally, this is also a strawman because watches do not reproduce. However, when we do make watches "reproduce", they can make functional timepieces.

Lastly, it's also wrong because it assumes a planned destination: A watch. Evolution does not do this. While resetting all life back to the first organism and letting it evolve over again wouldn't produce humans, but so what? It would produce something more complex and well suited to the environment. The only people that believe that humans are mystically "intended" are delusional theists that get a little too hooked on the "created in God's image" bit. I have a strong suspicion that they have an extremely low self esteem if they need to be told they're special.

[Bewbs McBewb]

Whilst your topic is an incredible feat of time and effort, it's just such a damn shame we still live in a time where you even had to create it.

[VoijaRisa]

Stuch

Whilst your topic is an incredible feat of time and effort, it's just such a damn shame we still live in a time where you even had to create it.

In all fairness, it took far less time to create one thread that I can point to over and over instead of trying to repeat myself over and over. It took a greater investment of time initially, but now when someone says "there's no evidence for evolution/big bang" all I have to do is put up a link and say "Bullshit." as opposed to typing it all out again. So I think in the end, it's actually a big time save.

And as far as intellect, well, I've been researching and debating this topic for >5 years. The large majority of this was organized off the top of my head. I just had to find the sources to back it up.

Either way, I agree that it is pathetic that people are so willfully ignorant that I did need to type it up in the first place. sad

[Bewbs McBewb]

VoijaRisa

And as far as intellect, well, I've been researching and debating this topic for >5 years. The large majority of this was organized off the top of my head. I just had to find the sources to back it up.

Hell, that in itself is impressive as far as I'm concerned. I've never stuck at researching one thing for five years, but I have been studying civil engineering for the past three and a half. Even then, nobody ever takes me seriously in "9/11 collapse or demolition?" debates.

Our two subjects do have a major aspect in common. Evolution and its continuing study affects so many aspects of our lives its insane and yet, this influence goes entirely unnoticed except by those within the field. The same with civil engineering. The amount of people who think buildings are just drawn or that road systems simply design themselves is staggering.

These two aspects of our world - amongst many, many others - change our lives for the better everyday. And change even the lives of those who dispute or willfully ignore their existance.

[Bromius Bacchus]

I often think that creationists make a big deal out of evolution and claim it is people trying to prove God doesn't exist. In fact I think evolution isn't disproving God's existence but more likely saying that the Creationist Myth in Genesis may have error. If Man did not have a written language as soon as they began speaking then the original story was passed down orally and the source could not be from God because oral stories tend to get corrupted by a person's individual interpretation. So the argument that Evolution is undermining a story that was written centuries after it originated and thus lost much content and may have been interpreted literally in places that metaphors were the original content is silly. If human error is taken into account in science then shouldn't we consider the possibility of content lost in oral traditions and literature after translations, and individual interpretation cause the story to lose some of it's meaning?

[ChocolateMakesMeHighXD--]

adurpadurp??????

huyfung ai ollo yeeishnokh fluupoiyeeaffs nokkh

[VoijaRisa]

ChocolateMakesMeHighXD

adurpadurp??????

huyfung ai ollo yeeishnokh fluupoiyeeaffs nokkh

I agree.

Completely.

Only if I'm agreeing you're an idiot.

[VoijaRisa]

slslsslslslslslslslsl

I don't believe much about science. I'd take the Bible and God's Word over experiments done by a flawed mankind.

I see. You'll take a book that was written and mistranslated and mis copied by "flawed mankind" over observed reality.

You're a smart one. And by smart one, I mean a troll.