The Theory of Evolution

[spitfire]

double post.

[spitfire]

I wasn't trying to prove science wrong - certainly not operational/observational science. I was making the observation that science is not omnipotent and that it cannot even validate itself let alone prove some of the things that some people claim it can/has.

So are you believer in the Orthodox faith?

The beauty of science is that it is based on evidence. Even if there is newer evidence that contradicts older evidence and makes it not applicable, then science accepts it.
Therefore science is the only sincere thing. It's not afraid of the truth because it searches for the truth. But truth based on evidence, not some idiotic truth by revelation.

Intelligent design, has long been confronted and lost the debate. That's because it's not intelligent in the first place, it cannot explain why there is no intelligence in the design in the first place.

It's not your bussiness what I am. I certainly know a whole lot more about orthodoxy than you. That's for sure and quite evidently shown by your protestant views (scriptures being the only authority and all).

[Vangelovski]

The beauty of science is that it is based on evidence. Even if there is newer evidence that contradicts older evidence and makes it not applicable, then science accepts it.

And? Was anyone questioning that or are you trying to reassure yourself?

Intelligent design, has long been confronted and lost the debate. That's because it's not intelligent in the first place, it cannot explain why there is no intelligence in the design in the first place.

??????

It's not your bussiness what I am. I certainly know a whole lot more about orthodoxy than you. That's for sure and quite evidently shown by your protestant views (scriptures being the only authority and all).

If its not my business what you are then you should refrain from questioning others. Until then, I'll keep asking.

I'm sure you know lots about everything, but do you believe what Orthodoxy teaches?

[spitfire]

And? Was anyone questioning that or are you trying to reassure yourself?

Of course. You did in the entire thread.

??????

Recurrent laryngeal nerve. Look it up.

If its not my business what you are then you should refrain from questioning others. Until then, I'll keep asking.

I'm sure you know lots about everything, but do you believe what Orthodoxy teaches?

I'm not questioning others. Others have proclaimed it with certainty, and thus became a ridicule showing ignorance even to what they think they stand for.

Why do you ask? Am I being interviewed? In this case I should wear something more proper, shave my three-day beard etc.

[Vangelovski]

Of course. You did in the entire thread.

Again, I'm pointing out where science is using unprovable assumptions. It seems you're the only one denying this. Its normal practice for scientists to put their assumptions upfront. You should read more papers from scientific journals.

You don't seem to want to question or test these assumptions. Why is that? That what good scientific practice is mean't to do. Or will it put some of your beliefs into question if you question the unprovable assumptions used by science?

[spitfire]

Again, I'm pointing out where science is using unprovable assumptions. It seems you're the only one denying this. Its normal practice for scientists to put their assumptions upfront. You should read more papers from scientific journals.

You don't seem to want to question or test these assumptions. Why is that? That what good scientific practice is mean't to do. Or will it put some of your beliefs into question if you question the unprovable assumptions used by science?

Science does not use unprovable assumptions. The terminology has been given. Do you want me to repeat what theory means in science?

The obvious fail here is that you don't understand that all those you call assumptions are not assumptions because they were tested. There is no other way.
You are confusing what science accepts. Science will give you the exact proportion of what it claims. If something is not proven then it will say it is not proven.
That's the advantage and beauty of science. It's that it doesn't lie. Unlike religion.
Science dares you to test it. Religion doesn't. By this principle you can judge it. But spare me the creationism and intelligent design quotes.
It's degrading because it has been refuted a long time ago.

[Vangelovski]

Science does not use unprovable assumptions. The terminology has been given. Do you want me to repeat what theory means in science?

The obvious fail here is that you don't understand that all those you call assumptions are not assumptions because they were tested. There is no other way.
You are confusing what science accepts. Science will give you the exact proportion of what it claims. If something is not proven then it will say it is not proven.
That's the advantage and beauty of science. It's that it doesn't lie. Unlike religion.
Science dares you to test it. Religion doesn't. By this principle you can judge it. But spare me the creationism and intelligent design quotes.
It's degrading because it has been refuted a long time ago.

Are you feeling OK Spitfire?

You probably didn't bother to read this and if you did it seems you didn't quite understand it. The following is from two (secular) universities that state the basic underlying and unprovable assumptions on which science is based:

Here is something to help the lay scientist. While you may not accept what is posted by people of faith (simply because they are people of faith) you might accept it from the University of Berkeley. These are some of the basic unprovable assumptions and there are many more. Many current theories are a compilation of assumption upon assumption and while they may make interesting hypothesis, they are far from been proven as reality.

Notice that even gravity is an unprovable assumption. Whether some of the theories that form out of these assumptions are reasonable really depends on how observable, measurable and reproducible they are.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Here is some more from Indiana University. Notice that science ASSUMES that Natural processes are sufficient for understanding the natural world and that scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge (and therefore uncertain). It is not absolute knowledge (certain and eternally true).

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/NOS%...sicAssump.html

I also provided some further examples on light speed (you didn't want to count how many unprovable assumptions are made with regards to that nor do you want to provide any evidence that those assumptions have now been proven) and radiometric dating methods.

[spitfire]

Are you feeling OK Spitfire?

You probably didn't bother to read this and if you did it seems you didn't quite understand it. The following is from two (secular) universities that state the basic underlying and unprovable assumptions on which science is based:

Yes I feel fine, thank you.
By saying that someone is a scientist from any given university, it doesn't mean that they express science. There is a way to do things in science in order to provide a scientific view acceptable within the scientific community, therefore a well substantiated fact, therefore a scientific fact.
This is fundamental. By laying out creationists in disguise claiming their status, you are simply using persuasion via authenticity. As we all know from high school, this type of persuasion is the first sign of lack of persuasion via arguments, which is the right way to persuade.
That's what you 've been doing in the entire thread. And it doesn't mean a thing to most, because we are aware of how persuasion works. It's basic high school knowledge, especially in composition.

I also provided some further examples on light speed (you didn't want to count how many unprovable assumptions are made with regards to that nor do you want to provide any evidence that those assumptions have now been proven) and radiometric dating methods.

I asked you to say directly what you mean, and you didn't. Just like when I asked you to define life, you didn't.
Don't be fooled. I know what you are after. It's clear.

[Vangelovski]

Yes I feel fine, thank you.
By saying that someone is a scientist from any given university, it doesn't mean that they express science. There is a way to do things in science in order to provide a scientific view acceptable within the scientific community, therefore a well substantiated fact, therefore a scientific fact.
This is fundamental. By laying out creationists in disguise claiming their status, you are simply using persuasion via authenticity. As we all know from high school, this type of persuasion is the first sign of lack of persuasion via arguments, which is the right way to persuade.
That's what you 've been doing in the entire thread. And it doesn't mean a thing to most, because we are aware of how persuasion works. It's basic high school knowledge, especially in composition.



I asked you to say directly what you mean, and you didn't. Just like when I asked you to define life, you didn't.
Don't be fooled. I know what you are after. It's clear.

Spitfire, is the science curriculum in Greece as rigorous as its history curriculum?

[spitfire]

Spitfire, is the science curriculum in Greece as rigorous as its history curriculum?

Well universities and schools are under siege most of the time.

What do you mean by rigorous? I'm from the old school, probably compared to today I went through a more rigorous curriculum altogether. But that's just guessing, I cannot say for sure.

Are you implying something about strict points of view in history lessons?

[Phoenix]

Vangelovski,

You're being very disingenuous in the manner that you're presenting the 'Basic Assumptions and Limitations of Science' statement.

You've very conveniently excluded the last statement about scientific knowledge being the most reliable knowledge because it's based on a learning methodology governed by the principles of critical thinking and reducing bias.

You should have a good think about that last statement, particularly regarding "reducing bias"

As a researcher I'd expect that you adhere to those principles of critical thinking and reducing bias in your work???

[spitfire]

Just think how evolution has helped medical science to provide new medication and treatment for the ever evolving desease-causing organisms.
I mean, you simply disregard the whole thing, not being aware that if it wasn't for evolution then every biological threat on a large scale would kill millions like it did in the past.

There's more to evolution. Have you ever heard about evolutionary medicine? Do you know what this is? It's the understanding of health and disease through the application of evolution. If you know how evolution shaped something then you are aware of how to deal with it.

Imagine not doing that and instead throw a god every time instead of trying to understand how it works in order to solve a problem. How ridiculous is that?

All this is applicable, therefore tested, and point only to one way. If we were to believe the creationists and the supporters of intelligent design, think how many lives would have been lost.

This is enough reason to condemn creationism and supporters of intelligent design.

[julie]

Dunning–Kruger effect , tends to apply to creationists rationale that science is a theory

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski,

You're being very disingenuous in the manner that you're presenting the 'Basic Assumptions and Limitations of Science' statement.

You've very conveniently excluded the last statement about scientific knowledge being the most reliable knowledge because it's based on a learning methodology governed by the principles of critical thinking and reducing bias.

You should have a good think about that last statement, particularly regarding "reducing bias"

As a researcher I'd expect that you adhere to those principles of critical thinking and reducing bias in your work???

I think you were making a disingenuous statement above. I'll post and bold the entire sentence below:

NEVERTHELESS, scientific knowledge is the most reliable knowledge we can have about the natural world and how it works. This is because scientists have developed a methodology for learning based on principles of critical thinking and reducing bias.

It specifically talks about the natural world, not knowledge in general as you implied. But even this statement itself is an unprovable assumption. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God and hence it cannot prove or disprove whether scientific knowledge is the most reliable knowledge about the natural world. You might have known that if you read up on the philosophy of science and the bit about justifying science.

Now that the sentence has been posted (and bolded) it still does not change the fact that science is based on basic unprovable assumptions. Your point is moot.

You might want to consider critical thinking and reducing bias yourself.

Let me ask you something (though I know you won't answer, you never do) - are you saying that we should not question or test assumptions used by scientists? Isn't that the complete anti-thesis of scientific discovery?

[Vangelovski]

Just think how evolution has helped medical science to provide new medication and treatment for the ever evolving desease-causing organisms.
I mean, you simply disregard the whole thing, not being aware that if it wasn't for evolution then every biological threat on a large scale would kill millions like it did in the past.

There's more to evolution. Have you ever heard about evolutionary medicine? Do you know what this is? It's the understanding of health and disease through the application of evolution. If you know how evolution shaped something then you are aware of how to deal with it.

Imagine not doing that and instead throw a god every time instead of trying to understand how it works in order to solve a problem. How ridiculous is that?

All this is applicable, therefore tested, and point only to one way. If we were to believe the creationists and the supporters of intelligent design, think how many lives would have been lost.

This is enough reason to condemn creationism and supporters of intelligent design.

Tell us more about "evolutionary" medicine (my head nodding again with a look of curiosity on my face)...