1 edit
Originally posted by jammerIf that's how you think science works it's no wonder you seem so confused about the whole world.
We'd LIKE one, but we'll never get one in this life.
Can't be one, a scientist wasn't present to record the data.
Yes, it's reasonable to question the Theory of Evolution .. question everything.
Origins of life? I remember that one from Biology class, that's an easy one.
There was something .. but we don't know what. Then a spark (out of nowhere) c ...[text shortened]... evolved all the way to Modern Man .. metro-sexual.
Anything else I can help you with?
Scientists didn't have to be present. The data can be picked out of, for example, looking at the chemical composition of rocks etc from the time.
Originally posted by scottishinnzyeah I remember that .. that's how they finally discovered Piltdown Man.
If that's how you think science works it's no wonder you seem so confused about the whole world.
Scientists didn't have to be present. The data can be picked out of, for example, looking at the chemical composition of rocks etc from the time.
I wasn't their, but a scientist was so it's the real deal.
Originally posted by Wheely..and Biology.
Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. Chemistry does.
One of the criteria of being a life-form is a capability of reproduction.
(And this is why whether viruses are living or non-living is debatable. Viruses are self-assembled macromolecules, but are obligatory intracellular parasites that behave like living only when they are in host cells.)
Originally posted by jammerYes, and it was science that found out that some guy was trying to scam them. So what? There are charlatans in the world, big deal. It wasn't the scientific method that was wrong in that case, it was a PERSON.
yeah I remember that .. that's how they finally discovered Piltdown Man.
I wasn't their, but a scientist was so it's the real deal.
Tell you what, try saying things inside your head several times before you feel the need to tell us, see if they make sense before you post.
Originally posted by kyueAnd you trying to say that there are no self replicating non-biological molecules?
..and Biology.
One of the criteria of being a life-form is a capability of reproduction.
(And this is why whether viruses are living or non-living is debatable. Viruses are self-assembled macromolecules, but are obligatory intracellular parasites that behave like living only when they are in host cells.)
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhich was my point: Scientists are people too.
Yes, and it was science that found out that some guy was trying to scam them. So what? There are charlatans in the world, big deal. It wasn't the scientific method that was wrong in that case, it was a PERSON.
And much like you they often become full of themselves .. and bovine feces too.
Only people speak for science.
All people are flawed ... therefore.
Science is flawed.
It took 40 yrs. for science to figure out that the missing link (Piltdown man) was in reality a modern human skull and an orang-utan jaw.
During those 40 yrs. they all got well paid jobs digging ..
doing "studies", or teaching the lie to school children.
Just men puttin' together bones and makin' money.
You can get a scientist to "prove" cigarette smoking is good for your health if you pay him enough .. you know it's true, you said as much yourself above.
Vested interest always comes into play when men are involved.
Scientists, much like a good poker player, will occasionally try to steal the pot by running a bluff.
It's only human. The distinction being, in poker it's ethical to bluff, in science .. not so much .. that pesky scientific method gets in the way sometimes, so it needs to be adjusted (tweeked, if you will) to fit the situation.
Scientists came up with DDT to fight malaria by attacking mosquitos where they breed,
It works.
Years later OTHER scientists PROVE that DDT is harmful to humans.
DDT is banned.
From that day 'til today 10's of millions of Africans have died from malaria .. and worst of all i've got bugs on my tomato plants
So yeah, science ain't God.
The "method" much like the Bible is limited by the man implementing it.
You've dismissed Piltdown man as no "big deal."
Care to discuss some of the other things science has given us, say ... DDT, or the drugging of school children into zombies.
Being a teacher i'm sure you'd like all your students to be sitting their quietly looking at you .. even if they are in a drug stupor .. at least they aren't disrupting your excellent lectures on ethics in science .. situational of course.
1 edit
Originally posted by jammer"Only people speak for science.
Which was my point: Scientists are people too.
And much like you they often become full of themselves .. and bovine feces too.
Only people speak for science.
All people are flawed ... therefore.
Science is flawed.
It took 40 yrs. for science to figure out that the missing link (Piltdown man) was in reality a modern human skull and an orang-utan jaw. ting your excellent lectures on ethics in science .. situational of course.
All people are flawed ... therefore.
Science is flawed. "
Doesn't that also make your statement flawed
or do you admit you that aren't being logical?
Originally posted by kmax87No, and no.
Do we need an explanation for the origins of life? Is it reasonable to question the validity of evolution on the basis of an inadequate explanation of the origins of life?
As has already been said, the word evolution could mean a process or the Theory of Evolution
The process is fairly well known, can and has been proven to work, is observable, and applies to many many phenomena including life, non-life and even abstract concepts.
The Theory of Evolution basically states that all life we see today came about via the process of evolution and that nothing else except the particular circumstances (environment) and the process(evolution) is required to explain the enormous diversity of life we see on earth today.
So, the validity of the process cannot be questioned based on anything to do with life because it is independent, with life only being and example.
The evidence that the Theory of Evolution is correct is enormous and there is no evidence that it not the best explanation and there is no good reason not to accept it as such.
The origin of life almost certainly came about via an evolutionary process.
Originally posted by kmax87Evolution needs to be carefully divided into two parts:
Do we need an explanation for the origins of life? Is it reasonable to question the validity of evolution on the basis of an inadequate explanation of the origins of life?
1. Species adapt and change in order to better survive in the existing environment (possibly changing environment).
2. Life sprang from non-life by pure accident. (i.e. with no divine intervention).
Part 1 seems evident based on observation. Part 2 is far from an established fact in my mind.
But as far as explanation for life, there is one big 'monkey wrench' for evolution. That is 'conciousness'. Of course, as far as I know, I am the only one that has 'conciousness' and the rest of you might be as self-aware as a rock. But that's enough to be a big 'monkey wrench' (non pun intended).
Now I am sure someone is going to pipe up and say they built a machine that is 'self aware'. I'm a computer programmer myself and am quite familiar with what we mean when we say a machine is self aware. I also know it is nothing at all like 'conciousness'. Of course, I have to remember that perhaps I am the only one in the world with actual conciousness, because I can only observe others from the outside looking in. Although it is much simpler to believe that others are like me.
How does this relate to evolution? I find it highly troublesome to believe that conciousness springs from chemical reactions.
Scientists don't study conciousness because no one can even verify that others have it, but as a result, we seem to forget that it still must be explained somehow. Some seemingly accept the idea that conciousness springs from chemical reactions yet think it's absurd to believe in God. I find that odd.
Originally posted by techsouthScientists do study consciousness and I don't see why you cannot verify whether someone else has it.
Scientists don't study conciousness because no one can even verify that others have it, but as a result, we seem to forget that it still must be explained somehow. Some seemingly accept the idea that conciousness springs from chemical reactions yet think it's absurd to believe in God. I find that odd.
Do you believe that some animals are conscious?
Do you think it is possible to be semi-conscious?
At what point in the development of a child does consciousness suddenly appear?
I am a computer programmer and I am certain that it will be possible in future to create a conscious computer.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckgive me a little more info .. i'll try to answer.
"Only people speak for science.
All people are flawed ... therefore.
Science is flawed. "
Doesn't that also make your statement flawed
or do you admit you that aren't being logical?
I'm trying to be logical .. but i'm only a man ( by definition, flawed) and thus limited by ego
Originally posted by jammerOh dear.
Which was my point: Scientists are people too.
And much like you they often become full of themselves .. and bovine feces too.
Only people speak for science.
All people are flawed ... therefore.
Science is flawed.
It took 40 yrs. for science to figure out that the missing link (Piltdown man) was in reality a modern human skull and an orang-utan jaw. ...[text shortened]... ting your excellent lectures on ethics in science .. situational of course.
Read this again.
Only people speak for science.
All people are flawed ... therefore.
Science is flawed.
WRONG! That's a non-sequiter! It doesn't make sense.
Neither does your analogy with the cigarette smoking - health study. Mainly, because in order to get such a result you'd have to break the rules of scientific investigation, and would no longer be doing science!
Yes, it took 40 years to discount Piltdown. I wish it'd been quicker. However, back then rapid and easy transport between places didn't really exist. You had to get a ship to the US from the UK. That trip took about a week and cost alot of money. Nowadays, Piltdown would be discredited much more rapidly, because a variety of experts would be able to examine the evidence very easily, and the mistake (or forgery) would be quickly discovered.
Please, Jammer, quit with the ad hom attacks and just debate the topic in hand. Feel free to douse your tomatoes with DDT though.
What are you talking about "drugging school children into zombies"? I've never heard of this at all. Perhaps it only exists in your imagination though.