do muslims and hindus and sihks and... (Page 3) Talent_M: so what's the point of this video now?very old stuff, are you telling that origin of chiken was dinosaur and the man form ape ancestors, come man bring up new ideas to be more logic, we need to see this theory how could be activated at present.  Garo_Ra: yes they are our ancestors. Did you watch the video? If you need to learn the fundamentals read this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html what do you mean theory activated at present? scientific theories are hypothesized and either proven and accepted or disproven and discarded. Evolution has long been understood and accepted by science.  StuckInTheSixties: Talent_M quotes me ... "That proof [of evolution] exists. It's been confirmed repeatedly in countless ways. " And then asks: "hm hm, where pls!?" Everywhere, notably in modern medicine. Evolution is the foundation of modern biology, and is a critical component to any modern zoologic (dealing with living things) scientific discipline. If you're asking for a specific example, I can easily provide that. The examples are endless. If you'd prefer, simply Google: "examples of evolution." Of course, it's always a good idea to check the credibility of references. Talent_M says: "so what's the point of this video now?very old stuff ..." Darwin's understanding and documentation of evolution, not to mention this video of Carl Sagan, is far more recent than the Quran, is it not?" Your statement is hypocritical. Talent_M says: "... are you telling that origin of chiken was dinosaur ..." Yes, although there were many intermediary species that developed between dinosaurs and chickens. Talent_M says: "... and the man form ape ancestors ..." Yes. Homosapiens and our predecessors are/were apes. Talent_M says: "come man bring up new ideas to be more logic ..." The concept of evolution is quite logical. It's based on scientific evidence, as compared to religious dogma (such as Islam) that ignores contradictory evidence. Talent_M says: "we need to see this theory how could be activated at present." Okay, you could actually watch the video, where Carl Sagan presents a number of ways the theory works. But if you insist on ignoring that, I can outine some here. No problem. Often, it's hard to show how evolution works because it often works over long periods of time (like a chicken evolving from dinosaurs), but in some cases, it's quite easy to see, such as in modern farming. A farmer will use a pesticide to rid his crops of a particular insect. Nearly all of the insects die as a result, but a few live. Those few have a genetic predispositional resistance to the particular pesticide the farmer used. Those few survivors produce offspring, which genetically carry that resistance. Each time the farmer uses the pesticide again, the percentage of survivors increases, and the ability to resist that pesticide increases until that particular pesticide is no longer viable for that use. The farmer has to change his methodology because the insect pest he was fighting evolved the means to survive. The exact same process is easy to see in modern medicine. It happens with medicines that fight microbial infections - anti-biotics. Strains of disease evolve a resistance to the anti-biotic medicines in exactly the same way that the insects in the farmer's field evolves a resistance to the pesticides.  Juba_The_Sniper: OH! ITS THIS THREAD AGAIN! THERE IS NOTHING IN THE QURAN THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY ANY MAN! Furthermore, the Quran is not a scientific textbook. If it were you would find it in every science lab throughout the world. Even the Arab scientists of the 'Golden Age' never used the Quran as scientific reference. Instead they relied on the works of the Indians, Persians and the Greeks to further their knowledge of science and mathematics. It was actually the appearance of religious conservatism & fundamentalism that killed off this golden age of Arabic science. An act which the middle-east has never recovered from, to this day. CoIin: @ Garo I don't think a scientific theory can ever be "proven". I doubt even many scientists would go that far, and I'm guessing no philosopher of science would. Perhaps the best a good theory can hope for is the status of "has not yet been falsified". See Karl Popper and others if you're interested in this. Heavy going, mind you StuckInTheSixties: colinian, either you have the common misunderstanding of the scientific usage of the word "theory," or you're dancing around with the semantics of the word "prove." I think the latter. Here's a definition of scientific theory: "A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." It's a very detailed, very thorough way of saying "proof." You're quite right that "perhaps the best a good theory can hope for is the status of "has not yet been falsified," but that holds true for any proof, scientific or otherwise. It comes down to how willing you are to abandon pragmatism in order to insist that NOTHING is provable. Science is, of course, open minded. If better proof comes along, scientific opinion is modified accordingly. It's much like a courtroom conviction based on proof. When better proof comes along, a person can have their conviction overturned. Does that mean that courtroom procedures don't rely on proof? Insisting that scientific theory doesn't equal "proof" is essentially saying that nothing can be proven. It all depends on how pragmatic you want to be with the concept of "proof." CoIin: SITS. See Popper, Quine, etc. They're a lot smarter than me. I know what you're saying though. We often hear Dawkins getting pissed off with religious fundamentalists who knock the "theory of evolution" as being "just" a theory. He responds that he prefers to think of it as the "fact" of evolution. Any philosopher of science would have a fit at such a statement though. Would you dare to call, say, general relativity a fact? CoIin: Sure, I agree. a philosophical "proof" is pretty much unheard of, but of course, we have to get on with our daily business. Enter "reasonable doubt" CoIin: Also see Kuhn. He'd have you believe that scientific knowledge is NOT cumulative as we like to believe. Paradigms and all that..... StuckInTheSixties: It was "proven" with a pretty convincing test, and others have followed suit with other investigations. It involved two atomic clocks, accurate to the schmagillionth of a second (or whatever). Sitting side by side, they "tick" away, accurately synchronized. They put one on an aircraft, and sent it off some distance away. According to Einstien, something very strange should happen: The movement of the clocks, relative to one another, should cause them to become unsynchronized. All of the various mathematical parameters were kept track of, and recorded. Upon return, examination of those parameters told the scientists how much the resultant error should be, how much difference there should be between one clock and the other. Of course, upon examining the clocks, it was found that they performed exactly as Einstein's theory said they should. It seems like magic. It's very non-intuitive, but it proves that time itself is stretchy - relative. I find no reason to doubt Einstein. If one thinks that no scientific theory has any basis in reality, the cheapo-cheapo, but valid, reply is the suggestion for one to to the top of a tall building and disprove the theory of gravitation. You can be all philosophical and all, but at some point, it pays to be pragmatic. Giving the "jump" test to gravity is one of those. Evolution is another. CoIin: my theory predicts X. X is observed. Ergo my theory is correct. This is false logic. My theory predicts that if I am a penguin, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning..... I'm not knocking Einstein buddy, Love that guy. His relativity has been "confirmed" time and time again, of course, but history has shown us time and time again that theories tend to be ephemeral. New discoveries require new theories. CoIin: well, SITS, no one saw any reason to doubt Newtonian mechanics. It had been confirmed/proven (you choose LOL) countless times. Same could be said for the Ptolemaic model of the solar system. Its predictive powers were extremely impressive, at least by the standards of the day. Even when Copernicus came along, his system did not yield results that were noticably better. StuckInTheSixties: Aww, come on ... tell me why those are unfair comparisons ... Besides, it misses the point. This all revolves around the idea of what the word "proof" (or prove) means. CoIin: I don't think so. Newtonian mechanics passes the criteria you posted earlier for "proving" a theory, doesn't it? CoIin: Um, I was alluding to this... "A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." It's a very detailed, very thorough way of saying "proof." unquote StuckInTheSixties: Then I have to say I'm not following what it is you're trying to get at. Spell it out, please. CoIin: according to these criteria, wouldn't Newtonian mechanics (laws of gravitation, etc) be "proven"? CoIin: So, I'm just saying. Relativity, for example, is the best we have right now, and it's as good as we need right now, but as we continue to make new discoveries, I have little doubt that it will be replaced someday. Doesn't mean it doesn't "work". As you said, at a pragmatic level it works fine. We don't need 100 decimal places on a bathroom scale. | Religion Chat Room 22 People Chatting Similar Conversations |