Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Evolution vs Baraminology: the empirical showdown.

Page 11 of 11 [ 176 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

24 Jul 2011, 10:03 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
1. Karl Popper disagreed with you about evolution being falsifiable.

He is also reported to have changed his mind to believe that evolution is falsifiable.

That being said, there are possible evidences that could show that evolution is false, these would likely be the existence of large counter-examples to evolutionary geology. Now, I don't hold to strict falsifiability, and I don't advocate it, but I do think counter-evidence is a better and cleaner notion.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

24 Jul 2011, 10:27 am

ruveyn wrote:
Philologos wrote:

Yes.

Science - including Theology which properly practiced IS a science - w


Is not! No theological proposition can be falsified empirically. Thus it is not a science.

It might take the form of a philosophy, but philosophy is also not empirically falsifiable.

ruveyn


Pooh. Who's the Classicist here? I deny the validity of a redefinition by one group of scientists designed to shut out all not in their clique, as I denied the validity of the redefinition of linguist. The temporary political dominance of such a group does not affect Truth [which, ruveyn, you canot comment on because Truth is immaterial].

The falsifiable thing is a recent red herring and has nothing to do with Scientia.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

24 Jul 2011, 10:28 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
1. Karl Popper disagreed with you about evolution being falsifiable.

He is also reported to have changed his mind to believe that evolution is falsifiable.

That being said, there are possible evidences that could show that evolution is false, these would likely be the existence of large counter-examples to evolutionary geology. Now, I don't hold to strict falsifiability, and I don't advocate it, but I do think counter-evidence is a better and cleaner notion.


Is the state of Karl Popper's mind falsifiable?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

24 Jul 2011, 11:27 am

Philologos wrote:
Is the state of Karl Popper's mind falsifiable?

No, but most claims about his final opinion are.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

24 Jul 2011, 4:38 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
1. Karl Popper disagreed with you about evolution being falsifiable.

He is also reported to have changed his mind to believe that evolution is falsifiable.


QFT

That said he did offer a qualified position. He still had reservations about some of the broader claims of evolution; he seemed more at home discussing things like natural selection.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

25 Jul 2011, 1:21 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
1. Karl Popper disagreed with you about evolution being falsifiable.

He is also reported to have changed his mind to believe that evolution is falsifiable.

That being said, there are possible evidences that could show that evolution is false, these would likely be the existence of large counter-examples to evolutionary geology. Now, I don't hold to strict falsifiability, and I don't advocate it, but I do think counter-evidence is a better and cleaner notion.


Perhaps he did change his mind later on, although it seems to me more like a retraction after receiving shiploads of flak such would not matter if his argumentation about evolution being falsifiable were sound. It seems to me though that his classification of evolution as not being a theory but a "metaphysical research program" is more apt because it is more often used as a paradigm of thought into which data is placed than a theory based upon data objectively. I would think that if research in physics were done in the manner that it is for biology (not the entire field, but that which deals with "natural history") that we'd still have the "laws" of "heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects" because to question that would be to question the validity of consensus science.



blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

25 Jul 2011, 8:47 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Yes, however evolution and abiogenesis are required for an atheistic historical scenario regardless of whether or not theists are able to fit them into their belief systems.

I have heard creationist sermons stating that "Evolution is godless, therefore it's wrong" and "Christians who accepted evolution are deceived for the anti-god crusade that is evolution" that seems like part of their doctrine, it can't get more absurd than that in reality.

So what? Atheists accepting evolution over creationism, because, partly, they don't believe in the supernatural, does not convert the scientific theory into an atheistic philosophy or conspiracy, I know some creationist think so, as well as its known that some think there is a conspiracy to hide the "truth".

Science separating itself from religion and philosophy, has been a GOOD thing.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

25 Jul 2011, 8:59 pm

blunnet wrote:

Science separating itself from religion and philosophy, has been a GOOD thing.


Yawn...Sigh ....NSB, spare the margaritas.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 Jul 2011, 9:04 pm

Philologos wrote:
blunnet wrote:

Science separating itself from religion and philosophy, has been a GOOD thing.


Yawn...Sigh ....NSB, spare the margaritas.


Do you have a negative attitude toward the physical sciences?

ruveyn



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

26 Jul 2011, 5:53 pm

Since this thread seems to have been revived, does that mean Orwell's challenge to 'Keet is revived as well? Orwell hasn't posted in this thread since January.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Jul 2011, 5:56 pm

blunnet wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Yes, however evolution and abiogenesis are required for an atheistic historical scenario regardless of whether or not theists are able to fit them into their belief systems.

I have heard creationist sermons stating that "Evolution is godless, therefore it's wrong" and "Christians who accepted evolution are deceived for the anti-god crusade that is evolution" that seems like part of their doctrine, it can't get more absurd than that in reality.

So what? Atheists accepting evolution over creationism, because, partly, they don't believe in the supernatural, does not convert the scientific theory into an atheistic philosophy or conspiracy, I know some creationist think so, as well as its known that some think there is a conspiracy to hide the "truth".

Science separating itself from religion and philosophy, has been a GOOD thing.


Why does it seem like so many people have the ability to write and yet not the ability to read?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Jul 2011, 5:58 pm

Jono wrote:
Since this thread seems to have been revived, does that mean Orwell's challenge to 'Keet is revived as well? Orwell hasn't posted in this thread since January.


That would depend upon Orwell, if he doesn't mind running the data in his programs as agreed upon earlier.



blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

26 Jul 2011, 6:43 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Why does it seem like so many people have the ability to write and yet not the ability to read?

I can ask you the same question......

Read this:
Quote:
So what?
Atheists accepting evolution over creationism, because, partly, they don't believe in the supernatural, does not convert the scientific theory into an atheistic philosophy or conspiracy.

In other words: "evolution and abiogenesis are required for an atheistic historical scenario regardless of whether or not theists are able to fit them into their belief systems." is meaningless regarding wether the scientific theory is valid and factually supported or not.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

26 Jul 2011, 7:09 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Perhaps he did change his mind later on, although it seems to me more like a retraction after receiving shiploads of flak such would not matter if his argumentation about evolution being falsifiable were sound. It seems to me though that his classification of evolution as not being a theory but a "metaphysical research program" is more apt because it is more often used as a paradigm of thought into which data is placed than a theory based upon data objectively. I would think that if research in physics were done in the manner that it is for biology (not the entire field, but that which deals with "natural history") that we'd still have the "laws" of "heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects" because to question that would be to question the validity of consensus science.

Honestly, I doubt that, if only because many evolutionary theorists will point to both predictions and possible areas where their ideas can be falsified.

His categorization as a metaphysical research program is really because he's THAT evolutionist. No joke. If you read Karl Popper, he literally models his logical theory of epistemology around the conception of evolution. He's not at all any form of creationist.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

26 Jul 2011, 7:54 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Philologos wrote:
blunnet wrote:

Science separating itself from religion and philosophy, has been a GOOD thing.


Yawn...Sigh ....NSB, spare the margaritas.


Do you have a negative attitude toward the physical sciences?

ruveyn


Not in the least. Parts of Physics are a bit too far removed from my reality - I am by no means so materialistic than you, but perhaps more down to earth. But Chemistry I found extremely intriguing, and before I started down the Archaeology > Classics > Linguistics trail I was pointed into Biology. My Paleontologist brother would REALLY hate me had I gone that route.

But I have respect and affection for the physical sciences, not least because they have been less corrupted by group-think theory than my own science and others.

My expression quoted had to do with the near-Fnordic provincial mouth-mind disconnect of your statement.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Jul 2011, 8:23 pm

Philologos wrote:

My expression quoted had to do with the near-Fnordic provincial mouth-mind disconnect of your statement.


Physics succeeds (look at our technological society). Philosophy and Religion fail, and fail, and fail....

Physics leads people to knowledge of the cosmos. Religion leads planes into tall buildings.

ruveyn