Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Myth of Evolution

Seeker4Truth
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 8:26:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Darwinian theory of Evolution is no more than a myth. True, it is a very entertaining myth, but one that is no more plausible than the ancient myths of the Saxons, Vikings and Greeks.

In the Darwinian myth, the ancient gods have been replaced by 'the forces of nature' (or some such), which, in the way it is often portrayed, seems like some kind of divinity.

Like all myths, the Darwinian one has had to be modified many times to adapt to new discoveries. It has, as Huxley famously said in the 19th Century, 'died the death of a thousand qualifications' (true, he wasn't referring to the Evolution myth, but it's applicable).

Why do seemingly intelligent people go on believing this myth?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 9:09:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Evolution is a massively broad topic. Elaborate, specifically, on what you think is mythical. We'll take it from there.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 9:55:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 9:09:04 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Evolution is a massively broad topic. Elaborate, specifically, on what you think is mythical. We'll take it from there.

This. We have nought but to call you a troll until you give us why it is a "myth".
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 10:02:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 8:26:27 AM, Seeker4Truth wrote:
The Darwinian theory of Evolution is no more than a myth. True, it is a very entertaining myth, but one that is no more plausible than the ancient myths of the Saxons, Vikings and Greeks.

In the Darwinian myth, the ancient gods have been replaced by 'the forces of nature' (or some such), which, in the way it is often portrayed, seems like some kind of divinity.

Like all myths, the Darwinian one has had to be modified many times to adapt to new discoveries. It has, as Huxley famously said in the 19th Century, 'died the death of a thousand qualifications' (true, he wasn't referring to the Evolution myth, but it's applicable).

Why do seemingly intelligent people go on believing this myth?

If the theory of evolution were untrue, that would not make it a myth. Myths are decentralized. They begin at one point, but they scatter and evolve in many directions, without having a centralized outlet. The theory of evolution and other scientific theories evolve according to a persisting centralized authoritative community--a community of scientists. If the theory of evolution still qualifies as a myth, then I suppose the same could be said for any scientific theory explaining the forces of nature. The theory of relativity would also be a myth, for example.

Further, you are mistaken to claim that the theory of evolution is no more plausible than the ancient myths of the Saxons, Vikings and Greeks. We observe the patterns that the theory of evolution requires (reproduction, mutation, natural selection, speciation, genetic diversification), and the hierarchical nested taxonomy (or the family tree of life), is very much expected by the theory of evolution and ONLY the theory of evolution, not of Epimetheus and Prometheus.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 10:37:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 8:26:27 AM, Seeker4Truth wrote:
In the Darwinian myth, the ancient gods have been replaced by 'the forces of nature' (or some such), which, in the way it is often portrayed, seems like some kind of divinity.

It should be noted that conflating the theory of evolution with 'the forces of nature' is ridiculous. The ancient gods personified aspects of human behavior, society, and surroundings, and, even by definition, "worldly affairs". The forces of nature in the theory of evolution are responsible for different matters, namely the changes in living species (living, specifically) and are contained in a limited scope as the vicissitudes do not apply to, say, the earth, the sky, or even human culture.

Like all myths, the Darwinian one has had to be modified many times to adapt to new discoveries.
Unlike all myths, Darwin's theory was modified by research and new findings. Myths are modified for different purposes, and by different means--often by the exchange of ideas between cultures, and the integration of cultures as well, aboriginal and foreign.

It has, as Huxley famously said in the 19th Century, 'died the death of a thousand qualifications' (true, he wasn't referring to the Evolution myth, but it's applicable).

A theory is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" that is noted often for its falsability.

The difference between a myth and a 'theory' is that: myths are dictated in narratives, while theories are merely groups of 'general propositions'; not all myths are etilogical, while theories are formulated to explain 'natural phenomena'. Conflating the two again are to blur the lines between legendry and science.

Why do seemingly intelligent people go on believing this myth?
So despite the variation of species, similarities of anatomical structures in diverse species, the fossil record, the mostly-reliable radioactive dating process, and other evidence, you chose to regard evolution as a myth?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 10:50:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 8:26:27 AM, Seeker4Truth wrote:
The Darwinian theory of Evolution is no more than a myth. True, it is a very entertaining myth, but one that is no more plausible than the ancient myths of the Saxons, Vikings and Greeks.

The ancient myths of the 'Saxons, Vikings, and Greeks' were decentralized and concerned about: etilogical reasons (the explanations of natural phenomena, in terms of divine involvement), worldly affairs, the adventures and plights of heroes, knights, and crusades against the forces of darkness, creation, and so on. The general proposition of evolution lies around the concept of change in living species, all of which come from the foundation of an unstable environment.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 5:22:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 8:26:27 AM, Seeker4Truth wrote:
The Darwinian theory of Evolution is no more than a myth. True, it is a very entertaining myth, but one that is no more plausible than the ancient myths of the Saxons, Vikings and Greeks.

In the Darwinian myth, the ancient gods have been replaced by 'the forces of nature' (or some such), which, in the way it is often portrayed, seems like some kind of divinity.

Like all myths, the Darwinian one has had to be modified many times to adapt to new discoveries. It has, as Huxley famously said in the 19th Century, 'died the death of a thousand qualifications' (true, he wasn't referring to the Evolution myth, but it's applicable).

Why do seemingly intelligent people go on believing this myth?

Right; it is these mysterious 'forces' and the 'process' that we need to push them on more..
The Cross.. the Cross.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 6:54:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 5:22:50 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/31/2011 8:26:27 AM, Seeker4Truth wrote:
The Darwinian theory of Evolution is no more than a myth. True, it is a very entertaining myth, but one that is no more plausible than the ancient myths of the Saxons, Vikings and Greeks.

In the Darwinian myth, the ancient gods have been replaced by 'the forces of nature' (or some such), which, in the way it is often portrayed, seems like some kind of divinity.

Like all myths, the Darwinian one has had to be modified many times to adapt to new discoveries. It has, as Huxley famously said in the 19th Century, 'died the death of a thousand qualifications' (true, he wasn't referring to the Evolution myth, but it's applicable).

Why do seemingly intelligent people go on believing this myth?

Right; it is these mysterious 'forces' and the 'process' that we need to push them on more..

It's really not very mysterious. The "force" is simply the desire to survive and pro-create. The "process" is that beneficial mutations are passed down through offspring and mutations with negative impacts on survival and pro-creation are not.
Seeker4Truth
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 2:24:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Apologies for not responding sooner, but I have been feeling somewhat unwell.

Let me give a brief outline of my position here, which I will try to expand on, when I am feeling better.

1. By myth I mean:

'A commonly-held but false belief, a common misconception; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing; a popular conception about a real person or event which exaggerates or idealizes reality.

A person or thing held in excessive or quasi-religious awe or admiration based on popular legend.'

http://en.wiktionary.org...

Or after the OED: Myth is:

... the product of man's emotion and imagination, acted upon by his surroundings.
[These are not the best definitions of myth, but they will do for now]

2. Given the demise of traditional religious beliefs in the West, science has usurped their role as a source of 'truth' and authority and has itself become a (quasi) religion - Scientism.

3. As such, it has to answer the universal human question, 'Where did we come from?' This it attempts to do with its own myth of origins, known as the Theory of Evolution.

4. This myth is presented as being 'science'. However, it is not in the least scientific, but rather conforms to the definitions of myth given above.

Apologies for any typing errors!
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 7:41:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 2:24:10 PM, Seeker4Truth wrote:
Apologies for not responding sooner, but I have been feeling somewhat unwell.

Let me give a brief outline of my position here, which I will try to expand on, when I am feeling better.

1. By myth I mean:

'A commonly-held but false belief, a common misconception; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing; a popular conception about a real person or event which exaggerates or idealizes reality.

A person or thing held in excessive or quasi-religious awe or admiration based on popular legend.'

http://en.wiktionary.org...

Or after the OED: Myth is:

... the product of man's emotion and imagination, acted upon by his surroundings.
[These are not the best definitions of myth, but they will do for now]

2. Given the demise of traditional religious beliefs in the West, science has usurped their role as a source of 'truth' and authority and has itself become a (quasi) religion - Scientism.

3. As such, it has to answer the universal human question, 'Where did we come from?' This it attempts to do with its own myth of origins, known as the Theory of Evolution.

4. This myth is presented as being 'science'. However, it is not in the least scientific, but rather conforms to the definitions of myth given above.

Apologies for any typing errors!

And why is it false?

As I said, without evidence we have naught but to call you a troll.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 4:53:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 6:54:04 AM, feverish wrote:
At 8/1/2011 5:22:50 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/31/2011 8:26:27 AM, Seeker4Truth wrote:
The Darwinian theory of Evolution is no more than a myth. True, it is a very entertaining myth, but one that is no more plausible than the ancient myths of the Saxons, Vikings and Greeks.

In the Darwinian myth, the ancient gods have been replaced by 'the forces of nature' (or some such), which, in the way it is often portrayed, seems like some kind of divinity.

Like all myths, the Darwinian one has had to be modified many times to adapt to new discoveries. It has, as Huxley famously said in the 19th Century, 'died the death of a thousand qualifications' (true, he wasn't referring to the Evolution myth, but it's applicable).

Why do seemingly intelligent people go on believing this myth?

Right; it is these mysterious 'forces' and the 'process' that we need to push them on more..

It's really not very mysterious. The "force" is simply the desire to survive and pro-create. The "process" is that beneficial mutations are passed down through offspring and mutations with negative impacts on survival and pro-creation are not.

And WHICH beneficial mutations might THEY be?
The Cross.. the Cross.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 9:28:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 10:37:31 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Greek Mythology shares more traits with the Bible than two cloned sheep.



I hate to reference zeitgeist but it explains it well.

Lol, seriously?
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 9:49:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 8:26:27 AM, Seeker4Truth wrote:


In the Darwinian myth, the ancient gods have been replaced by 'the forces of nature' (or some such), which, in the way it is often portrayed, seems like some kind of divinity.

Often? Example?


Like all myths, the Darwinian one has had to be modified many times to adapt to new discoveries. It has, as Huxley famously said in the 19th Century, 'died the death of a thousand qualifications' (true, he wasn't referring to the Evolution myth, but it's applicable).

You seem to be attaching a negative stigma to this by using the words "has had to be", as if analyzing new data is somehow science's Achilles' heel.
Seeker4Truth
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 11:13:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
In view of the posts received in response to my original assertion, perhaps the best place to begin is with the nature of science itself and in the light of that determine whether the Theory of Evolution is scientific.

So, what is science? I think most, if not all, would agree that it's a method of discovering something about the nature of things. It begins with empirical observations of various kinds. Numerous observations are made, the data gathered, and from this the scientist forms an hypothesis, which attempts to explain his observations. He then devises various empirical experiments to substantiate his hypothesis, and conjectures that, if the hypothesis were true, such and such things would follow in his experimentation. If they do follow, as predicted, then the hypothesis is tentatively accepted. Yet still the hypothesis has to pass the test of experimental repetition by other scientists. Hence, next he publishes his findings to the scientific community. They then test his hypothesis using either his experiments, or devising their own. If the hypothesis stands the tests, it then becomes a theory.

Hence, for a theory to be 'scientific' it has to be subject to empirical observation and tests. However, even when an hypothesis attains the status of a theory in the scientific community it still may prove to be mistaken, as someone in the future may devise an experiment to disprove it.

Now, turning to the theory of Evolution (and here I'm not just talking about biological evolution, but the general theory, which seeks to explain the origin of everything in the universe) does it, indeed, can it fit this scientific methodology? Can a scientist repeat the origin of the Universe in his laboratory? Were any scientists present to empirically observe the emergence of the first single celled organism and the circumstances that produced it? or the first fish to crawl out onto land?

So my point is that the question of origins is beyond the bounds of science, and so the theory of Evolution is unscientific since it can neither be subject to empirical observation or experimentation. Even Karl Popper, an eminent philosopher of science and an evolutionist , had to admit that the theory of Evolution did not fulfill his own criteria of what constitutes a scientific theory.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 11:17:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 8:26:27 AM, Seeker4Truth wrote:
The Darwinian theory of Evolution is no more than a myth. True, it is a very entertaining myth, but one that is no more plausible than the ancient myths of the Saxons, Vikings and Greeks.

In the Darwinian myth, the ancient gods have been replaced by 'the forces of nature' (or some such), which, in the way it is often portrayed, seems like some kind of divinity.

What are your objections to Evolution?


Like all myths, the Darwinian one has had to be modified many times to adapt to new discoveries. It has, as Huxley famously said in the 19th Century, 'died the death of a thousand qualifications' (true, he wasn't referring to the Evolution myth, but it's applicable).

The nature of Science is that any theory is under constant review and challenge, that is ironically why it is credible.


Why do seemingly intelligent people go on believing this myth?

Because it ticks more boxes than creationism. The evidence is far, far greater.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 11:18:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 5:22:50 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/31/2011 8:26:27 AM, Seeker4Truth wrote:
The Darwinian theory of Evolution is no more than a myth. True, it is a very entertaining myth, but one that is no more plausible than the ancient myths of the Saxons, Vikings and Greeks.

In the Darwinian myth, the ancient gods have been replaced by 'the forces of nature' (or some such), which, in the way it is often portrayed, seems like some kind of divinity.

Like all myths, the Darwinian one has had to be modified many times to adapt to new discoveries. It has, as Huxley famously said in the 19th Century, 'died the death of a thousand qualifications' (true, he wasn't referring to the Evolution myth, but it's applicable).

Why do seemingly intelligent people go on believing this myth?

Right; it is these mysterious 'forces' and the 'process' that we need to push them on more..

Okay... what specifically do you have issue with?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 11:20:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 4:53:49 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/1/2011 6:54:04 AM, feverish wrote:
At 8/1/2011 5:22:50 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/31/2011 8:26:27 AM, Seeker4Truth wrote:
The Darwinian theory of Evolution is no more than a myth. True, it is a very entertaining myth, but one that is no more plausible than the ancient myths of the Saxons, Vikings and Greeks.

In the Darwinian myth, the ancient gods have been replaced by 'the forces of nature' (or some such), which, in the way it is often portrayed, seems like some kind of divinity.

Like all myths, the Darwinian one has had to be modified many times to adapt to new discoveries. It has, as Huxley famously said in the 19th Century, 'died the death of a thousand qualifications' (true, he wasn't referring to the Evolution myth, but it's applicable).

Why do seemingly intelligent people go on believing this myth?

Right; it is these mysterious 'forces' and the 'process' that we need to push them on more..

It's really not very mysterious. The "force" is simply the desire to survive and pro-create. The "process" is that beneficial mutations are passed down through offspring and mutations with negative impacts on survival and pro-creation are not.

And WHICH beneficial mutations might THEY be?

There are millions of examples of beneficial mutations, increased size, decreased size, variations in colour, intelligence, metabolism.... it's endless.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Seeker4Truth
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 11:49:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 11:18:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/1/2011 5:22:50 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/31/2011 8:26:27 AM, Seeker4Truth wrote:
The Darwinian theory of Evolution is no more than a myth. True, it is a very entertaining myth, but one that is no more plausible than the ancient myths of the Saxons, Vikings and Greeks.

In the Darwinian myth, the ancient gods have been replaced by 'the forces of nature' (or some such), which, in the way it is often portrayed, seems like some kind of divinity.

Like all myths, the Darwinian one has had to be modified many times to adapt to new discoveries. It has, as Huxley famously said in the 19th Century, 'died the death of a thousand qualifications' (true, he wasn't referring to the Evolution myth, but it's applicable).

Why do seemingly intelligent people go on believing this myth?

Right; it is these mysterious 'forces' and the 'process' that we need to push them on more..

Okay... what specifically do you have issue with?

I answered that in my previous post - Evolutionary theory, in spite of its claims, is unscientific and, as I will go on to argue, as much a myth as any myth of origins.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 11:50:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 11:49:15 AM, Seeker4Truth wrote:
At 8/2/2011 11:18:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/1/2011 5:22:50 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/31/2011 8:26:27 AM, Seeker4Truth wrote:
The Darwinian theory of Evolution is no more than a myth. True, it is a very entertaining myth, but one that is no more plausible than the ancient myths of the Saxons, Vikings and Greeks.

In the Darwinian myth, the ancient gods have been replaced by 'the forces of nature' (or some such), which, in the way it is often portrayed, seems like some kind of divinity.

Like all myths, the Darwinian one has had to be modified many times to adapt to new discoveries. It has, as Huxley famously said in the 19th Century, 'died the death of a thousand qualifications' (true, he wasn't referring to the Evolution myth, but it's applicable).

Why do seemingly intelligent people go on believing this myth?

Right; it is these mysterious 'forces' and the 'process' that we need to push them on more..

Okay... what specifically do you have issue with?

I answered that in my previous post - Evolutionary theory, in spite of its claims, is unscientific and, as I will go on to argue, as much a myth as any myth of origins.

Please explain, in detail. Otherwise, much of your speculation (especially in conflating evolution with a 'myth of origin') can be taken as 'trolling', especially when you adamantly refuse to read or respond to our posts.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 11:56:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 11:49:15 AM, Seeker4Truth wrote:
At 8/2/2011 11:18:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/1/2011 5:22:50 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/31/2011 8:26:27 AM, Seeker4Truth wrote:
The Darwinian theory of Evolution is no more than a myth. True, it is a very entertaining myth, but one that is no more plausible than the ancient myths of the Saxons, Vikings and Greeks.

In the Darwinian myth, the ancient gods have been replaced by 'the forces of nature' (or some such), which, in the way it is often portrayed, seems like some kind of divinity.

Like all myths, the Darwinian one has had to be modified many times to adapt to new discoveries. It has, as Huxley famously said in the 19th Century, 'died the death of a thousand qualifications' (true, he wasn't referring to the Evolution myth, but it's applicable).

Why do seemingly intelligent people go on believing this myth?

Right; it is these mysterious 'forces' and the 'process' that we need to push them on more..

Okay... what specifically do you have issue with?

I answered that in my previous post - Evolutionary theory, in spite of its claims, is unscientific and, as I will go on to argue, as much a myth as any myth of origins.

In what way is it unscientific?
It is not sufficient on a debate site to merely state opinion, you are required to back such claims up.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Seeker4Truth
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 12:00:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 9:09:04 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Evolution is a massively broad topic. Elaborate, specifically, on what you think is mythical. We'll take it from there.

The whole idea of evolution as an explanation of origins I think is mythical.

Read my subsequent posts. In one I said out the points, in the latter I seek to show that Evolution is not scientific, next I hope to go on to show that it has obtain the status of an origins myth.

I have to do it in stages, as I haven't been too well, and it's just to hot! My mind don't function too well in the heat, I prefer the cold!
Seeker4Truth
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 12:02:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 9:03:52 AM, Meatros wrote:
What exactly do you think this "myth" entails? Also, what are you getting your Phd in?

Your question as to what the myth entails is somewhat ambiguous and I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you please clarify?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 12:07:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 12:00:13 PM, Seeker4Truth wrote:
At 7/31/2011 9:09:04 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Evolution is a massively broad topic. Elaborate, specifically, on what you think is mythical. We'll take it from there.

The whole idea of evolution as an explanation of origins I think is mythical.

Read my subsequent posts. In one I said out the points, in the latter I seek to show that Evolution is not scientific, next I hope to go on to show that it has obtain the status of an origins myth.

I have to do it in stages, as I haven't been too well, and it's just to hot! My mind don't function too well in the heat, I prefer the cold!

I just found it, you do realise that you are in effect strawmanning what science is?

Though strictly speaking a theory ought to be testable, that does not mean that everything a scientist says has to be recreated in the laboratory. Your attack is inaccurate, or simply dishonest.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Seeker4Truth
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 12:12:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If the theory of evolution were untrue, that would not make it a myth.

Right, but I never said it was untrue. Read my later posts.

Myths are decentralized. They begin at one point, but they scatter and evolve in many directions, without having a centralized outlet. The theory of evolution and other scientific theories evolve according to a persisting centralized authoritative community--a community of scientists.

So you think their is a centralized community of scientists, who all agree on everything?

If the theory of evolution still qualifies as a myth, then I suppose the same could be said for any scientific theory explaining the forces of nature. The theory of relativity would also be a myth, for example.

Maybe

: Further, you are mistaken to claim that the theory of evolution is no more plausible than the ancient myths of the Saxons, Vikings and Greeks. We observe the patterns that the theory of evolution requires (reproduction, mutation, natural selection, speciation, genetic diversification), and the hierarchical nested taxonomy (or the family tree of life), is very much expected by the theory of evolution and ONLY the theory of evolution, not of Epimetheus and Prometheus.

"If our interpretation is correct, we are led to a completely different view - namely, that the kind of logic in mythical thought is a rigorous as that as modern science, and that the difference lies, not in the quality of the intellectual process, but in the nature of the things to which it is applied." (Claude Levi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology p. 230)
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 12:14:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 11:13:58 AM, Seeker4Truth wrote:

Can a scientist repeat the origin of the Universe in his laboratory?
Evolution is by definition "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." Is the universe a species or population?

Were any scientists present to empirically observe the emergence of the first single celled organism and the circumstances that produced it? or the first fish to crawl out onto land?
Empirically observing is not a valid way to support a theory. So, in an experiment on the formation of rock layers, I must empirically observe their formation or, in a more sensible manner, must validate it by current evidence?

The concept of common descent is partly supported by evidence that, in a logical conclusion, justifies the concept: the similiarities in biochemistry and especially in amino-acid sequences, similarities in anatomical structures, embryo stages, and so on. Even the fossil record provides proof of transitional periods of time when species developed from older ones [[including, for example, the Archaeopteryx (Archaeopteryx). Unless if you wish to attack pragmatism, like RA did in his debate about radiometric dating, you cannot deny that there is at least some reason to support the concept of 'common descent'.


So my point is that the question of origins is beyond the bounds of science, and so the theory of Evolution is unscientific since it can neither be subject to empirical observation or experimentation.
The theory of Evolution follows the basic definition of science, in that it attempts to explain natural phenomena/nature through a set of propositions. Please note the definition of the word 'theory': 'a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena'. Just because evolution cannot be directly validated by empirical observation or experimentation, does not invalidate it. So, basically for every theory or clause, we must provide direct evidence for it, instead of indirect pieces of evidence?

The United States National Academy of Science stated that,
"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."
Evolution refers to the changes in living species and is supported by the vast body of evidence provided in my earlier posts...Note that there is no mention of 'direct' empirical observation or of the sort.

'Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics).'

'One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed" [http://en.wikipedia.org...]
Evolution, especially in regard to the beneficial mutations that occur due to an unstable environment, has this property, as well as its solidity in the face of new research (so far), though none of this is important as the actual definition of a theory.


Even Karl Popper, an eminent philosopher of science and an evolutionist , had to admit that the theory of Evolution did not fulfill his own criteria of what constitutes a scientific theory.

Karl Popper himself is not a universally-favored figure in the 'philosopher of science'; his conceptions of falsification are contested, especially with regards to theories and explanations of natural phenomena, and are not widely supported in the scientific community. Using him to bolster your claims is a bit of a mistake, especially when many consider his concepts to render science as impossible:

'"No theory ever solves all the puzzles with which it is confronted at a given time; nor are the solutions already achieved often perfect. On the contrary, it is just the incompleteness and imperfection of the existing data-theory fit that, at any given time, define many of the puzzles that characterize normal science. If any and every failure to fit were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times. On the other hand, if only severe failure to fit justifies theory rejection, then the Popperians will require some criterion of 'improbability' or of 'degree of falsification.' In developing one they will almost certainly encounter the same network of difficulties that has haunted the advocates of the various probabilistic verification theories [that the evaluative theory cannot itself be legitimated without appeal to another evaluative theory, leading to regress]"---The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. pp. 145-6.[28]'
(The Structure of Scientific Revolutions)
This passage above serves to show some of the general criticisms of Poppoff's theory.


In short, his ideas are not a solid, or concrete, establishment in the philosophy of science and can be contested...If reliability, especially with regards to how views are supported, using Popoff will only bolster the controversial nature of this thread.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 12:21:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 12:12:37 PM, Seeker4Truth wrote:

Right, but I never said it was untrue. Read my later posts.
You implied it was unscientific, so therefore--if it cannot be validated by 'empirical observation or experimentation', then it is scientifically invalid.

So you think their is a centralized community of scientists, who all agree on everything?

Once again, you are merely conflating the nature of myth(s) and the propositions set by scientists. In addition, it does not matter if 'the centralized community of scientists' agree, or do not agree, on 'everything', since this thread is solely concerned with the theory of evolution, which does not constitute the entirety of scientific theories or beliefs....There is a general consensus on evolution by the community.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau