a history of things that may or may not have happened

[LHX]

man

these evolution folk are getting almost as aggravating as fundamental religious folk



the correct answer is: maybe


and depending on the context - it generally doesnt matter



its still (quite) possible that the 'real' history hasnt even been fathomed yet
and is more strange that what a person would readily accept

[B_M_W]

man

these evolution folk are getting almost as aggravating as fundamental religious folk



the correct answer is: maybe


and depending on the context - it generally doesnt matter



its still (quite) possible that the 'real' history hasnt even been fathomed yet
and is more strange that what a person would readily accept

LHX...



*shakes head*

Nevermind.

[Thurnez Isa]

if they are getting more annoying (and personally I dont think they are)
its probably cause people who search for truth in nature and with rational thought are probably getting more and more aggravated with people who use scripture to ignore truth

[LHX]

the search for truth in nature seems to have its fair share of creative licence


there is a big problem with the widespread use of definitive statements


i dont know how this generation reconciles questioning the moon landing and 9/11 but has no problem buying into what other 'experts' have to say in other fields



there really is no problem with 'maybe'

[Forteetu]

man

these evolution folk are getting almost as aggravating as fundamental religious folk



the correct answer is: maybe


and depending on the context - it generally doesnt matter



its still (quite) possible that the 'real' history hasnt even been fathomed yet
and is more strange that what a person would readily accept

35 foot tall, reptilian-like, SNAG looking for a nesting mate
I'm red and green and have feathers in all the right places
I like long walks on the beach and dining on other smaller dino-things
My mating cycle is once every 2 years and gestation lasts 7 months
Srsly ... can't you tell from the picture?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

who cares where we came from?

history will have no flavor until there is a single civilization that has lasted at least 50,000 years. and there needs to be space travel.

everything before hyperdrive is foreplay.

[Triple Zero]

the search for truth in nature seems to have its fair share of creative licence

since it's partially my profession, let's just call it by it's name.

search for truth in nature = science.

so you say science has a creative license?

it doesn't. but the problem you try to see might be real. science has so little of creative license that the thing that scares it most, is the possibility of two paradigms existing at the same time. that is when you get a schism in the scientific community and everybody starts fighting and a few good profs drop out, but in the end everybody wants to agree.

but there is no problem with that.

it's too bad for the few profs that hold to their belief (like the astronomy guy who didn't believe in red-shift, found some evidence to back it up, and is now banned from just about every observatory in the world).

that's really a shame, but it merely slows things down a bit.

i don't even know if it would be better if it were otherwise, it also seems a bit like a good survival strategy for science as a whole.

there is a big problem with the widespread use of definitive statements

what??

sorry to ask, but do you have any idea what you're talking about?

for starters, i really think you have no idea about the use of "definite statements" in actual science, the work that is being done at universities, research facilities etc, the people that make hypotheses, experiments and compare results mainly for the heck of it (ok, they do it for some sort of fame, and out of love, actually), compared to TV Science, whatever discovery channel is telling you about evolution, the guys that rant against the creationists, the flying spaghetti people, the people that jumped on a bandwagon towards their new crusade.
now again, can't really complain about that, because the creationists are at least several orders of magnitude more stupid,

but please don't go dissing science because the general public caught wind of it but doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

i dont know how this generation reconciles questioning the moon landing and 9/11 but has no problem buying into what other 'experts' have to say in other fields

well i consider myself to be an expert.

also, you wanna know how i reconcile it?

peer reviewed papers and repeatable experiments with results.

yeah that's right.

and if you are now going to say "but you can't repeat evolution", shows what you know about the scientific process.

there really is no problem with 'maybe'

maybe not.

there are a good many things that maybe can have a maybe attached to it.

it would have been better to attach the "maybe" to that red-shift problem, the phenomenon at least deserved some decent research (though it's now a few decades later and we know moar still)

but in that case, there existed really two reasonably viable alternatives.

now when you look at evolution, creationism is not a viable alternative. it is utter bullshit.

if you wanna attach a "maybe" to evolution, come up with something, come up with an alternative that might actually work, that fits the data.

and believe me, scientists are actually already doing that. always trying to come up with viable alternatives.

but as long as there is only one that actually works, yeah, they're going to treat it as a "definite statement", fact. because that is what science does.

[LHX]

the best working hypothesis is not the same as fact


the thinker thinks and the prover proves



im not so sure that creationism isnt a 'viable alternative' - it seems more and more that for many it is just a less comfortable alternative



like vex said - who gives a fuck in the first place?

'science' clearly isnt putting any of these findings to any practical use that suggests any genuine benefit for the current civilization



"the search for truth in nature" often seems like another ego quest for peer acclaim



just because it gets expressed as fact doesnt mean the creative licence isnt there

its just denied or well-hidden

and stating that something is 'partially your profession' really doesnt have much to do with anything

[LHX]

man

these evolution folk are getting almost as aggravating as fundamental religious folk



the correct answer is: maybe


and depending on the context - it generally doesnt matter



its still (quite) possible that the 'real' history hasnt even been fathomed yet
and is more strange that what a person would readily accept

LHX...



*shakes head*

Nevermind.

sometimes we shake our heads

sometimes our heads get shook


OMG PROFOUND

[Triple Zero]

the best working hypothesis is not the same as fact

yeah but science is gonna treat it as fact. otherwise they can't continue. standing on the shoulders of giants who might not even be there.

im not so sure that creationism isnt a 'viable alternative' - it seems more and more that for many it is just a less comfortable alternative

i dunno what you think creationism is, but all the alternatives i heard about them are pretty much bullshit. it either just doesn't make sense and shoots itself in the foot (yeah the fossils were placed there to test our faith hmhm) [just like FSMism] or it ends up in some sort of unfalsifiable philosophic point similar to Last Thursdayism.

also, evolution theory explains just about a zillion mysterious things up to great detail (and raises just as many questions that scientists love to sink their teeth in), whereas creationism says "god made it", answers nothing, and raises a billion questions that creationists rather turn their eye away from.

if you're serious about this, please explain why you are not so sure that creationism isn't a viable alternaive.

like vex said - who gives a fuck in the first place?

well apparently you do, cause you started a thread about it.

also, i do. and i'm pretty sure BMW does too.

'science' clearly isnt putting any of these findings to any practical use that suggests any genuine benefit for the current civilization

what??

really, i take offense to that, i'm a scientist.

i guess i should start taking up theology classes then eh, at least then i'll be of some use to civilisation (!)

"the search for truth in nature" often seems like another ego quest for peer acclaim

yeah, just like anything else, it's not perfect. i do agree that some scientists do not see this, but the institute of science is not free from cabbageness either.

i'm all for admitting the flaws of the scientific community, but it's still got way more merit than creationism.

just because it gets expressed as fact doesnt mean the creative licence isnt there

that also wasn't my point.

it's expressed as fact, because that's necessary to be able to work from there to new facts.

instead of "fact" they should of course say "best working hypothesis", but the intention is the same. also it's pretty much the closest to "fact" you can get.

its just denied or well-hidden

please tell me where it is hidden?

and stating that something is 'partially your profession' really doesnt have much to do with anything

well it does mean that i have some knowledge about how science actually works. it means that when you say "science is XXXX" and i say it's not, i know i'm right because i know what i am doing, what my professors are doing and what the people who wrote those millions of papers have been doing.
it also means that if you go around making uninformed statements about what you perceive to be science and you draw conclusions from that to put it at the same level as creationism, i'm going to feel the need to defend it, because partially and indirectly, you are also making uninformed statements about me.

[B_M_W]

man

these evolution folk are getting almost as aggravating as fundamental religious folk



the correct answer is: maybe


and depending on the context - it generally doesnt matter



its still (quite) possible that the 'real' history hasnt even been fathomed yet
and is more strange that what a person would readily accept

LHX...



*shakes head*

Nevermind.

sometimes we shake our heads

sometimes our heads get shook


OMG PROFOUND

Actually, I decided it wouldn't be beneficial to talk about evolution, the real definition of 'scientific theory', and scientific method.

I would be repeating myself. It may be true, and factual, but it isn't endearing and agreeable, and it certainly won't benefit you. So its not the right time.

[B_M_W]

the best working hypothesis is not the same as fact

yeah but science is gonna treat it as fact. otherwise they can't continue. standing on the shoulders of giants who might not even be there.

Okay, maybe just a small thing, zero. Its true, a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested repeatedly by experiments and evidence and has failed to be dismissed. However, there is nothing indisputable about science. If there was real repeatable evidence against a theory, it would have to be changed or discarded, in order to fit that evidence.

Generally, continuing and moving forward in science is gathering more evidence, supporting or dissmissing theories, old or new.

But what do I know? I'm just an entomologist right?

[LMNO]

I think, after reading the spaces between the lines of LHX, that what he meant* was something along the lines of:


"While dedicated scientists make careful distinctions between their
[hypotheses, theories, experimental results]
and
[the things they have not tested yet and therefore cannot comment on with any certainty],
there are a large amount of people who have not fully read the scientific literature, nor have fully grasped the concepts, and then talk about
[things they do not completely understand],
and
[things which the literature do not cover]
and subsequently make broad and erroneous statements which they stubbornly cling to with the tenacity of a funamental creationist christian.  I don't like that."












*If LHX feels I got this completely wrong, I apologize.  I have no intention of putting words into anyone's mouth.

[Cramulus]

yeah I read his post as more of an attack on the way that language is being used
than an attack on evolution or the scientific process


*says a prayer for everyone whose parents were killed by science*

[AFK]

man

these evolution folk are getting almost as aggravating as fundamental religious folk



the correct answer is: maybe


and depending on the context - it generally doesnt matter



its still (quite) possible that the 'real' history hasnt even been fathomed yet
and is more strange that what a person would readily accept

I've gotta say I totally agree with this.  There are some evolutionists who can be just as dogmatic and closeminded to other ideas as fundamentalist religious-types.  

We have to remember that we only live in a blink of time compared to the time in which our planet and universe has existed.  Even if you throw in the less technology advanced science from 1000 years ago and beyond, humans still have only had a small sliver of time to study something that has been going on for millions of years.  

Now, that's not to say science hasn't figured some things out.  Obviously they have.  But you have to admit, since none who were alive when evolution, or whatever it was happened, you have to put some degree of faith into that science.  Again, for perspective, how long has the theory of evolution been around compared to how long humans have been around?  How long has the theory of evolution been around compared to how long the Earth and the Universe has been around?

While I find no fault in placing faith in a theory like evolution I also find no fault in entertaining the "maybe" that it could eventually proved to be wrong.  

There's no doubt that peer reviewed science does contain a higher standard and value of validity.  However, the peers that are reviewing the research are just as human and fallible as the original researcher.  I myself find it more likely that something like evolution took place compared to a "creationist" theory.  But, I think there is room for doubt in both of those.  

And I don't think that is a bad thing.