 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)ijonspeches ...and 145 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614218 Today 22 Topics 127549 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Evolution is a nice hardcore label in UK. But now let's discuss Mr Darwin's theory... Is it Bullshit or a good theory? What other ideas/feelings do you have about it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I do believe we evolve... it seems like good theory to me... but, as for how life was created I just can't, CAN'T believe the big bang theory... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you want to comment, why you don't believe in the BIG BANG theory? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I believe that in 75 years humans will be born without pubic hair. Funkmaster: Which theory do you believe then? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't know, just doesn't seem to be a very good theory to me... I'm not really sure what I believe... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hehe .. quite a "philosophical" mood on the board recently innit. nice theory - but fundamentally flawed imo, though for pragmatic purposes, some shape or form of the theory is worth holding on to. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Everything was created by default, everything up until now, is complete randomness, the idea that there is a metaphysical force that binds the universe makes me laugh - there is only this: The rotting decaying stench of the flesh. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
as far as the creation of the universe, and life and all that... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
From my experience I have to say a lot of people haven't thought much about the theory. Some people even say "It's the truth - this is how it happened", when it's just a theory. Not a very good theory either. Some people are real evolution-fanatics and look down on religious people. Still they have even more deep believes [in their beloved theory]. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what you just wrote makes me laugh. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
dosn't it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
people look down on people for other reasons as well ... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
some of it is possibly true, some of it is possibly false |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
either you believe in a theory - or you don't. Of course, making your own theory is an option =) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but you just said its a theory so how can you believe it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
make that BELIEVE it ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the very few details of the big bang theory that are commonly known in the public lead to a very wrong glimpse of the theory. it's very difficult from a methematical point of view and it isn't even complete yet. what it is used for to explain usually is the very beginning of the universe and in fact there is no such theory for the very first moment. it is a theory to explain what happend after the big bang. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah I know that. it's about adaption/evolution... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and it isn't even complete yet necessarily so no? :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah... that's my point. it's a theory. it's not the truth. but I've met a lot of people in my life who looks upon it as truth, as the "only reasonable thing to believe in"... ignorant people |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
adaptionism is essentially post-hoc .. but can still have explanatory value no? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sorry... are you replying to me? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
truth is a pickle key - .. i think one can believe it - people seem to believe a lot of stuff that either seems unbelievable, or by definition unbelievable ... (see meaning of life thread :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Mmmmm, pickles! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh boy... *sits down in chair and shakes head* first off, if you are talking about darwin's theory of evolution (which is different from others), then it's probably a good thing to back up WHY you think it's a 'bad' theory, instead of just pulling some sort of name-calling conclusion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
actually, i should add - the proper term would be darwin's theory of evolution BY natural selection... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah I know. anyway. I thought this would be an more interesting thread, since I do not believe in the evolution and would like to hear some arguemnts from people who do... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's not really a theory because it doesn't predict anything. it's rather a recipy of how evolution works and it is a very good one because it goes together with billions of details in nature. and in fact it is the ONLY recipy of how evolution works. there is this large community in the US who think it makes little jesus cry that the world changes, no? i think it's only them who are afraid of it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, evolution can be observed, it's a fact to be understood but not something to argue about. you can't say you don't believe in the wind blowing but you can say you think it's due to some other fact or something. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a good thing to back up WHY you think it's a 'bad' theory, instead of just pulling some sort of name-calling conclusion. haha .. logicians clearing out the muck. but doesn't everything degenerate into name-calling anyway - so why not stick with it? ;) cheffe - i believe Darwins theory of natural selection, / the contemporary variant gene selectionism - is intended to have predictive power. adaptionism doesn't - or that's its weakness. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so you're defining a theory as something that can predict something else? like a fortune-teller? well then, would it follow that fortune-tellers are good theorists?? that's absurd, really. yes, a theory is a conjecture, a guess about something, in other words, but i don't think that necessarily requires it to be able to 'predict' anything in the future per se. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
cheffe - some people also (legitimately or not) draw a distinction between micro and macro evolution. i know some "devout believers in christ" that have no problem in micro evolution, such as darwins' finches - but have a problem with the BIG picture. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
who is calling names? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well i'm not so good in english to really fight a debate. when religion is involved i leave :) i meant that darwins PRINCIPLE has no predictive power because the key fact of variation cannot be taken out. noone knows which muatations will occur and hence noone knows which will be successful. there are examples where everything goes smoothly and nature takes the 'easiest' way, but there also are examples of spontaneous generation of new elements that couldn't have been predicted. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yo jenf. the strength of a scientific theory is often measured by its predictive power/quality ... thus avoiding post-hoc things .. but ofcourse it never (in the theoretical sense) claims to be 100% predictive .. what would statisticians do if that were the case? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
of course, you could take the david hume perspective of things - what if the sun doesn't rise tomorrow? how will we know??? AHHHHH! *panic ensues* well, does that mean your theory wasn't useful for the time that it was agreed upon? remember, things change and theories are touched up and updated - paradigm shifts! of course, this is only one perspective on the issue (i hold true to korben dallas' post-modernist preferences...) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
silly boy (or girl), if you read correctly, i said 'that's absurd', not 'you're absurd' :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
statisticians can lick my arse. :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
david hume was quite the man - though strawson had an interesting argument saying that hume dissolved the problem of induction. but getting back on topic .. the fact that we don't panic about not being able to know whether the sun rises - surely sheds some light (excuse the pun) on formal knowledge? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well SOME of us panic, im sure. :) 'end of the world, apocalyptic, buy-cans-of-beans' type paranoia... but the majority that don't worry about these things - well, the only light it sheds is that the theory has a higher probability of being applicable to what we know at the time that we know, right? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so if you guys think it's a good theory... please explain why. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think it's not a perfect theory, because darwin was writing this theory in the middle of a conflict between what he found on the galapagos and various related islands AND the british religious hierarchy. who would like to believe in the 18th century that man was once a monkey (or related to one)? therefore, when he wrote it, he changed a lot of things to suit both parties, so politics and culture got in the way of his investigations, im sure. but this does not discount some of his findings - as they hold onto this day (eg, dog breeding). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no no... I meant by your previous post (#00669989)... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what the sun rising or induction? (just curious, what do you make of the liar paradox?) Key: similarly, if you think it's not a good theory explain why. because surely you believe either one or the other :) sorry its hellishly late, and have been doing a heidegger essay - so i think i'll get some shut eye. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Key, could you tell me a little about what you disagree with concerning evolution? Are there specific examples of evolutionary theory that you find far-fetched or ludicrous? Have you encountered evidence that makes evolution seem improbable or incorrect? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hmm.. according to the post number you are talking about, i said that in order for you to say something is a 'bad' theory, it's probably best to explain why it's bad, right? but that does not necessarily conclude that *i* think it's a good theory now, does it? what if i don't think either - i just think it's a theory ... period. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
<-- big fan of induction |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
how about induction within a construct, made through a combination of elements? haha |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
elucidate |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
elements? what like principle of uniformity of nature? or you mean logical elements -- i can just smell that logical atomism .. fleetmouse - ho ho .. ;) is that a pancake or piklet or whatever you call it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
