This is pretty damn cool. I’d like to know what all the colors mean.
The colors are the editors making the changes to the Wiki entry. Each editor has they’re own color. There were 68 editors total.
Wow, they’re = their. I seriously went through all the trouble of putting an apostrophe and everything.
@drdrewusaf: Ah, thank you. I almost didn’t post it, not knowing the sauce.
Evolution the Idea – That the natural world has grows through change is a fact. There is no contesting this evidence. The real controversy comes from the application of this idea. My understanding is that many religious anti- evolutionists disagree with human evolution from apes, and they are more than right to contest this as it really is just theory. Because of the scientific (anthropological)communities inability to create a unified theory on human evolution the anti – evolutionists will have dispute. Evolution is a fact, Darwinism is a theory.
As well the dispute has forced hard lines to be drawn, where both sides are forced to take a stand giving little concession to the others ideas, opinions. Many pro evolutionists have created a Zionist zeal for their beliefs as a counter to the religious side. as seen by the Darwin centre and its unmistakable church mimicry.
It’s unfortunate that evolution and Darwinism are so easily confused, but Darwin’s ideas especially about human evolution have no more validity than those of the religious community. a lot of Anthropology bases human evolution outside of the scope of adaptive radiation theory, which some how affects every other species system of evolution.
I think its important to remember that: a)Science came post religion, and religion was a necessity to explain the unexplainable
b)Religion is a matter of personal belief and in many religions has a base in the understanding of the natural order of things and their interactions to one and other.
c)There was once a time where we thought the earth was round, sea monsters were a credible hazard, Newtonian gravity was accepted over Einsteins.
science is theory based and open to change in those theories, why is Darwinism any different?
This is pretty neat, even if I had to put my face right next to my monitor to read it.
@1llume: I haven’t heard of the “unmistakable church mimicry” of the Darwin centre (whatever that is) before. I’m glad I read through your whole post though, since the “a time where we thought the earth was round” bit made me laugh. Thanks for that. 🙂
i meant flat but it works none the less there are still people out there who don’t think the world is round either im a little less forgiving with them then with non evolutionists though
@1llume: WTF drugs are you on? “Evolution is a fact, Darwinism is a theory.”? I guess that’s technically true, but competing theories of evolution, eg Lamarckism, have been thoroughly shot down.
“Darwinâ€™s ideas especially about human evolution have no more validity than those of the religious community.”
Yes, they are. They have been repeatably support by testing falsifiable claims. DNA testing has been a big win for Darwinism.
@1llume: @reboot: reboot shines a pretty bright light there…
Seriously, A) The pursuit of knowledge and understanding has been around since before we even had words or language. So , A) you are dead wrong. B) what does that have to do with the topic at hand? C) How does environmental adaptation and the continual development of our knowledge in any way matter to your ret-con’d statements?
EVERY scientist knows that nothing is “set in stone”, that the gods damned 101 in scientific understanding is “I know nothing” and the entire pursuit of knowledge and understanding is a perpetual emergent seeking. There will NEVER be a point in which we can declare anything as absolute fact save, perhaps, for the moment of the big crunch.
I’d also like to point out that you need to brush up on your understanding of what a “theory” is and how it’s NOT a “hypothesis”. Nothing is “just a theory”. Gravity has BOTH a “Law” and a “Theory”, for example.
Theory – An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Hypothesis – Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
Both have variables that allow them to be disproved, that s the beauty about science. It has a system that allows it to be wrong. But the worst part about science is that is guided by individuals who much like those associated with religion like to have dogmas (An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true) that prevent the process of new ideas and opinions to be considered.
Although science requires proof, and experimentation to validate ideas, these ideas do not become absolute because they have the most proof, they just become the accepted ideas of the time. Newton being a great example, his theories for his time were the strongest, and most widely accepted. but many scientists afterward proved Newtonian law to be flawed ((Helene De Fougeroles, and Einstein)
sylvanish :”EVERY scientist knows that nothing is â€œset in stoneâ€, that the gods damned 101 in scientific understanding is â€œI know nothingâ€ and the entire pursuit of knowledge and understanding is a perpetual emergent seeking. There will NEVER be a point in which we can declare anything as absolute fact”
-Completely agree, science is ever changing and is more than capable to be wrong/right. much like I was trying to show with
“c)There was once a time where we thought the earth was round, sea monsters were a credible hazard, Newtonian gravity was accepted over Einsteins.”
Science changes even when all the evidence is in and it has become acceptable ideology. But how different is that from a religious perspective, to them the evidence for their cause is there and even though it might not all be scientific, empirical evidence; It is what it is to them.
The hardliner stance that those with a faith in science have taken in the defence of Darwinian evolution theory, is becoming just an opposite stance of the religious view.” The 101 in scientific understanding that nothing is set in stone,and “i know nothing” is being lost. it has become either a for or against cause. A person is either for evolution or you believe in creationism.
Reboot: “Yes, they are. They have been repeatably support by testing falsifiable claims. DNA testing has been a big win for Darwinism.” – concerning human evolution
DNA evidence only proves that we share DNA and one would hope so when evolution is concerned, all earthly organisms would have a common genetic ancestry. be it from a organism that sprung up from primordial ooze, Panspermia, or “G”ods creation.
In short I guess my previous post should have been more clear, it’s my bad for not properly arranging my statements. But the Idea i was trying to convey is that science has a base in constantly changing theories and ideas, all of these ideas are based on certain assumed facts about the world we live in. (putting it well ahead of religious views, with its recognition of “wrongness”) but these ideas seem to be forgotten when dealing with creationism.
I’ve told myself countless times, not to argue w/ creationists. One can hardly use the Socratic Method when there is no point of agreement. Creationists feel they have to be 100% right, science often is concerned w/ what is correct, what works and can it be repeated every time. It’s creationists that make the concepts mutually exclusive. When pushed scientists and atheists will become hardliners, but much less often than creationists and the philosophy is not their main concern.
Are you calling me a creationist???
@1llume: I’m as confused as nyokki. You’ve written over 800 words and I have no idea what your point is. You do come off as a creationism defender at several points. Your use of terminology (eg Darwinism, Zionist) is non-standard and confusing. Not only has your education failed you on the subject of evolution, you also seem to have missed the part about constructing a short-form essay. You should try to get your money back.
I can understand that, I was just trying to find some understanding why there cant be tolerance on both sides. I find both as bad as each other on pushing their ideas and such on the issue.
FYI : I find condolence in Panspermia, I like the ideas of Stichen, and Icke.
@1llume: That’s an easy question. The reason there can’t be “tolerance” is that respect for the scientific method is the best hope for a continued, prosperous existence for our species. People are free to have their own crazy opinions, but in the realm of public discourse we would be best served by only considering those ideas that have scientific merit. Why should religion and science be given equal value? Do you think prayer is going to solve the energy crisis, cure cancer or fix the economy?
Icke? David Icke? The guy that (no kidding) thinks that alien lizard-people are controlling the planet?
@1llume: My point is that there already is and always has been tolerance by scientists. The vast majority of scientists could care less what someone else believes. They only become hardliners when they are consistently barraged to explain why they’re right and creationists are wrong and when they do it’s only to find out no one was listening anyway. Why? The creationists fervently believe they are right and if they’re right, they’re 100% right. How do you argue against that? It’s impossible. Creationism/intelligent design is not a competing theory w/ evolution, it’s a belief and as such is not to be compared scientifically.
Oh and don’t ask a scientist to figure out how many angels can fit on the head of pin.
Icke? David Icke? The guy that (no kidding) thinks that alien lizard-people are controlling the planet?
Used to think that , also thought he was jessus like figure, Now he is a Anti- elitist like Alex jones.
I just think that with more tollerence and open views on creation of life, allows for a more open and tollernt viewing of my views.
Tolerance for insane morons is moronic. It’s like talking to a 3 year old. But? Answer. But…answer…but…answer…but…oh forget it.
this is more or less what my posts have said about those with faith in science or religion, and tolerance for anything outside of what they know to be “right”
“Theory- An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture”
NO. JUST, NO. In daily use, or philosophical use, that may be how the common individual uses those terms. In the interests of an actual scientific theory, law, and hypothesis that is not the definition.
A Law states what is easily observed, and is often generally applicable to many scenarios. Laws also have stipulations and limits. For example, you could paraphrase the law of gravity by saying “what goes up, must come down” with the limitation of “in a vacuum.”
A theory is a current model of why the law works. They change over time, because they’re based off of evidence made from previous experiments that are typically submitted to the scientific community for review and critique. The theory of gravity says why gravity works using knowledge of physics based on actual experiments, and why it doesn’t work in certain conditions. As more scientists do more experiments and come up with different results, the theory may change, or may be validated.
A hypothesis is a prediction about the outcome of a single experiment, based on the results of previous experiments.
Hypothesis’ aren’t just an assumption, some shot in the dark, they have previous results to back them up. Theories will always be theories, they don’t magically change into Laws once there’s enough evidence, because there will never be enough, and they have a different function than laws.
what goes up comes back down, even in a vacuum 😉
what goes up does NOT come back down when you’re away from a sizable mass exerting gravametric forces upon what goes up.
@Twosticks: A hypothesis is a prediction about the outcome of a single experiment, based on the results of previous experiments.
?A prediction being a guess or assumption of future events based on past knowledge ?
@Twosticks: Theories will always be theories, they donâ€™t magically change into Laws once thereâ€™s enough evidence, because there will never be enough, and they have a different function than laws.
I don’t think I have disputed this
All I have said from the beginning is that “Evolution is a fact, Darwinism is a theory.”
fact being – fact (fkt)
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
Theory being – theÂ·oÂ·ry (th-r, thÃ®r)
n. pl. theÂ·oÂ·ries
1.Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
2.A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
And in this statement I referenced as to how Darwin can be seen as wrong with his views on the application of evolution toward human evolution.
Despite the matter that I have whole heartedly expressed by understanding that Evolution Is a fact!! (see above definition), Still I have been vilified as a creationist,and attacks on personality and writing style have been used to De-credit my views. Being that science is tolerant, and having ability to be wrong and change its facts. And that the those who back Darwin in ideas of human creation are hardliners no longer using science as a style of thinking that avoids stagnation in ideas, to avoid pre-enlightenment thinking that held the world as flat, and earth as the centre of the universe.
I’m not trying to argue Evolution,Its there it’s real!! I’m arguing for open mindedness in science.
@tiki god: well… shit.
I should apologize a bit and say that I wasn’t inferring that you were creationist, or ‘the enemy’ or anything like that; your statement of what a theory was just set me off, I actually was in an argument with someone about this just yesterday and the aggravation was fresh in my mind.
I still think you’re muddying the waters a bit in the definition, in the stake out example you gave that would be correct. I just can’t stand it when people say that Evolution is “just a theory” because there is some inference that because it changes and it’s what you think happens, then it all of a sudden is immediately suspect.
At any rate, I spouted an untruth in ignorance (vacuum) and partially derailed a thread, I shall therefore dock my account by 100 internets.
The actual body of the reply past the first line is, of course, directed at 1llume.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 1 other subscriber
Copyright © 2020 Internet-D
Design by ThemesDNA.com
Username or Email Address