Evolution is not a fact, but it is as close as it gets.

Disagree with the premise of the game? Tell us why we're wrong, and bring the evidence to prove it!
User avatar
SingingST
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:16 pm

Re: Evolution is not a fact, but it is as close as it gets.

Post by SingingST » Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:24 pm

Trisdino wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:14 pm
... Even if you drop it a thousand times, and it always falls down, you cannot be sure that it would not fall up if you had done it one more time...
...ok THAT'S the exact moment when my paranoia intensifies. :roll: :lol:

User avatar
BakedToast
Posts: 1198
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:31 pm
Location: Somewhere in Arrimua

Re: Evolution is not a fact, but it is as close as it gets.

Post by BakedToast » Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:30 am

Trisdino wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:14 pm
Even if you drop it a thousand times, and it always falls down, you cannot be sure that it would not fall up if you had done it one more time.
Actually, yes you can; you can simply drop the pencil again. The laws of physics have countless representations, consistently, over and over again.
If you brush all this evidence away, you essentially say that no evidence of anything is ever sufficient to prove it, which means that your statement of evolution being "as close to fact as it gets" is also something that has no bearing and can be viewed as simply arrogant rambling.
By embracing such "There are no absolutes and we can't prove anything" thinking, you cut your own ideas and efforts off at the knees by reducing their significance to nothing. Pragmatically, that simply isn't wise.

Trisdino wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:14 pm
This does not mean that evolution, and any other scientific theory should be ignored, because just as the odds of religion being true are less then 0,(insert as many zeros as you want, and then add a 1 at the end), the odds of evolution being true are still 99,999999999999999. This may seem like a technicality, but it proves that must creationists do not know what they are talking about, because in science, technicalities are incredibly important.
Given your above argument, you then state that the odds of [any] religion (I will assume you mean a religion with some sort of deity, or multiple, that created everything) being less than 0 and that the odds of evolution (I will assume you mean abiogenesis via evolution, since that's the most common antithesis to creation) are an astronomically high number (which I think you merely spammed a bunch of 9's to get), and justify your argument solely by the above argument that evidence is useless and is of no significance, thus allowing you to make such a statement and appear believable.

You also state that scientific theories shouldn't be ignored, but by your above logic, if your above logic was true, then yes, they should be ignored, as they can't prove anything; so, rather than swallow that load of tripe, and throw out every scientific theory I or anyone else has learned, I'll simply state that your argument is clearly full of holes, as that's the more pragmatic option.

You then add that technicalities are important, which further contradicts your entire previous argument, since [as a technicality] "less than 0" as a probability is a statistical impossibility and you brazenly act as though such an argument to refute your comment wouldn't somehow be a technicality in and of itself.

Maybe "creationists" (you lump them all together in one group, as if they're all the same, a classic post-modern manouvre, also known as stereotyping, a form of prejudice) don't know what they're talking about, but neither do you, given your arguments.

-----------

I could delve into the creationist-evolutionist debate cycle and type till I'm blue in the face, but that's clearly not what this is about, at least not for you. It's not about the evidence, or lack thereof, because your own viewpoint stipulates evidence as being insignificant.

In fact, just as you might see "creationists" (again, you see them as one group, all the same) as uneducated, there are many who might see one like yourself, who can't construct a stable argument about their evolutionary beliefs, as misguided; taking for truth (via faith, just like those religious ones you seem to despise) everything you hear from those you look up to, believing it to be scientifically true without investigating it yourself; in a desire [a hope, perhaps?], that maybe there isn't a divine being of some sort who holds you accountable.

User avatar
Tiberius
Posts: 5088
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 3:28 am
Location: Canada

Re: Evolution is not a fact, but it is as close as it gets.

Post by Tiberius » Tue Jan 07, 2020 12:04 am

Actually, yes you can; you can simply drop the pencil again.
Yes but what if the time after that it dosen't fall? Its a recursive problem that can only be solved by dropping it infinitely. You've totally ignored the actual concept for the sake of reductionism.
If you brush all this evidence away, you essentially say that no evidence of anything is ever sufficient to prove it, which means that your statement of evolution being "as close to fact as it gets" is also something that has no bearing and can be viewed as simply arrogant rambling.
By embracing such "There are no absolutes and we can't prove anything" thinking, you cut your own ideas and efforts off at the knees by reducing their significance to nothing. Pragmatically, that simply isn't wise.
This is what is known as a run-on sentence. Regardless you've misunderstood what the point is. What he's talking about is more or less the difference between math and science. You can never prove anything completely in science, but you can in math. I can say with total confidence 1+1=2 and if a=b and b=c then a=c. I can't say that it's impossible that gravity doesn't exist. There could be another explanation for why it appears to exist in so many places, but I can also say that chance is non-zero, and thus unimportant.

Evolution is approaching gravity levels of verified. We have literal mountains of evidence for it. There could be an alternate explanation for everything older than six thousand years, but its non-zero.
Given your above argument, you then state that the odds of [any] religion (I will assume you mean a religion with some sort of deity, or multiple, that created everything) being less than 0 and that the odds of evolution (I will assume you mean abiogenesis via evolution, since that's the most common antithesis to creation) are an astronomically high number (which I think you merely spammed a bunch of 9's to get), and justify your argument solely by the above argument that evidence is useless and is of no significance, thus allowing you to make such a statement and appear believable.
This whole paragraph is based on the misunderstanding so I don't really have a ton to say. Science can't really verify religion, in the same way, I can't verify the existence of aliens that look like humans but with weird foreheads. Its just difficult to prove a negative. Regardless I also don't think there's a great chance of those aliens existing, given what I know about evolution and the chances of an alien evolving to look just like us.
You also state that scientific theories shouldn't be ignored, but by your above logic, if your above logic was true, then yes, they should be ignored, as they can't prove anything; so, rather than swallow that load of tripe, and throw out every scientific theory I or anyone else has learned, I'll simply state that your argument is clearly full of holes, as that's the more pragmatic option.

You then add that technicalities are important, which further contradicts your entire previous argument, since [as a technicality] "less than 0" as a probability is a statistical impossibility and you brazenly act as though such an argument to refute your comment wouldn't somehow be a technicality in and of itself.
Same misunderstanding, but your are correct that he said less than zero, rather than non-zero, but that particular word dosen't really affect the argument and its obvious what he meant.
Maybe "creationists" (you lump them all together in one group, as if they're all the same, a classic post-modern manouvre, also known as stereotyping, a form of prejudice) don't know what they're talking about, but neither do you, given your arguments.
He's bad at articulating his ideas, but he's got the basic idea down.

In fact, just as you might see "creationists" (again, you see them as one group, all the same) as uneducated, there are many who might see one like yourself, who can't construct a stable argument about their evolutionary beliefs, as misguided; taking for truth (via faith, just like those religious ones you seem to despise) everything you hear from those you look up to, believing it to be scientifically true without investigating it yourself; in a desire [a hope, perhaps?], that maybe there isn't a divine being of some sort who holds you accountable.
I don't know if you're projecting or what, but "in a desire [a hope, perhaps?], that maybe there isn't a divine being of some sort who holds you accountable" is really something. I had to stifle a laugh when I read that. I can see why you like Jordan Petersen. And if you respond please cut out the run-on sentences. It makes your writing harder to parse.

I should also point out he is wrong in that evolution, in particular, doesn't entirely invalidate old earth creationism, although intelligent design goes against our understanding of evolution you can't really argue against it with the evidence we have.


EDIT
And while I would personally call Evolution a fact, fact isn't really defined well in an academic sense so it is debatable, but ultimately just a matter of terminology.

User avatar
BakedToast
Posts: 1198
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:31 pm
Location: Somewhere in Arrimua

Re: Evolution is not a fact, but it is as close as it gets.

Post by BakedToast » Sat Mar 21, 2020 3:02 am

Tiberius wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 12:04 am
I realize that I've offended you and possibly others by my ranting earlier. So I want to start off with an apology; I misunderstood the original post and felt that it was being arrogant. That triggered a bit of salt on my end, which is inexcusable. I then immediately went to write a response without looking at the timestamp of the original poster to realize that they were long gone.

Yes, I most likely was projecting with my last statement. That was poor debating and sportsmanship on my part. Again, I apologize.

I agree with your statement that a lot of my argument was based off of a misunderstanding. Since I missed the original point, you're correct that most of my entire rant was irrelevant to the subject matter.

On the subject of the pencil example, and your argument about reductionism, you're right as well. My counter-argument is indeed reductive and misses the point.
But, I will point out that the initial argument there, then, is not a correct analogy to the study of the evidence of evolution. We only have one example of a full, complete biosphere evolution: Earth. The equivalent would be to drop a pencil only once, and since it fell down, to assume that it would always do so.
Furthermore, the "odds" of a pencil falling towards the gravitational source when dropped are astronomically huge. But, as above, we are using observational logic in this particular argument. Which would then imply, that since we only have Earth as an example, that the odds of evolution of life in [any] potentially hospitable situation are either 100% or basically 0%, since we only have the one case example. Now, this is only using the pencil dropping argument as a fulcrum for our discussion. This is essentially a discussion of the pencil model at this point. So I'll leave it at that, and propose that the pencil example is simply not a viable model to explain this scenario.


I did want to point out, though, that you did make a large assumption. I, personally, don't "Like Jordan Peterson". I'm unattached to the man. If you're referring to the discussion I brought up about how he goes over the psychology built into the book of Genesis, yes, I found that particular analysis interesting, because I like psychology.
But the only other pieces of content I have consumed and appreciated from him are the following: a 1hr 45min speech where he explains why he doesn't believe in a god, his psychological analysis of the ancient Mesopotamian mythology regarding Marduk, and his psychological analysis of the ancient Egyptian mythology regarding Horus (the latter two are shown to have some pretty neat psychological truths built into them). That's a grand total of four productions from a person who has quite a few more, and thus I don't consider myself to "like him", but merely a few pieces of his work.

On a final note, I also agree that there is a lot of evidence that supports evolution. The way I view the world and how I explain the world to others is indeed through this model as well. This has gotten me into trouble with a few extremely religious in-laws (like my sister in-law who got quite flustered when I told her 6 yr old son that the Asteroid belt was most likely a planet that got smashed into by another celestial body. She retorted that the asteroid belt was always there, and it was "created that way").

I did my best to avoid run-on sentences. I hope I didn't offend you by any of the above. I like interacting with you in games in other sections of this forum as well, and would hate to sully that relation.

User avatar
Tiberius
Posts: 5088
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 3:28 am
Location: Canada

Re: Evolution is not a fact, but it is as close as it gets.

Post by Tiberius » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:45 am

Yeah, in hindsight I was a bit rude because that last bit really got under my skin. It sounds like we already have an understanding, although its worth noting that the asteroid belt wasn't formed by a shattered planet. Its actually just left overs of planetary formation. The rest of the debris formed into planets or got "bumped" by planets gravity out of the solar system

EDIT I looked into it a little more, and there are some theories that the asteroid belt was a planet, but there somewhat weak, since shattering a planet is incredibly hard. The other theory is that Jupiter prevented planet formation in that region,

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest