Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[viole]

It means that I'm typing in English on a Spanish OS with a Spanish keyboard and Spanish autocorrection.

I am sure that on any Spanish keyboard the letter "l" does not navigate randomly across the layout. Or auto cancels double entries of the same letter. And that it does not auto correct things into other things that do not exist in Spanish. Unless you believe that "falacious" is a Spanish word.

You are making things up, again, and expect that we buy them. That is a strange habit of yours, I am afraid.

But it is understandable, since it is obvious now that English is not your mother tongue, either.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

I am sure that on any Spanish keyboard the letter "l" does not navigate randomly across the layout. Or auto cancels double entries of the same letter. And that it does not auto correct things into other things that do not exist in Spanish. Unless you believe that "falacious" is a Spanish word.

You are making things up, again, and expect that we buy them. That is a strange habit of yours, I am afraid.

But it is understandable, since it is obvious now that English is not your mother tongue, either.

Ciao

- viole

Nah, it's really simple. Here's how it works. When I type on the screen, this is what I see.

As you can see, pretty much every word I type is underlined in red. So if I misspell or mistype a word, I may have no way of knowing. I only detect errors once I've posted my idea (I re-read it and correct the first error I see) or if it's a word that I know I consistently spell wrong. I always spell passangers wrong because it's similar to the word passage, but spelled differently. I always spell priviledge wrong. I always spell devestated wrong. So, since the only way I can check my spelling is to go to Google, type in the word, and have it tell me the correct spelling, and since that's kind of a pain in the keister, I only do it on words that I know I misspell.

And everyone here knows I'm a native English speaker. Do you seriously think that non-native speakers know the word keister? You bet your bupkes they don't. In fact, before 9-11 when you crossed into Mexico and lost your passport, you could go back into the US just by knowing what hopscotch or monkey bars were. These are words that non-native speakers don't know. So stop kvetching about my English already. You didn't even know what pwned meant.

 

[viole]

Nah, it's really simple. Here's how it works. When I type on the screen, this is what I see.

As you can see, pretty much every word I type is underlined in red. So if I misspell or mistype a word, I may have no way of knowing. I only detect errors once I've posted my idea (I re-read it and correct the first error I see) or if it's a word that I know I consistently spell wrong. I always spell passangers wrong because it's similar to the word passage, but spelled differently. I always spell priviledge wrong. I always spell devestated wrong. So, since the only way I can check my spelling is to go to Google, type in the word, and have it tell me the correct spelling, and since that's kind of a pain in the keister, I only do it on words that I know I misspell.

And everyone here knows I'm a native English speaker. Do you seriously think that non-native speakers know the word keister? You bet your bupkes they don't. In fact, before 9-11 when you crossed into Mexico and lost your passport, you could go back into the US just by knowing what hopscotch or monkey bars were. These are words that non-native speakers don't know. So stop kvetching about my English already. You didn't even know what pwned meant.

Well, then I propose you stop criticizing other people's spelling, since you do not seem to have it under control, either. And if English is your native language, then you should indulge the mistakes of non native speakers even more.

And yes, I did not know what "pwned" meant in English. Is that bad? My friend from London never heard that either.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ouroboros]

He is assuming that books defining English grammar are correct. Or that his English teacher was correct. Or his friends/parent spoke correct English, etc.

He also gave you wrong grammar advice once or twice.

He doesn't understand that this is an informal forum. No one should be expected to write a formal essay or report. If that was required, then we all would have to take time to create outlines, several edits, and such, and each essay would be too long and too boring to read. The charm with a forum like this is the fact that you write what comes to your mind, at this moment, a flash of a moment in time that's put into words.

I tend to just write like I would if I was free writing, which is a process of writing whatever comes to your mind without concern from grammar. And then I very rarely go back to my post to correct things. Sometimes I do, but most of the time I don't. I barely even read it a second time before I post. So things just come out, unfinished, unpolished, and often with several grammar errors. If he expects each post to be a formal essay with precise and correct grammar, then he's on the wrong forum.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well, then I propose you stop criticizing other people's spelling, since you do not seem to have it under control, either. And if English is your native language, then you should indulge the mistakes of non native speakers even more.

And yes, I did not know what "pwned" meant in English. Is that bad? My friend from London never heard that either.

Ciao

- viole

And he can change the language setting to English or get a keyboard with English setup.

Pwnd is a gamer word. It comes from the younger group playing games on the computers and chatting with each other and misspelling the word "owned". "P" is next to "o", hence a common misspelling is "pwnd". So it stands for young slang for "I owned you."

--edit (this is what I add if I ever go back to my post for whatever reason)

PS. I'm ignoring him if you wonder why I'm not responding to him anymore.

 

[BilliardsBall]

JOB 1 & 2, where God and Satan were making wager about Job.

Are you telling me that there were actual eye-witnesses to this wager being made? Or did the author of JOB invented this story?

As I understand it, the story of Job was set in the time of Moses, according to (Jewish) traditions, and yet there are no explicit mention of Job anywhere in the Torah (the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). The only sources outside of the Book of Job, is that of Ezekiel, and he (or whoever truly wrote the book of Ezekiel) made no mention of any wager or Job's sufferings, just that he was a very pious man, like Noah and Daniel.

The only evidence - or more precisely literary evidence to the story of Job is that the book of the same name. And judging by this evidence, JOB wasn't written until the 6th century. If Job was really a figure at the time of Moses, then who was the eyewitness for the wager between God and Satan.

If that being the case, then the author of JOB was clearly not an eyewitness, unless you think the author can time-jump to Moses' time and then return to his time and write that damn book???? Highly unlikely.

No, the most likely answer to the whole story of Job, was that the story was invented in the 6th century BCE, therefore requiring no eye-witness. The book of JOB is not eyewitness or historical account.

Yes, I'm telling you that there were eyewitnesses to this discussion, since you might be unfamiliar with the concept known as ammuenses writing the Bible, that is, God told the Bible writers stories and so on. Moses wasn't there when Adam and Even down through Abraham and beyond did their thing--but Moses was with God as a scribe, closeted with God for weeks on end, writing.

I'm okay with you being skeptical about the miraculous, but I'm not okay with you saying it's illogical for there to have been eyewitnesses, when the scriptures themselves say God gave the scriptures, and is therefore the correct eyewitness to be concerned with.

 

[BilliardsBall]

First of all, why would one blindly believes in all that is written from a subjective source? When we read scriptures, any scriptures, there is always the claim of "eyewitnesses", so why would you believe in one supposed set at the expense of others? I'll tell you why-- because you want to.

By taking that route, everything becomes so easy-- the "my way or the highway" approach and anyone who disagrees is "wrong-headed" people who believe in "false religion". How many times have we seen this put out by others from all different religious perspectives.

So, all you have done is to buy into one set of supposed "eye-witnesses" while ignoring everyone else's claims of the same. Now, don't come back and lay any kind of claim that it is your "eyewitnesses" that are trustworthy and all others are false because you can no more find evidence for that than I can find any evidence for any other such claims.

BTW, if you haven't noticed it before, read my signature statement at the bottom of this post and see if my approach makes any sense to you.

I wouldn't blindly believe all from a subjective source. I've researched--and continue to research--the prophecies and verifiable eyewitness accounts sourced in the Bible, and am convinced I'm reading objective, not subjective, accounts. You and I are judges, and ought to judge rightly. If we serve as jurors, we are picked for the jury because we have NOT been eyewitnesses to an event, and must judge whether the evidence such as eyewitness accounts or forensic evidence is a appropriate and accurate.

As for "wanting to believe" I had no intention of doing any such thing. As a Jew, I knew my family and friends would reject me and cause me terrible pain if I believed in Jesus, and they did so. I tried hard NOT to be a born again believer, but felt compelled to trust Jesus for salvation based on the evidence I had available.

Further, I don't think everyone who disagrees with me believes in false religion or is missing cards from their deck. I think there are 1) a lot of good people out there, perhaps you included, who will someday trust Jesus for salvation but are yet to encounter Him. I think 2) there is a ton of truth in other religions and very little truth in humanism and materialism (and human pride and selfishness, too). I think 3) a careful study of most religions shows one God, judgment for sin, and other important details--but the delightful difference with biblical Christianity is the sure knowledge of salvation based on what Jesus did, not what we do.

 

[metis]

I wouldn't blindly believe all from a subjective source. I've researched--and continue to research--the prophecies and verifiable eyewitness accounts sourced in the Bible, and am convinced I'm reading objective, not subjective, accounts. You and I are judges, and ought to judge rightly. If we serve as jurors, we are picked for the jury because we have NOT been eyewitnesses to an event, and must judge whether the evidence such as eyewitness accounts or forensic evidence is a appropriate and accurate.

As for "wanting to believe" I had no intention of doing any such thing. As a Jew, I knew my family and friends would reject me and cause me terrible pain if I believed in Jesus, and they did so. I tried hard NOT to be a born again believer, but felt compelled to trust Jesus for salvation based on the evidence I had available.

Further, I don't think everyone who disagrees with me believes in false religion or is missing cards from their deck. I think there are 1) a lot of good people out there, perhaps you included, who will someday trust Jesus for salvation but are yet to encounter Him. I think 2) there is a ton of truth in other religions and very little truth in humanism and materialism (and human pride and selfishness, too). I think 3) a careful study of most religions shows one God, judgment for sin, and other important details--but the delightful difference with biblical Christianity is the sure knowledge of salvation based on what Jesus did, not what we do.

I just responded to you on another thread that I could also apply on this thread, so you might check that out.

 

[Shad]

Sure it does. The primary claims made that eyewitness testimony is frequently false are:

1. Crime scenes may be very stressful, and memory is less reliable when one is under stress.
2. In the commission of a crime, witnesses will focus overly on the weapon being used.
3. Leading questions can be used to cause the witnesses to change their testimony.

Yet as per their own findings "However, they agreed it would be hard to generalise the findings of this study, as the case (as with any other case study) is unique, and it is difficult to find a similar one naturally occurring again. Even more so, as there were only thirteen participants to this study–eight of the original witnesses either moved or did not want to take part."

IE A perfect case which make the study an impractical basis for real world events. Also note that incorrect questions would "lead" to fault memory recall. As pointed the Bible is written by Christians thus already have a bias which can alter their memory recall creating distortions/ That even if one grants the sources were eyewitness.

By way of comparison, the study in question did not find that stress impacted the memory, and did not find that misleading questions caused the witnesses to change their testimony. This is in a direct contradiction to that found by Loftus & Palmer.

Never claimed stress had a role.

This is just an abstract I can not access. However given the above source I believe your conclusion is unlikely.

As I have said elsewhere, it is a simple matter to make eyewitness testimony accurate.

Sure I agree. However the subjects in this thread can not be contracted to resolve this issue.

Once again, you fall into the same logical fallacy already discussed. How do you know that people don't get resurrected?

There is a higher probability of witness bias, incorrect diagnosis, textual edition (which is true of Jesus' resurrection), the drop of such events being verified now that we have the tools to study supposed real cases. Just like any other superstition based events have declined in number and reliability. The external sources, non-Christian, do not even making a passing references to the resurrection events. More so within the texts itself identification of Jesus was a problem. He didn't look the same. Also that the information of the event is already contained within a text that accepts it as fact.

Well, perhaps you will say that you've never seen a person get resurrected. What you are really saying is that your past experiences are representative of all experiences everywhere in the universe past, present, and future. How can you justify this claim?

No. I provided criteria above. Also consider resurrection is not a biological function but solely supernatural. Once supernatural causes are in the door any understanding of nature becomes moot. Any explanation can be concluded ad hoc with a supernatural entity as a cause.

Well, I'd never heard of the story, but I certainly do agree that most people will immediately judge the story based on their a priori philosophical biases. Catholics, for example, will probably accept the story and rejoice in it whereas people with your biases probably won't.

There are other issues such as arguments from ignorance in which an event is given a supernatural explanation. Such as the empty tomb being assumed to be evidence of a resurrection event rather than a mistake on the part of the observer.

What you seem to be saying is that your biases are correct whereas those of a Catholic believer are wrong. I remain agnostic about that.

No. The methods I use are superior leading to a more reliable conclusion than the methods used by Catholics.

 

[Zosimus]

Well, then I propose you stop criticizing other people's spelling, since you do not seem to have it under control, either. And if English is your native language, then you should indulge the mistakes of non native speakers even more.

And yes, I did not know what "pwned" meant in English. Is that bad? My friend from London never heard that either.

Ciao

- viole

I don't criticize your spelling. I criticize the AMBIGUITY in your sentences.

 

[Zosimus]

Yet as per their own findings "However, they agreed it would be hard to generalise the findings of this study, as the case (as with any other case study) is unique, and it is difficult to find a similar one naturally occurring again. Even more so, as there were only thirteen participants to this study–eight of the original witnesses either moved or did not want to take part."

Sure, it's not perfect, but it directly falsifies most of the unrealistic laboratory-performed tests that claim that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.

IE A perfect case which make the study an impractical basis for real world events. Also note that incorrect questions would "lead" to fault memory recall.

It did not say that, in fact, it says exactly the opposite. The two misleading questions did not result in a change in the memory recall.

As pointed the Bible is written by Christians thus already have a bias which can alter their memory recall creating distortions/ That even if one grants the sources were eyewitness.

Even if this is true, the corollary of your claim is that atheist-performed scientific research is also untrustworthy as atheists have an (anti-)religious bias that makes their memory untrustworthy and distorted.

There is a higher probability of witness bias, incorrect diagnosis, textual edition (which is true of Jesus' resurrection), the drop of such events being verified now that we have the tools to study supposed real cases. Just like any other superstition based events have declined in number and reliability. The external sources, non-Christian, do not even making a passing references to the resurrection events. More so within the texts itself identification of Jesus was a problem. He didn't look the same. Also that the information of the event is already contained within a text that accepts it as fact.

All of this information is irrelevant and none of it answers the question I posed. I'm not interested in the Bible story. I am simply interested in knowing why you think that resurrection is impossible in an epistemological context.

No. I provided criteria above. Also consider resurrection is not a biological function but solely supernatural. Once supernatural causes are in the door any understanding of nature becomes moot. Any explanation can be concluded ad hoc with a supernatural entity as a cause.

No, what you have provided is an a priori philosophical bias in favor of metaphysical naturalism. You have not addressed any of the logical fallacies that lead you to believe that this belief can be logically justified. How do you know that resurrection is not a biological function?

There are other issues such as arguments from ignorance in which an event is given a supernatural explanation. Such as the empty tomb being assumed to be evidence of a resurrection event rather than a mistake on the part of the observer.

Irrelevant. However, since you seem determined to turn an epistemological argument into a theological one, I'll bite.
It is a fact that Jesus of Nazareth lived, was executed, and his tomb turned up empty.
The question, therefore, is how to explain the situation.
1. Maybe Jesus didn't really die. Maybe he just collapsed and revived sometime later.
2. Maybe Jesus' apostles stole the body and later claimed that he had miraculously come back.
3. Maybe Jesus really was dead, but came back to life.

What do you think happened? Why do you think so?

No. The methods I use are superior leading to a more reliable conclusion than the methods used by Catholics.

Dubious. What methods do you use and how can you determine that these methods lead to more reliable conclusions than those used by Catholics?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Eyewitness testimony is extremely accurate if properly collected and preserved. [

Well, then I propose you stop criticizing other people's spelling, since you do not seem to have it under control, either. And if English is your native language, then you should indulge the mistakes of non native speakers even more.

And yes, I did not know what "pwned" meant in English. Is that bad? My friend from London never heard that either.

Ciao

- viole

It's a juvenile word used to imply that one's opponent has been dominated and/or humiliated by one's actions or words ("owned"). It's often used by kids playing online video games.

 

[Segev Moran]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/

I Didn't say the earth is round...

False. Look, I've spent a lot of time here in this forum talking about the methodological defects of science. You just want to sweep all of that under the rug and pretend that despite the flaws, science has proved your assumptions correct. Sorry–I'm not buying it.

I'm not selling you anyways

No, the argument from ignorance logical fallacy occurs any time that someone claims that the burden of proof lies on the other person.

Sorry.. no.
If i claim I discovered that there are golden birds ..
naturally the other person will say.. you need to prove it... That's not him using an argument of ignorance.
Me claiming that there are golden birds in the skies because you can't prove there aren't.. this is argument of ignorance.

So anytime someone says, "I'm not aware of good reason to doubt God's existence, therefore he must exist,"

Argument of ignorance

the fallacy rears its head. Similarly, everyone who says, "I'm not aware of any good reason to believe in God, therefore he can't exist" is also committing the fallacy. Absence of evidence is not enough to conclude anything.

And again... That's not what Atheism is...
Let me fix your sentence:

"I'm not aware of any good reason to believe in God, therefore I don't believe it exist"
Theist = BELIEVING
Atheist = NOT BELIEVING

That's it...

Science is not in the business of proving things. Additionally, setting out to prove what you already think is the main argument atheists level against Christians, isn't it?

What?

It's no more or less reasonable than the assumption that God did not do so.

So saying there is a magical deity that governs everything in our lives but in a way that we never saw proof of , has the same reason as: i don't believe there is a magical deity the governs everything in our lives because i never saw a proof of it...

If that's a same reason to you.. i guess we have no reason to continue talking.

Bullcrap. No one can see such a thing. This is a result of a lot of inferences and questionable thinking.

So i guess DNA and Genes and all that is all just one big "made up game"

No, one cannot determine whether the Earth revolves around the Sun. However, most people who have tried have concluded that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun.

I Don't know how to respond to that..
Do you think the moon revolves around earth?

But galaxies are not demonstrably getting farther and farther away.

Yes they do...

Well, yes, that's the problem with empiricism. It's completely circular, and thus cannot really effectively argue against other types of circular logic. I could just as easily say that the least fit organism invariably survives and that we know the surviving organism is the least fit one because it survived.



Sorry, buddy, but I'm not interested in drinking the kool-aid and joining your cult. I'm glad that you think minor alterations in the frequency of alleles disproves God. I really do. I just see such a massive gap between premises and conclusions that I can't go down that path with you.

Cool

Well, it's customary that when you use a word in a novel way, you should provide a definition for that word so that the rest of us can keep up. That's not unreasonable, is it?

Just google it man

You remind me of evangelical Christians who insist that the truth of the Bible is no longer an assumption.

Hmmmm

Look, you make a basic assumption and the assumption is called scientific realism. You think that science's theories are true or at least mostly true. Yet you have never defended this idea in any way, shape, or form. You simply assume that it is the case. There are many arguments against scientific realism. Probably the simplest one is called pessimistic induction. It goes something like this:

We can look at the history of science and see that the vast majority of theories were false and have been discarded. Therefore, the vast majority of theories that you currently hold are also false and will eventually be discarded.
What's your response to that?

The response is very simple... What works.... works...
If you have an idea... and the idea predicts several things that if any of them will not be discovered as true, the idea will fail.. the only way to know if its true or not, is to start investigating and testing the predictions.

So based on that, Lets take radio signals for example...
Can you argue that radio signals are not true?
If so, how can you build a working machine that exactly what you predicted it would do if any of the things you predicted was false?

Lets try to make a more simple example..

If you have an idea that there is a direct 2 way link between two bodies and they cannot function without one another... you'll have to have the following predictions:

Any action preformed on one body, will affect the other one.
If one of the bodies is destroyed, the other will also
If you disconnect the link between the bodies, they will perish

Then the testing starts:
You perform on an action on one of the bodies...if the other body reacts, the idea is becoming more probable..
You perform an action on the other body.. if the other reacts, the idea becomes even more probable
and so on and so on..
Now...lets say you don't know yet how the link is formed..

then, the idea is partially true yet the probability based on what you've learned so far is very high it is true..
Lets assume after some time, you find out what the link is and you manage to find a way to disconnect it...
if you indeed disconnect the objects and they perish or destroyed.. viola! you've got your self a theory...
But wait.. that's not all..
more and more tests trying to falsify the theory are being made...
and after dozens of tests, you see that indeed the theory predictions are true...

You say: Nah... its not really true because something might break the theory..
I Say: Yep... So far and based on the knowledge we have, this theory is the most probable to be true.

If along the way, you find any evidence that falsify the theory.. it will be wrong and thus no longer a valid scientific theory...

so yes.. there were thousands of wrong scientific ideas.. but those who became an actual valid theory are those who are becoming a fact.. like.... the fact the the moon revolves the earth, or that gravity exist, or that the universe is billions of years old, or that two bodies act will the same force on one another or that stars are not lights in the skies, or that animals evolved in a process that took millions of years....

Have a great rest of week...

 

[Segev Moran]

Just so you know, Segev, I am actually replying to you; I am ignoring Zosimus' replies in this thread, because I am fed up putting up with him.

I do agree with you that science deals with the question of WHAT more than with the WHY.

But I think the HOW is just important as the WHAT.

The WHAT and HOW take precedences over the WHY. The WHAT and HOW are primary questions, and the WHY is secondary, or can even be left out in the theory.

In fact, investigating and understanding WHAT and HOW will or might lead ones to find the reasons WHY.

With science, you want to know WHAT it is, followed by HOW it all work.

I Agree..
But the fact that a WHY (In the sense of reason and meaning) is not a scientific question is to the fact that there is no one answer.. there is no one truth...
A reason or a meaning is something subjective while WHAT or HOW are objective questions...

I Didn't say the why is not important, rather that the why is not relevant to science...

If we look on a ball...

We can ask WHAT? the fact will be that it is a ball
We can ask HOW? the fact will be (for example) it is filled with air that is compressed inside the rubber causing it to inflate
We can ask WHY? and here there is no one truth, no fact, only subjective meaning...
The answers to the why can be:
To play soccer,
To play tennis,
To play catch,
To have fun,
To watch and gaze...

The WHY question in its core is an "Invalid" question to evidence and facts... it is however a key question to philosophy..
But philosophy is just what it is.. its the quest to find meaning to things that have no "actual" meaning...

Its like asking WHY are there mountains.. (And not in the sense of WHAT caused mountains to appear)
You can say they are there to provide us with the ability to climb on them and see the world from above.
I can say they are there to show us how small we are in comparison to the earth...
And a third person can say they are there just for our enjoyment..
All three answers can be true... but none is an objective answer like the fact that mountain are made due to pressure in the ground etc...

 

[gnostic]

A reason or a meaning is something subjective while WHAT or HOW are objective questions...

Yes, WHAT and HOW are objective.

The WHY is only really useful in social science, but not in natural science (physical science or life science).

 

[Zosimus]

I Didn't say the earth is round...

You claimed that the Earth was a sphere. The link refutes your position.

Sorry.. no.
If i claim I discovered that there are golden birds ..
naturally the other person will say.. you need to prove it... That's not him using an argument of ignorance.
Me claiming that there are golden birds in the skies because you can't prove there aren't.. this is argument of ignorance.

You seem to think that no one should believe a claim unless it can be proved. This claim is one that I do not believe in because it cannot be proved.

And again... That's not what Atheism is...
Let me fix your sentence:

"I'm not aware of any good reason to believe in God, therefore I don't believe it exist"
Theist = BELIEVING
Atheist = NOT BELIEVING

That's it...

What would you say are the chances that God exists?

So saying there is a magical deity that governs everything in our lives but in a way that we never saw proof of , has the same reason as: i don't believe there is a magical deity the governs everything in our lives because i never saw a proof of it...

No, I'm saying that the most logical response to a lack of evidence is agnosticism. You should assume that there's a 50-50 chance and leave it at that until evidence is available one way or the other.

If that's a same reason to you.. i guess we have no reason to continue talking.

I guess not!

So i guess DNA and Genes and all that is all just one big "made up game"

It's not a big made up game. It's just that the data do not support your position.

I Don't know how to respond to that..
Do you think the moon revolves around earth?

No, the moon does NOT revolve around the Earth. What kind of science classes have you taken? Look -- imagine that you are ice skating and another person is ice skating near you. Suddenly you grab hands and start to go around each other. Assuming that you have equal masses, you will go around a point exactly between the two of you. This point is called the barycenter. Now since the moon is about one sixth the size of the Earth, the barycenter is much closer to the Earth's center of gravity than to the Moon's.

The same is true of the solar system. Everything in the solar system goes around the barycenter of the system.

All of this, of course, assumes that one discounts the incredible velocity of the sun as it whips around the Milky Way galaxy and the speed of the Milky Way galaxy as it rushes God knows where.

Yes they do...

No, this is an assumption based on the red shift.


Cool



Just google it man

Hmmmm

The response is very simple... What works.... works...
If you have an idea... and the idea predicts several things that if any of them will not be discovered as true, the idea will fail.. the only way to know if its true or not, is to start investigating and testing the predictions.

So based on that, Lets take radio signals for example...
Can you argue that radio signals are not true?
If so, how can you build a working machine that exactly what you predicted it would do if any of the things you predicted was false?

Lets try to make a more simple example..

If you have an idea that there is a direct 2 way link between two bodies and they cannot function without one another... you'll have to have the following predictions:

Any action preformed on one body, will affect the other one.
If one of the bodies is destroyed, the other will also
If you disconnect the link between the bodies, they will perish

Then the testing starts:
You perform on an action on one of the bodies...if the other body reacts, the idea is becoming more probable..
You perform an action on the other body.. if the other reacts, the idea becomes even more probable
and so on and so on..
Now...lets say you don't know yet how the link is formed..

then, the idea is partially true yet the probability based on what you've learned so far is very high it is true..
Lets assume after some time, you find out what the link is and you manage to find a way to disconnect it...
if you indeed disconnect the objects and they perish or destroyed.. viola! you've got your self a theory...
But wait.. that's not all..
more and more tests trying to falsify the theory are being made...
and after dozens of tests, you see that indeed the theory predictions are true...

You say: Nah... its not really true because something might break the theory..
I Say: Yep... So far and based on the knowledge we have, this theory is the most probable to be true.

If along the way, you find any evidence that falsify the theory.. it will be wrong and thus no longer a valid scientific theory...

so yes.. there were thousands of wrong scientific ideas.. but those who became an actual valid theory are those who are becoming a fact.. like.... the fact the the moon revolves the earth, or that gravity exist, or that the universe is billions of years old, or that two bodies act will the same force on one another or that stars are not lights in the skies, or that animals evolved in a process that took millions of years....

Have a great rest of week...

Yeah, but all of those discoveries were made before science, as we know it, existed.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I'm saying that the most logical response to a lack of evidence is agnosticism.

Even if one accepts the notion that there are degrees of "logical", this is still false.
The speculative atheist position (knowing it's neither provable nor falsifiable) that there are no gods is rational, given the lack of evidence for them....or for "it" (for the monotheists).
But I'd say this is also agnosticism.

You should assume that there's a 50-50 chance and leave it at that until evidence is available one way or the other.

This is a common misconception about probability.
Just because there are 2 possibilities, ie, gods or no gods, there is no reason to presume the probabilities of each are equal.
The probabilities are unknowable.

Illustrative silly analogy time.....
I give you a box.
I tell you that it either contains $1,000,000 or nothing.
Here are 2 alternatives, but the probabilities are far from equal.
(The probability that I'd give you the money is exactly zero.)

 

[Zosimus]

Even if one accepts the notion that there are degrees of "logical", this is still false.
The speculative atheist position (knowing it's neither provable nor falsifiable) that there are no gods is rational, given the lack of evidence for them....or for "it" (for the monotheists).
But I'd say this is also agnosticism.

This is a common misconception about probability.
Just because there are 2 possibilities, ie, gods or no gods, there is no reason to presume the probabilities of each are equal.
The probabilities are unknowable.

Illustrative silly analogy time.....
I give you a box.
I tell you that it either contains $1,000,000 or nothing.
Here are 2 alternatives, but the probabilities are far from equal.
(The probability that I'd give you the money is exactly zero.)

This is a false dichotomy. If someone brings a box to you and says, "This box contains $1 million" then you will not consider two possibilities. You must consider a multitude of possibilities. Perhaps the box contains a deadly snake. Perhaps the box contains a note saying, "Fooled you." Perhaps the box contains $999,999 and the guy miscounted. You must consider an infinite number of possibilities, each of which is as likely as the next.

From there, you will begin to refine your estimations. Has the person in question ever lied to you in the past? Does he have $1 million? etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is a false dichotomy. If someone brings a box to you and says, "This box contains $1 million" then you will not consider two possibilities. You must consider a multitude of possibilities. Perhaps the box contains a deadly snake. Perhaps the box contains a note saying, "Fooled you." Perhaps the box contains $999,999 and the guy miscounted. You must consider an infinite number of possibilities, each of which is as likely as the next. .

You mis-stated the problem I posed.

 

[leibowde84]

Oh, I understand perfectly. It's a tautology. Survival of the fittest. But how do we know that the fittest have survived? Because they've survived. So natural selection boils down to the theory that the animals that survive survive.

That's profound.

Of course, theoretically, scientific claims should be falsifiable. Natural selection, however, doesn't fall into that category. For example, if a horse is born that is faster than all the rest, but it steps on a landmine and never breeds, does that falsify natural selection? No.

If a fish egg is laid with the genes to need less food and produce more babies, but it is eaten in the egg form without ever growing to maturity and passing on its genes, is natural selection falsified? No.

Nothing can falsify natural selection. It's a premise to be taken on faith. It's like God. It's beyond doubt.

You don't quite have a handle on natural selection. It has never been claimed to be a perfect process. It in no way means that the fittest always survive. It is a general trend that leads to changes over very long periods of time. Not a perfect process in the least.