Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Evolution discussion from Time magazine

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    Originally posted by loseyourname
    Given that the quote was from Popper, and Popper is not one of the authors of this article, this article is not the source of the quote. At least, not unless an interview of Popper conducted by these men somehow made it into Nature.

    Anyway, it's interesting how you call Siggie on what you see as a fallacious appeal to authority, and then pull out a quote from Popper as support for your own case.
    The point of the quote was to further illustrate my point, not for the truth of the matter. For the record, Siggie's appeal was not to authority, it was to commonly held belief, or better known as appeal to the consequences of belief. That is different from appeal to authority.
    Achkerov kute.

    Comment


    • #52
      Something like a fossil rabbit in precambrian strata in wouldn't falsify evolution?
      How about human fossils with a dinosaurs dating to the same time?
      [COLOR=#4b0082][B][SIZE=4][FONT=trebuchet ms]“If you think you can, or you can’t, you’re right.”
      -Henry Ford[/FONT][/SIZE][/B][/COLOR]

      Comment


      • #53
        Evolution is good science - and even Popper thinks so

        He refuted his earlier quote that you post BTW - and we have discussed this and Popper before haven't we.

        First - again you seem to misunderstand what Science is/isn't (and your idea that Science can only concern what is observable is untrue and in fact is entirely the opposite of what Science is all about):


        Science Provides Evidence for the Unobservable

        The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for things that really matter. For example, the most important discoveries of science can only be inferred via indirect observation, including such things as atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radiowaves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, though no one has ever observed the process to this day and in spite of the fact that direct observation indicates the very opposite. All of these "invisible" inferences were elucidated using the scientific method.

        Comment


        • #54
          Now - concerning Evolution being Science

          I'll post this link once again - and its one of many that I could post (Why do I feel similarly when posting the same evidenc e of the Armenian Genocide to Turks over and over?):



          Philosophers of science such as Popper and Kitcher say that it is. Scientists such as Mayr, Dobzhansky, and Ridley agree. Many organizations have passed resolutions to this effect. However, the important question is whether these authorities can back up what they say with evidence.

          The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:

          (see link for this extensive list)......

          Comment


          • #55
            More

            The short proof for Evolution (worth a read):

            Comment


            • #56
              Oh and regarding Popper -and I have posted this before BTW

              - so shame on you using that quote which he repudiates here:

              The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult
              to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some
              great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. ... I
              mention this because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced
              by what these authorities say, I have in the past described
              the theory as "almost tautological," and I have tried to
              explain how the theory of natural selection could be
              untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific
              interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural
              selection is a most successful metaphysical research
              programme. ...
              I have changed my mind about the testability and logical
              status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to
              have an opportunity to make a recantation. ...

              The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that
              it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only
              testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally
              true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological
              theories; and considering the random character of the variations
              on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of
              exceptions is not surprising. (Popper, "Natural Selection and
              the Emergence of Mind," _Dialectica_ 32(1978):339-355; quotations
              are from pp. 344-346)

              And Popper also wrote:
              It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific
              character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or
              the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake,
              and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences
              have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in
              many cases be tested. (Popper, Letter to _New Scientist_,
              87(1981):611)

              Comment


              • #57
                It does not matter whether Popper, or anyone else affirms or reaffirms the said theory. It remains that the cracks in the theory have been shown, and contrary to the wishes of fanatics, it is only a belief.
                Achkerov kute.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Uhh, you had said that the reason it's not science is that isn't not falsifiable. It is.
                  So, why now is it still a belief? Even if you call it a belief, at the very least it's a belief based on sound scientific inquiry and evidence. Extrememly different from creationism and ID.
                  [COLOR=#4b0082][B][SIZE=4][FONT=trebuchet ms]“If you think you can, or you can’t, you’re right.”
                  -Henry Ford[/FONT][/SIZE][/B][/COLOR]

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by Anonymouse
                    It does not matter whether Popper, or anyone else affirms or reaffirms the said theory. It remains that the cracks in the theory have been shown, and contrary to the wishes of fanatics, it is only a belief.


                    "Oh you Armenians and your Genocide propoganda - I know that my fellow Turks are incapable of such nastiness and that you are making it all up - regardless of the very many experts and scholars and all evidence aside - I am choosing to believe the Turkish story even if I cannot offer a shred of anything to back it up" - Anonymouse as a typical Turk
                    Last edited by winoman; 10-02-2005, 05:10 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by Sip
                      "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." --Albert Einstein
                      Right on! For this statment alone he is OK in my book...even if I never have to travel and be prepared for near light speeds and such...(my...just think - take a short trip out into space [in time] and come back [into the future] and find all of you older then me! (when do I sign up!)

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X