• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:381:2733***]Darwinism Descending

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
The bolded retort criticizing ITN's language choice instead of his arguments themselves pretty much admits your defeat on this issue...

No different than how you and other nonbelievers retort to me when I start discussing properly basic beliefs with regards to objective morality and y'all wish to be contrarian instead of admitting the truth...
Click to expand...

His arguments are 100 percent erroneous.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Into the Night said:
A hypothesis is essentially a 'use case' for a theory. They usually take the form of a question. They are not an explanatory argument. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory. They are always attached to an existing theory.

You DID you 'fact' is a Universal Truth.

A theory of science is an explanatory argument. They do not require any fact. They do not require any testing except upon a theory's null hypothesis. A theory does not use supporting evidence. Before a theory exists, there is nothing to 'support'. You are attempting to define a support for something that isn't there!
Click to expand...

devildavid said:
Wrong again.
Click to expand...

What specifically was wrong about what he said, and why is it wrong?
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Angel said:
A theory in science must be falsifiable; otherwise, it is pseudoscience. Darwinism is not falsifiable. Therefore, Darwinism is pseudo-scientific dogma.
Click to expand...

You don't understand what falsifiable means in a scientific context. It means it is always open to testing. If it keeps passing the tests, it continues to be accepted as the best explanation.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
What specifically was wrong about what he said, and why is it wrong?
Click to expand...

Everything he posted. None of it describes science or scientific theory with the slightest degree of accuracy.

You can easily research this yourself. Did you ever take any science courses? Is this how science appears to you?
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
How so?
Click to expand...

They are all something he has completely made up and not based on what science and scientific theory really is or how science actually works.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

devildavid said:
Everything he posted. None of it describes science or scientific theory with the slightest degree of accuracy.

You can easily research this yourself. Did you ever take any science courses? Is this how science appears to you?
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in vague generalizations, but rather what exactly is wrong and why it is wrong.

I took science courses. I also dont trust every single thing that I learned in school to be the truth...

I think he's spot on with his position of what science is.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

devildavid said:
They are all something he has completely made up and not based on what science and scientific theory really is or how science actually works.
Click to expand...

Are you ready to admit that "scientific theory" would be impossible without making use of at least ten philosophical presuppositions?
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
What specifically was wrong about what he said, and why is it wrong?
Click to expand...

The implication seems to be that all theories are equally valid assuming they can withstand null hypothesis. That is simply an opinion that in MY opinion is erroneous.

I see a lot of straw men in this thread.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

<alt>doxygen said:
The implication seems to be that all theories are equally valid assuming they can withstand null hypothesis. That is simply an opinion that in MY opinion is erroneous.

I see a lot of straw men in this thread.
Click to expand...

And a lot of dung mixed in with the straw.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
Are you ready to admit that "scientific theory" would be impossible without making use of at least ten philosophical presuppositions?
Click to expand...

Do you have a relevant example theory and its accompanying 10+ philosophical presuppositions?
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

devildavid said:
You don't understand what falsifiable means in a scientific context. It means it is always open to testing. If it keeps passing the tests, it continues to be accepted as the best explanation.
Click to expand...
No, you don't understand what falsifiable means. It means that the theory is not immune to falsification. Darwinism is immune to falsification. Darwinisn is pseudo-scientific dogma.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

<alt>doxygen said:
Do you have a relevant example theory and its accompanying 10+ philosophical presuppositions?
Click to expand...

Sure thing... One wouldn't be able to practice science without making these philosophical assumptions about the world/reality/nature of existence/etc...

(1) The existence of a theory-independent, external world
(2) the orderly nature of the external world
(3) the knowability of the external world
(4) the existence of truth
(5) the laws of logic
(6) the reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified true beliefs in our intellectual environment
(7) the adequacy of language to describe the world
(8) the existence of values used in science (e.g., “test theories fairly and report test results honestly”)
(9) the uniformity of nature and induction
(10) the existence of numbers.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

CLAX1911 said:
Darwinism is a theory that the species evolved through natural selection.

I wouldnt consider that dogma, its a theory. A pretty interesting one to come from Charles Darwin.
Click to expand...

The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. The Theory of Evolution, however, is not falsifiable.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Angel said:
No, you don't understand what falsifiable means. It means that the theory is not immune to falsification. Darwinism is immune to falsification. Darwinisn is pseudo-scientific dogma.
Click to expand...

As I have said before, evolution has 5 parts to it.

If you walk into a museum of natural history, you will see the first part. Things change over time. That is what we call observation, and you're right about this much: it's not falsifiable.

Helps if you have a clue.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Angel said:
A theory in science must be falsifiable; otherwise, it is pseudoscience. Darwinism is not falsifiable. Therefore, Darwinism is pseudo-scientific dogma.
Click to expand...

Darwin was a person, not a theory.

The Theory of Natural Selection (that an organism exists because it is best suited to exist) was a scientific theory at one time, but it has been falsified. It is no longer a theory at all. It is not even a valid argument. It is a paradox and an argument of ignorance fallacy.
The Theory of Evolution (that present day life is the result of mutations of previous and more primitive life) is not a falsifiable theory. There is no way to test the null hypothesis of an unobserved past event. This is why science has no theories about past unobserved events.

A theory that is not falsifiable is not pseudo-science. It is not science at all. The Church of 'Reality' (yes, it exists, look it up) confuses the religion of Evolution as 'science'. It is this confusion that is 'pseudo-science'.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Into the Night said:
Darwin was a person, not a theory.

The Theory of Natural Selection (that an organism exists because it is best suited to exist) was a scientific theory at one time, but it has been falsified. It is no longer a theory at all. It is not even a valid argument. It is a paradox and an argument of ignorance fallacy.
The Theory of Evolution (that present day life is the result of mutations of previous and more primitive life) is not a falsifiable theory. There is no way to test the null hypothesis of an unobserved past event. This is why science has no theories about past unobserved events.

A theory that is not falsifiable is not pseudo-science. It is not science at all. The Church of 'Reality' (yes, it exists, look it up) confuses the religion of Evolution as 'science'. It is this confusion that is 'pseudo-science'.
Click to expand...

Explain what falsifies natural selection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom