|
|
| Re: nonsense about atheism (241951) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 18:43:20 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Aug 28 16:45:30 2007. "Perhaps you should pay closer attention to them."Why? So I can prove myself right when they tell me how much learning of Chemistry they need to do? "False. Chemistry describes the nuts and bolts, but evolution describes how the nuts and bolts got there and why they do what they do." No, that's Physics and the need for things to survive (which underpins evolution, but isn't anything explained by it (nor science)). Evolution has nothing to say on the everyday running of organisms, unless of course, you treat like a religion. I can't think of much medicine that uses evolution. Gene therapy isn't here yet, IIRC (and that's genetics, though it is also basically artificial mutations) and so on. Evolution doesn't tell you why they do what they do - it tells you nothing more than how they got there, and what they are going to change to. Unless you are dealing with huge scale zoology, there's not much biology that isn't chemistry, mechanics and physics to explain what they do - they respire to produce energy and grow, this electric shock causes the muscle to contract, which in turn causes the arm to pivot. Then you have the complex chemistry of DNA splitting. Still not evolution, though of course, mutations can still happen. Why they do it is to keep surviving - that's why they might evolve. We knew that organisms did stuff like grow, etc to survive far before evolution and natural selection entered the scientific psyche. Piss-poor coursework. You could get an A there and the grade wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on. so coming top of my year, at a top ten school in the country in year 9 external tests, getting 97% in the test, and at then GCSE having literal piss poor coursework meaning that I was 10% down in the exam. I got an A overall, which put me in the top 15% of the country sitting three sciences (which was the top 20% - others did double science or single science), despite my not caring about jumping through hoops while writing up some crappy simple experiments that were the official ones (with us doing more interesting ones the rest of the time). Last time I checked, on average, English and American students were about the same standard (if not English being slightly better), so therefore my marks in exams would very much put me at the high end in the US, regardless of the 'low' standard of exams in the UK. "We got a heavy dose of natural selection, statistics and genetics in both high school and college." I did have a few questions on genetics, involving dominant and recessive genes, and likelihood (statistics) of getting them "It was essential to undersanding the development of organisms." though of course, not that much on how they actually live their lives, just how they reproduce and over time change. That's a good one - Evolution is vital to understand how organisms change. That's only a small bit of biology. Medics do not need to understand that I evolved from an ape to cure me - they need to pick the right drug, which came about through the study of the chemical reactions that it would make. Of course, Evolution plays a part in medicine and biology, but you are massively over stating it. "One is demonstably true by onbjective scientific means. The other is part of a mythology." only because you chose to call it a 'mythology' due your own 'mythology'. How come you are allowed to assert stuff that you haven't even attempted to prove as truth, when by it's own standards it's mythology? Seems like rather hypocritical double standards to me. I've at least shown evidence (which you dogmatically reject out of court) - you've shown me no evidence why scientific proof gets a special status. You can't make something true by just asserting it, especially a statement that makes itself false by it being true. "No it does not. Evolution in no way threatens the idea of a god's existence or not. It doesn't support it, either." I know it doesn't do either of those things, however evolution is being taken to extremes and these extremes are being touted as science (causing an uproar and a change in view back to Creationism to 'successfully' fend off the attack). The philosophical brand of evolution (see Dawkins for details) is being treated as science, and does threaten the idea of a god's existence. It's also been used to justify a wide range of things. In effect it is a religion. Careful safeguards need to be put into effect that all that is taught is simply that: *Genetic mutations cause changes that may or may not be beneficial to survival. *The ones that are beneficial are transmitted to the next generation more effectively and become more dominate in the species. *Over time part of a species might change so radically as to become a completely new species. (OK, it's a bit over simplistic in the technical details, but that's all that's been proven). "Evolution describes a reaction and adaptation to conditions. It makes no value judgments about these changes. Evolution "justifies" nothing - it merely explains the process of adaptation." I know that, you know that, however a lot of people do not know that. however evolution as a philosophical system is being touted as science, and seemingly is getting treated as science by a lot of people. |
|
|
|