My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

  • Yes

    Votes: 46 50.0%
  • No

    Votes: 32 34.8%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 7 7.6%
  • Need more information

    Votes: 7 7.6%

  • Total voters
    92

JohnnyFlotsam

Premium Member
The problem is that to many people think a scientific theory is all fact.

Perhaps, but that list would not include scientists who, as a group, would never make such a bold assertion. Now that same group will tell you, has told you, over and over, that when there is overwhelming reproducible evidence supporting a theory the matter is effectively settled, for only a fool would act as if a thing were not so in the face of that evidence. Notice I did not say that no one should question that evidence. Good science demands such pursuit, but only a fool would bet his children's future, for example, on the chance that such a pursuit might, against all odds, turn up something new. Such a bet is not "a difference of opinion". It is the very definition of stupidity.

and anyone can come up with a theory that is deferent and uses the same data/facts.

No. They can not. Again, you misunderstand the definition of a scientific theory.
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
That right there is the real issue. Theories and explanations differ in accuracy. Secondly not everyone is qualified to interpret the data and the theories they purpose are of lower quality. Specifically the Ancient Aliens theory is the prime example of using poor data and wild speculation. What "holes" have you found in Evolutionary theory?

If anyone tell another they are not qualified to look at data decide for them selfs what theory is right, wrong or needs more data it proves my point that there are those that try to stop or control the converstion needed to prove or disprove things. This is just what the Dem's in the Senate are doing about global warming. Did any of them look at the actual data vs the hocky stick graph of Al Gore since 2004? Have you or any or anyofthe otheres look at data of Darwins theory since he published it? I am the only one that is qulifyed to say what I know, what I think and what my aaccomplishments in the sciences.
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
Yet none of those have been in this discussion. You're using points that don't apply in the context of this discussion and have introduced points not relevant to the discussion. That's two different types of logical fallacy - Non sequitor and canard.

I get that the topic is one of belief and anyone can believe anything as they wish. Attempts to apply logical fallacies as support aren't needed for belief and shouldn't work among students of the liberal arts and sciences.

Not really it is how big of a picture you look at the theory of chaos. How much data do you add to your theory or leave out. I am working on a predictive algorithm that has to use big data (Hadoop style of storage) and getting deferent answers than when it has been used for the last 10 year with less data for the same peroid and the big data answer are so very close to what actuly happened when the other was off by as much as 20%. The data that is making a deferance doesn't even look like it is related to the problem. I am finding this other data I am now using by using a (self orginizing map) SOM.


Think big and you will find more truth .
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
Perhaps, but that list would not include scientists who, as a group, would never make such a bold assertion. Now that same group will tell you, has told you, over and over, that when there is overwhelming reproducible evidence supporting a theory the matter is effectively settled, for only a fool would act as if a thing were not so in the face of that evidence. Notice I did not say that no one should question that evidence. Good science demands such pursuit, but only a fool would bet his children's future, for example, on the chance that such a pursuit might, against all odds, turn up something new. Such a bet is not "a difference of opinion". It is the very definition of stupidity.
[/COLOR]No. They can not. Again, you misunderstand the definition of a scientific theory.

This is so funny that everyone is getting so up in arms trying to convince me that this theory is right. The one thing we all know is the word "theroy" is attached to it so everyone that writes pro or con about it know that even the other Darwin knows it is not "proof". Thisis because the word "proof" is the opposite of "theory". This is what you should know as a scientist and we may never know if any theory is the truth or not till it is proven.

When someone desen't know they attack and say thing like qulified, stupidity or tell one that they don't know something without being that that person. This is the same tactic the Dem's use against REP, Pregrsives against the concertives and unions against managment. I want to tell you think about what I said and how Sir Francis Bacon said about words.
 

JohnnyFlotsam

Premium Member
This is so funny that everyone is getting so up in arms trying to convince me that this theory is right.
No... We are trying to tell you that you are conflating the terms "theory" with "scientific theory" and that you appear to be doing so deliberately, in an attempt to defend an indefensible position.

I will now also tell you that mixing politics into a discussion that has already wandered pretty far afield is completely inappropriate.
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
No... We are trying to tell you that you are conflating the terms "theory" with "scientific theory" and that you appear to be doing so deliberately, in an attempt to defend an indefensible position.

I will now also tell you that mixing politics into a discussion that has already wandered pretty far afield is completely inappropriate.

Remember the research on the algorithm I am in valved in and yes Religion, art, Politics and Science and in volved in how we procive things. Adding the word scientific to the word theory doesen't make the word theory anymore proof it only make it sound like you are trying to convince someone and when some one try to convince me without any more or new data I beleive they may have inturpted the data wrong. The only indefensible postion is one that ignores data or shouts down oposition.

And yes I would expect the discource we are having when you put a signature on your stuff for an org that does the same thing.
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
I tried to add this line to my last post but it would not let me.

A scientific theory is just a theory that is repeatedly tested but I say why do you repeatly test something?....because it looks like something is wrong.
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
But the Dunning-Kruger Effect is just a theory!!! :30:
Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
No it was never put for as a theory but as fact so it did not go through the peir process as a theory. The Darwin theory of evolution has been tested but using only the data for Darwin's timefreme. In the last 60 years archaeologist have found evloution data that doesn't fit his theory because it has only one trunk based in Africa. There are now 3 known scelitons before the data used by Darwin that show other trees that don't point to the same evolution. I have never said I did not beleive in evolution but just how they start. If you look at the big picture you will see the probems in the data Darwin used.
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
But the Dunning-Kruger Effect is just a theory!!! :30:
Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
No it was never setforth as a theory. If you really look at Darwins theory there is data for other eveloutionary origins. there are 3 other archaeology sources for the tree other than Africa which is stated in his theory.
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
No it was never setforth as a theory. If you really look at Darwins theory there is data for other eveloutionary origins. there are 3 other archaeology sources for the tree other than Africa which is stated in his theory.


I was trying to edit post #252 and change for to forth but it looked like #252 did not happen so I was starting over.
 

jjjjjggggg

Premium Member
No it was never setforth as a theory. If you really look at Darwins theory there is data for other eveloutionary origins. there are 3 other archaeology sources for the tree other than Africa which is stated in his theory.

I wasn't being serious... just making a joke.
 

Zaden

Registered User
... The Darwin theory of evolution has been tested but using only the data for Darwin's timefreme....
(emphasis added)

This statement is flatly and demonstrably false. DNA was not even known in Darwin's day. Yet today we have consistently seen modern genomic research adding further evidence (and clarifying) the theory of evolution. Just one example: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/5/547.full
Darwin only caught the tip of the iceberg by noticing and suggesting natural selection. The fact that the theory has been expanded upon doesn't make the theory wrong, nor does it make it just a hypothesis (which is closer in meaning to what you are calling "theory").
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
(emphasis added)

This statement is flatly and demonstrably false. DNA was not even known in Darwin's day. Yet today we have consistently seen modern genomic research adding further evidence (and clarifying) the theory of evolution. Just one example: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/5/547.full
Darwin only caught the tip of the iceberg by noticing and suggesting natural selection. The fact that the theory has been expanded upon doesn't make the theory wrong, nor does it make it just a hypothesis (which is closer in meaning to what you are calling "theory").

You are still not looking at the big picture. There are many theorys of eveloution before and after Darwin. The question was do you beleive in "Darwins" theroy of eveloution. I did not say eveloution doesn't exist but that I did not beleive in Darwins theory and others have come back saying because it is a theory it is proven but that is untrue. The reasion the left wants everyone to think Darwins theory is the only one is it limits any other action except hapenstance. If more than hapenstance happened it stops the eveloution of ccommunism.
 

Zaden

Registered User
You are still not looking at the big picture. There are many theorys of eveloution before and after Darwin. The question was do you beleive in "Darwins" theroy of eveloution. I did not say eveloution doesn't exist but that I did not beleive in Darwins theory and others have come back saying because it is a theory it is proven but that is untrue. The reasion the left wants everyone to think Darwins theory is the only one is it limits any other action except hapenstance. If more than hapenstance happened it stops the eveloution of ccommunism.

It is clear through this thread that every person who has argued with you over "theory" was discussing the currently agreed on (mainstream consensus) Theory of Evolution. The main people who even call it "Darwinian Evolution" are those who dispute macro-evolution as a whole. No one who discussed this with you was saying that the theory hasn't been expanded on, added to and corrected since Darwin wrote Origins. The initial question was poorly phrased, but the resulting discussion topic was clear. Especially all of the clarification and distinction regarding the definition of "Theory" in this context. Darwin's idea was more of a premise, the foundation of the theory that is still regularly supported by ongoing research (not because something "seems wrong" but to better understand everything from migratory patterns to genetic medicine as well as to better understand the "tree of life").

And how any political system may or may not misuse a scientific theory has no bearing on whether or not said theory is correct.
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
It is clear through this thread that every person who has argued with you over "theory" was discussing the currently agreed on (mainstream consensus) Theory of Evolution. The main people who even call it "Darwinian Evolution" are those who dispute macro-evolution as a whole. No one who discussed this with you was saying that the theory hasn't been expanded on, added to and corrected since Darwin wrote Origins. The initial question was poorly phrased, but the resulting discussion topic was clear. Especially all of the clarification and distinction regarding the definition of "Theory" in this context. Darwin's idea was more of a premise, the foundation of the theory that is still regularly supported by ongoing research (not because something "seems wrong" but to better understand everything from migratory patterns to genetic medicine as well as to better understand the "tree of life").

And how any political system may or may not misuse a scientific theory has no bearing on whether or not said theory is correct.

Am I going to have to give you the jedi wave and say look at the big picture to show you everything is connected and that there is no consensus. The word mainstream means only what the person saying means.
 

widows son

Premium Member
I totally agree that Darwin just saw the tip of the iceberg. New DNA research has propelled our understanding of evolution as well as advancement in other sciences. Bro. Varnell I believe many here will agree that the big picture is not quite visible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you think to have a better understanding than those whose lives are dedicated to the topic at hand?


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
 
Top