Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
To Aurino, On Various Stuff

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Mario Dovalina on July 8, 2002 18:49:43 UTC

***This is growing too large so let's try and narrow it down a bit.***

Okey dokey.

***From my perspective, a theory is meaningless if it doesn't tell you anything you didn't know without the theory.***

I don't see how you can apply this to evolutionary biology. Are you saying that, of course, we'd 'know' that species change over time without evolutionary theory? It's an interpretation, sure, but so is ANY scientific theory.

***It's always possible to explain the same facts in different ways.***

Well, sure. And if you want to talk about why I think evolution is the best explanation, I'd be glad to. But be prepared to propose a theory that does the job of explanation better than evolution, or you're just complaining.

***'Random mutations', 'survival of the fittest', and most everything else which is at the foundation of evolution theory are fiction, not fact.***

In what way? Do mutations occur? Do weaker, more poorly adapted creatures tend to die out faster? What's the debate here?

***I don't believe in theories, and that's precisely my point.***

Neither do I, at least to the extent that I think of the word 'believe.' However, I DO believe that evolution is the best answer so far. Of course, that's another matter entirely.

***This sounds a lot like Harv.***

Now hold on a minute, that's going too far! :)

Seriously, I know that scientists are actual humans. I'm talking about the scientific IDEAL. Objective investigation, and all that. Whether or not scientists embody it perfectly, it's what true scientists aspire towards. Sure, there are those in the scientific community that are saturated with biases and preconceptions, and won't try to lose them. I don't consider them scientists; I consider them as dogmatic as any fundy.

***I also have no clue how to go about investigating the birth of the universe, what's happening in galaxies billions of light years away from us, how to measure quarks, how to tell the temperature inside the sun... hope you get the idea.***

No, I don't. You're talking indirect observation, but we really can't use even THAT when dealing with consciousness.

***If you really squeeze your knowledge and try to make sense of everything you know, sooner or later you will realize the difference between what is really known (aka the past) and what is just a creature of your imagination (theories, explanations, concepts, predictions, etc.)***

I consider everything I experience to be colored by my mind in one way or another. But that doesn't mean scientific theories are useless, nor does it mean that your mind is all there is.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins