/sci/ - Science & Math

Sage for possible trll, but if not...

Two words: Prove it.

>>2021735
OP here, not troll. I'm ignorant on the subject and was hoping someone more knowledgeable might shed some light for me. I am not defending either position.

bump for spinning tables and other allegedly widely-documented phenomena

Spiritists:
>Believe in spirits
>Believe in God
>Believe in reincarnation
>believe that spirits can interact with the material world even though they are not made of "matter" or "energy", as defined by physics
>believe in Lamarckist evolution of the spirit towards an absolute moral ideal that is not objectively defined on the grounds that humans are "not ready to understand it".
>have never published peer-reviewed evidence-based arguments for their claims, except in journals dedicated to Spiritism which are not acknowledged by the scientific community

Yeah, bro, they're a science.

>mfw Houdini already debunked spiritualism over 9000 years ago.

>>2021775
haha you think knowledgeable people visit 4chan
whenever you question anything here you're immediately branded as a believer

>>2021835
How?

>>2021853
that's what is always said

this and that got debunked ages ago, don't know how

>>2021835
Houdini went around exposing the spiritualists of his day as fakers, and con men. They were using it to extort money from people, and his knowledge of stage magic came in handy exposing them as frauds.

>>2021858
>>2021845
So you're telling me not to expect an answer to a science-related question (as it involves the definition of science and how a particular construct fits it or not) on a board called Science & Math?

Well, fuck 4chan.

Where can I expect decent answers on the interwebs?

>>2021862
Spiritualists =/= Spiritists

>>2021869
sage =/= bump

>>2021891
fag == you

>>2021728
>Spiritists claim that Spiritism is a science and not a religion, because it is based on empiric observation. Are they correct?

No,

wtf has there been so many replies to this shiity thread?

\thread

>>2021827
Thread should have ended after this post.

>>2021938
why get butthurt over how many replies someone gets?

>>2021938
OP asked a question about if something was or wasn't science. Out of all these replies, two present actual reasons for their answer on the subject, neither of them citing sources. The thread is shitty not because of OP, but because of the 12-year-olds who think it's more worth their time to be bigots than to actually answer the question.

OP, spiritism claims to be evidence-based, but the evidence they claim is anedoctal, consisting mostly of individual accounts of unexplainable paranormal phenomena like levitating objects, ouija boards, mediunity, psychography, et cetera. That doesn't comply with the minimal standards any scientific field would tolerate for something to be deemed "evidence". It also fails to explain several empiric phenomena, which is a big no-no for a scientific theory. For example, Spiritism can1t explain how the "soul" interacts with the body, how entities that are defined as non-material can have any effect in the material world, and they also fail to reconcile their claim that every human disease is caused by spirits with our knowledge of toxicity, parasites and medicine.

For these reasons, Spiritism is not a science. I wouldn't even go as far as to call it a pseudoscience - it's a religion, plain and simple.

>based on empiric observation
What experiments have they done that have verified their hypotheses about the world?

>>2022017
>I wouldn't even go as far as to call it a pseudoscience
But has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

They are correct.

But science wouldn't know either way because its a biased enterprise that doesn't fund testing on anything concerning the metaphysical/paranormal.

>>2022037
>doesn't fund testing on anything concerning the metaphysical/paranormal.
Science itself doesn't "fund" anything. The US government has, however, invested millions of dollars into research on metaphysical and paranormal phenomenon and have found absolutely no evidence for it.

>>2022017
religion is also a science, smartass

>>2022028
engrish! DO U NO ATE?

>>2022047
No it hasn't.

>>2022052
Yes it has. There have been a bunch of military programs investigating paranormal activity.

>>2022047
says who? the government?

You could systematically study the interaction with spirits, but to do so you'd have to be capable of interacting with spirits, which as I understand it is a privileged position, so such a study would not be easily verifiable. Depending on your definition of science, it also wouldn't qualify, because the observation is not empirical... empirical observation of the physical world, based on the physical senses.

So you could only call such a study a "science" in the loosest sense. Still you could perform experiments, and repeat them and such if you had the ability.

>>2022065
But by that argument, wouldn't particle physics also be only loosely considered a science? Only if you have the billion-dollar equipment can you observe phenomena at that level.

Elitism is inherent to advanced science, so I don't think that it's a good standard to define the scientific validity of a construct.

So, does anyone in this thread SUPPORT the claim that Spiritism is a science, or are we just bickering about WHY it isn't?

>>2022082
>wouldn't particle physics also be only loosely considered a science

LMAO, nice try troll

>>2022086
>does anyone in this thread SUPPORT the claim that Spiritism is a science

Of course not

>are we just bickering about WHY it isn't?

I suppose so
AT LEAST WE ALL AGREE IT ISNT SCIENCE!

>>2022086
I think we're just bickering about why it isn't.

>>2022111
open a dictionary
read up about science
feel like a retard

>>2022102
>implying that troll physics threads and religion threads aren't always the most successful* threads on /sci/

*Success being measured by thread longevity and number of replies

Science, by definition, requires repeatable, testable phenomena. I've never heard of someone properly creating a test for spiritual phenomena that could stand up properly.

If someone could devise a repeatable test that would offer proof of the existence of a spirit, I'd be glad to see it, have it tried out, and be very eager to see the results. That would make this a science.

As it stands, though, "revealed" knowledge means diddly in science.

>>2022146
Nope.avi

>>2022162
NO_U.mkv

>>2022162
>I can't refute his points so I'll just say "nope"

>>2022082
You sort of have a point, but hypothetically, anyone should be able to reproduce any physics experiment given the right tools.

Perhaps more to the point, you can't empirically measure any interaction with spirits and such. With something like the LHC, all the data is stored digitally, and anyone can access the data. With spiritism everything is necessarily subjective.

>>2022172
nope.avi

I don't have to explain people who have their own personal dictionary

open a dictionary
look up religion
feel like a moron

>>2022187
Your definition of the scientific method doesn't include falsifiability?

IS Theology a science?

So, what's going on in this thread?
>Chico Xavier
Well, fuck.

>>2022305
why wouldn't it be?

>>2022345
BEcause theology is basically literature, but restricted to specific texts. Even ignoring the question of the veracity of those texts, theology is no more a scientific field than "reading National Geographic" is a scientific field.

>>2022369
Er, no. It's a field of philosophy involving theistic logic; it's not a field of literature. You could create your own theology without writing it down.

>>2022378
>theistic logic
I'm sorry, but isn't that a bit of an oxymoron?

>>2022381
what's wrong with theories? most people I know have them.

>>2022393
Theories are supported by evidence. Theistic conjectures aren't.

>>2022381
how would that be an oxymoron?

Use this picture.

>this thread

i'm sorry, chico

>>2022403
it seem you dont understand the difference between logic and bullshit, maybe this will help

>Allan Kardec refers to Spiritism as a science dedicated to the relationship between spirits and human beings
>some spiritists see themselves as not adhering to a religion,
>but to a philosophical doctrine with a scientific fulcrum and moral grounds
interesting

>Sympathetic research on Spiritism by scientists can be found in the works of see wiki I'm tired of ctrl + v

>>2022431
>implying that it's more logical to assume that life sprung up by random chance than that it was designed by an intelligent creator

>>2022451
>Some homeless people downtown think they are immortal

why would you give a fuck about how batshit crazy faggots "think of themselves"?

>>2022480
at least they don't think science is satan's work.

>>2022470
But is it

LMAO

>>2022470
>implying it isn't
0/10

>>2022470
>implying there is anything logical about believeing a magic sky king made everything

You sir are the true joker, I bow my hat to you

>>2022488
Not him, but how so? Not talking about evolution here, but abiogenesis.

>>2022499
a creator is illogical?
wat?

People on /sci/ are so closed mind. Not that I believe in god myself but, jesus on acid, sometimes it's better to say maybe and leave it on that.

There is always a second observer, the 'peers'.

>>2022510
wtf? I was arguing that believeing in an intellegent is not science, nor a logical/rational argument. I think you got your posts confused

>>2022518
Yeah, I mean I cant prove or dispove that a little teapot circles the sun with a gnome in it. Maybe its better to say maybe and leave it on that

lol.....YOU FAIL!

>>2022529
You said it's more logical to assume that life sprung up by random chance than that it was designed by an intelligent creator.

Assuming you're talking about abiogenesis as opposed to evolution, I'm asking why.

>>2022515

>>2022541
>I get my philosophy from medical dramas.
>also russel's teapot.
But there are lots of reasons why a creator makes sense. There are no reasons why russel's teapot makes sense.

>>2022541
if you believe on that, bro, I'm not going to stop you.

>>2022567
*in that

>>2022557
wat? no response?

>>2022556
Intellegent design is not science, It is a form or creationism (religion). Furthermore there are no actual tenents of intellegent design, there is no "unifying theory" or "hypothesis". Intellegent design is just a "blanket term". There have never been any scientifc papers publsihed on intellegnt design. So you really couldnt quantify wtf it is, in any sort of scientific sense. It is akind to just making up bullshit and saying it is true, and when directly asked about the bullshit, you dont reply.

Intellegent design is known as an "Argument from ignorance". In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Hence these bible thumpers agrue that since we dont know everything yet, "sky king" must have done it. That is a fucking logical fallasy.

>>2022612
What does intelligent design or creationism have to do with abiogenesis or remotely what I was asking about?

>>2022565


LMAO, his "teapot with a gnome in it" makes as much sense as religion. Tell me, what is the difference?

We have seen first hand religions made (see mormonism), we know how it works. It is just one guy making up random bullshit and manipulating people. With enough time, even if his bullshit is proved wrong, the people are so fucking brain washed they referuse to believe in facts (the hold book from mornanism was really the egyptian book of the dead).

Troll harder nigger

a scientist says you believe in circular logic,

>>2022612
ID, as I understand it, is not itself a hypothesis, but a criticism of the darwinian mechanism of evolution. Or rather, its hypothesis is that certain structures are irreducibly complex, and so couldn't have evolved in the manner described by the darwinian mechanism. This is theoretically testable, so it is falsifiable. But I'm not sure what this has to do with this thread.

>>2022565
>there are lots of reasons why a creator makes sense
Like what?

>>2022625

Your words yo

>You said it's more logical to assume that life sprung up by random chance than that it was designed by an intelligent creator.
>Assuming you're talking about abiogenesis as opposed to evolution, I'm asking why.


I then went on to explain why intelleget design (intellegent creator) was a logical fallasy and not science.

WTF dont you understand? u trollin?
DURRR....wtf are you smoking?

>>2022626
I don't recall saying anything about Mormonism.

The finite temporal universe comprises a series of causes, which must either be an infinite regress or have a First Cause in something that is not finite or temporal. Apart from anything else, that alone is a reason that the concept of a creator makes sense.

There is no reason that a teapot circling the sun makes sense, because teapots originate on earth, very few spacecraft have achieved earth escape velocity, and none of those were carrying teapots, nor would it be highly probable for the engineers to include any sort of pottery with those spacecraft.

>>2022658
The teapot was put there by God.

>>2022629
>This is theoretically testable, so it is falsifiable.

LMAO, no, no it is not. You could only prove that darwism mech is right or wrong. Regardless this shit have absoltuly nothign to do with an intellegent creator. Just cause one "mechnicsm is wrong", doesn't mean a wizard must have did it. IT JUST MEANS A mechanism is wrong.

ID is an catograized as an "argument from ignorance", that is a philosopical term. The logic behind ID is wrong to being with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

>>2022630
Such as the Primum Movens, the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, the Transcendental Argument, the Argument from Reason, or Cantor's idea of the Absolute Infinite... pick one.

>>2022748
None of those are evidence of a creator.

>>2022646
Okay... again, Intelligent Design has to do with evolution... which has nothing to do with what I asked you about.

>>2022757
They are all reasons why a creator makes sense.

>>2022713
Again, ID is a criticism of the darwinian mechanism, and its claim of irreducible complexity is hypothetically testable. It has nothing to do with argument from ignorance. You could falsify it by demonstrating that the claimed irreducibly complex systems are not in fact irreducibly complex.

>>2022658
>The finite temporal universe comprises a series of causes, which must either be an infinite regress or have a First Cause in something that is not finite or temporal.

LMAO, you are just spouting bullshit now. Feel good? You assume we have a finite temproral universe, why? Why do you assume all these bullshit constarints on time and causality?

You know there exist other then just linear causality right? Also that time and space used to be one, and frequently become one again. You know that for certain systems time does not exists, right?

take your shit teir nonsense back to /b/ faggot

>>2022760
>Intelligent Design has to do with evolution

WTF? no they are two completely different things. ID is not science, Evolution is sciennce. Please Explain yourself

>>2022780
0/10

>>2022808
see
>>2022629

>>2022780
>You know there exist other then just linear causality right? Also that time and space used to be one, and frequently become one again. You know that for certain systems time does not exists, right?
>>>/x/

>>2022629
>>2022819
The hypothesis that the theory of gravity is wrong isn't a hypothesis.

>>2022835
If it states that a particular element of a particular theory of gravity is wrong in a particular testable way, then that is a hypothesis.

>>2022852
It also has to offer an alternative explanation that is in itself falsifiable.

>>2022775
>claim of irreducible complexity is hypothetically testable

No, no it is not. Please explain why you beleive such nonsense.

Even is you look up that shit they say its not science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

"Irreducible complexity (IC) is a pseudoscientific argument"

And dont bitch that I changed it, look though the logs faggot

>>2022858
Not so sure about that. It just has to make a prediction about how gravity works, not necessarily provide an explanation. A hypothesis just needs a testable claim.

>>2022629
If this is the true definition of ID, it has been misnamed.
It should be Anti-Darwinism, or something. Not "Intelligent Design." Unless, of course, an assertion was made that there was some sort of intelligent design behind these complex structures. Is that assertion testable?

>>2022875
Intelligent design doesn't make a testable claim, though.

>>2022775

"Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large"

bullshit claims are bullshit buddy. The only people that believe that shit are religious bible thumpers (creationism and ID people).

>>2022871
>wikipedia
Of course it's testable. Once we can computer simulate a full organism at the molecular level, we can see exactly if whether or not certain systems are irreducibly complex or not, by seeing if we can get the simulations to evolve through those stages to the allegedly irreducibly complex state. If it can be done in a simulation the irreducibly complex claim is falsified. As a matter of fact, I believe some biologists claim to have already falsified the claim of irreducible complexity of bacterial flagella.

>>2022896
Irreducible complexity is a testable claim. We just need more computer power.

>>2022879
No, of course the intelligent origin of design isn't testable. I'm just saying that ID makes some falsifiable claims.

>>2022906
But disproving irreducible complexity won't disprove intelligent design.

>>2022917
As far as I'm concerned, that's the central assertion of ID. But whatever -- never got any answer to my original question, and wasn't trying to talk about ID.

>>2022924
Proof that something could have evolved is not the same as proof that it did evolve.

Irreducible complexity is a special case of the "complexity indicates design" claim, and essentially an "argument from ignorance" and "God of the gaps argument".

Many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance. Behe himself acknowledges that a failure of current science to explain how an "irreducibly complex" organism did or could evolve does not automatically prove the impossibility of such an evolution.

Irreducible complexity is at its core an argument against evolution. If truly irreducible systems are found, the argument goes, then intelligent design must be the correct explanation for their existence. However, this conclusion is based on the assumption that current evolutionary theory and intelligent design are the only two valid models to explain life, a false dilemma.

>>2022942
The claim is that certain structures are irreducibly complex, which means that they COULD not have evolved through the darwinian mechanism. Showing that they COULD have, would falsify that claim.

>>2022958
It would falsify that claim. But it would neither disprove intelligent design nor prove evolution.

>>2022956
>Irreducible complexity is a special case of the "complexity indicates design" claim,
nope
>and essentially an "argument from ignorance"
nope
>and "God of the gaps argument".
nope

>Irreducible complexity is at its core an argument against evolution.
Not at all. It only would refute evolution by currently believed mechanism.

>>2022973
Irreducible complexity can't be proven though.

>>2022972
That's the one concrete claim of ID, so if it is falsified, there is really nothing left of ID. Of course, that doesn't disprove in general that there's not an intelligent design behind organisms, but like I said, it eliminates the only substantive claims made under the banner of ID.

>>2022975
True, it can only be falsified.

>>2022973
you are either a troll or just really fucking stupid.

"Behe argues that the theory that irreducibly complex systems could not have been evolved can be falsified by an experiment where such systems are evolved"

Hence he fucking assume his theory to be true, and puts the burden of proof on others to prove it false. THAT IS NOT FUCKING SCIENCE OR LOGIC!

GTFO!

>>2022982
Their only falsifiable claim is that evolution is impossible? There was nothing to ID to begin with. That's equivalent to saying that the theory of gravity is wrong because if I have two objects of equal mass they'll weigh different amounts at the same location Earth's surface. The only difference is that in the case of ID there is no absolute proof that organisms could have evolved yet.

There are people out there who contend that life on Earth was intelligently designed by aliens.

Other than replacing aliens for gods, it's the same thing as the bible-thumpers believe. These "aliens" are supersmart beings of pure consciousness who transcend time, blahblahblah.

>>2022988
Yes, actually, that's exactly how science works, you ignoramus. You put forth a hypothesis, and then attempt to falsify it with experiment.

>>2022994
No, not at all. I'm sure a lot of people want to use irreducible complexity, as a way to bolster their creationist views. However, irreducible complexity only predicts that such systems described could not have evolved through the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. If you alter the mechanism, you can still have evolution.

>>2023001
I don't really know what either group believes about such things. I'm just trying to educate /sci/ as to the specific testable claims of ID and how science fucking works.

Intelligent Design doesn't exactly put out anything testable, though, does it? All it argues is that evolution by means of natural selection doesn't work; it doesn't actually have evidence of its own hypothesis.

Irreducible complexity IS an argument from ignorance that's fallen flat many times. Saying "This must have arisen from design" requires reasons and evidence beyond "It's so complex I can't imagine it having come from nature".

>>2023010
>If you alter the mechanism, you can still have evolution.
Of course, but that would require a modified theory of evolution.

>>2023033
Well, yes. Personally, I'm not partial to the current theory, so I'd like this to stand up to evidence, so more people would start looking for a better one.

>>2023033
Where I come from, evolution does not critically depend on random mutation.

>>2023027
The analysis is a bit more detailed than that. It focuses on specific molecular machinery where it claims the complexity makes it impossible for all the parts to have come together in a random way. Since it focuses on specific examples, rather than just saying, "natural selection wouldn't work" in general. We will know when it's falsified. If it happened that way, it should eventually become provable that it was possible that it happened that way. When that happens, we can dismiss the claims as they will have been falsified.

>>2023004
Yes, your theory needs to be falsifable, however you it also need to be provable. Let me indroduce you to the scientifc method. As well as point out your logical mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

>>2023060

Well, already there's suggestions for ways the bacterial flagellum could've evolved, most notably given that many, if not all, of the parts involved are derived from other types of cell component.

Of course, let's not forget other ID claims of irreducible complexity, like the eye, which were disproven rather handily.

Irreducible complexity is a bad argument anyway because, just because we don't know exactly how something came together, doesn't mean it likely didn't. We might be missing evidence we'll never get to see (we are talking about an event millions, if not billions, of years ago), but that doesn't mean our theory isnt' sound. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence and all that.

If something not being there lets us posit whatever alternative we like, I'd like to be the first to put forth the theory that I am responsible for gravity and unless I am nominated as Emperor of Mankind, I will relinquish my hold on this planet and send everyone hurtling into space.

>>2023081
>science 101
You can't fucking prove a scientific hypothesis. You can only attempt to falsify it. lrn2 fucking science, you fuckwit.

>>2023081
The conjecture that the eye could not have evolved through the processes of random mutation and natural selection IS falsifiable, though.

>>2023081
>it also need(s) to be provable
Lolno. Lrn2science.

>>2023087
The problem is we have no idea if these things could have happened by random mutation and natural selection or not. That proposition is NOT falsifiable. That's a problem, as I see it. I appreciate that at least ID makes a claim that certain things could not have come to be in that manner, as we can at least try to investigate whether or not they could.

>>2023110

But we do know. There's been ample proof of natural selection and mutation causing enormous changes in animals. It just takes such a tremendous amount of time that the most dramatic evidence is largely confined to changes in species with extremely fast generation times. However, we do have proof that animals change with time.

This, combined with the growing pile of evidence of the history of life on Earth and the astonishing amount of time that the evidence suggests there has been, goes to suggest just how dramatic the changes can be over eons.

Just because we didn't see something first-hand, like the transition of dinosaurs to birds, doesn't mean we can't make a solid assumption that it did occur based on all current evidence.

>>2022658
The universe is not deterministic. Your argument is invalid.

>>2023081

Even according to its proponets of Irriducible compleity (IC), it cannot be proven true, it can only be proven false. That means they have a fucking useless theory! (AKA not science)

Dumbass bible thumpers (and some people bad at basic logic), somehow "reason", that if it is it not proven false it is "kinda true"....lol.

This is an obvious argument from ignorance, a logic fallasy. The fallacy of argument from ignorance asserts that a claim is true as long as it has not been refuted. In other words, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven. This is related to the burden of proof, because one is placing the burden on the refutation, rather than on the proof of the assertion.

>>2023143
We know that worms transitioned to mice, but we don't know random mutations and natural selection were the only drivers of this transition, or wither it is even possible that they were.

We know mutations occur, and that unfit sub-populations die out in favor of the more fit. However, almost everything we've observed first hand is more in line with replacement from within the natural range of variation rather than mutation of something novel.

We don't know if non-random mutations take place, and increasing evidence from epigenetics is suggesting that they may.

Personally, I think it's wrong to assume we know why a worm turned into a mouse. There are just so many things going on there, it really feels like overreaching to simplify it all down to random mutation and natural selection. I'm pretty sure in the future we'll look back on that is being naive.

>>2023156
I never implied the universe was deterministic.

>>2023187
>Even according to its proponets of Irriducible compleity (IC), it cannot be proven true, it can only be proven false. That means they have a fucking useless theory! (AKA not science)
0/10
Troll or absolute retard who can't into science.
Stopped reading there.

>>2023106

Yep, provable, "as in making valid assertive predictions". A scientifc theory requires these!
Another reason IC is not considered a valid scientifc theory.

see
>>2023187

>>2023220
GTFO out of /sci/. You're embarrassing yourself.

>>2023187
>>2023213

The anon phrased it badly, but their point is a good one. You cannot find evidence for ID, just evidence against it. There is no way to show that irreducible complexity exists, just that it doesn't. It's a God Of The Gaps fallacy. X must have happened because we have no proof of Y (except, in this case, we do).

>>2023202

Unless you have some proof that non-random mutations take place, isn't that argument a dead end?

Also, you fall into a trap of bad reasoning here: Novel features do not evolve. All that evolves are modifications of existing features. Certainly, over time, this might appear to be the case, but everything is derived from something else. Every feature had a precursor in an ancestor; nothing new just pops into existence. Evolution is a tinkerer, not an engineer; it warps and changes, not produces from whole cloth.

We have seen evidence that it can occur this way and there's really nothing to suggest otherwise. If we find proof that it occurred a different way, bring it on; I'd love to see something new. As it stands, though, what we've got is proving itself again and again.

>>2023213
ITT: kids arguing over a pseduoscientifc argument (Irreducible complexity, aka not science), that has been repeatedly rejected by the scientifc community as bullshit

Nothing better to do, eh /sci/?

>>2023237
But we absolutely have novel features in a mouse as compared to a worm. We have new organs, systems, of organs, and skeletal structure. We have no evidence whatsoever that this was produced by minor tinkering with existing structures, and it doesn't make sense, because there were no corresponding existing structures to tinker with. There is nothing we've seen that is anything like the development of new organs, and no evidence that new organs come about from random genetic drift, or reason to believe it is even possible, or any way to falsify it.

>>2023213

>>2023260
And if anyone claimed that a fully-formed mouse one day sprang forth from a worm, you might have a point.

Alas, it is only the creationists and their ilk that suggest fully-formed mice one day sprang into existence.

>>2023255
Also, it wasnt rejected becuase it was just "bad science". It was rejected because it "wasnt science" to being with!

>>2023275
That's not what I'm saying at all. There's no evidence that suggests that new organs can emerge in the way that is suggested, regardless of the amount of time. Nor is the claim falsifiable.

>>2023260
>Thousands of peer-reviewed papers in support of evolution, each representing independent research and data

>No papers in support of Creationism, Intellegent design, or Irreducible Complexity

>little kid on /sci/ finds evolution "hard to believe", would rather believe in "magic sky king"


So why should anyone give a fuck how stupid you are?

>>2023284

A lack of evidence for a single mechanism does not discredit the theory simply because it makes so many accurate predictions about what we see. Furthermore, I am not even certain that such evidence is lacking. We certainly have genetic evidence for the development of the eye:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCY-3X8GYP5-G&_user=10&_cover
Date=09/01/1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docan
chor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1532562904&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&am
p;_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=448c077f204b8e51812c1ecf94df0e03&searchtyp
e=a

>>2023284
Go read a biology book dumbass

>>2023260
>>2023284

You fail to realize that all the organs, bones, etc. are the result of modifications of previous structures. Just because, with time, they become so far removed from their original appearance/purpose that they look nothing like it doesn't mean that they didn't have the same beginnings.

For example, the entire digestive tract more or less began as one long, continuous stretch (such as that which we find in worms) that slowly became segmented with time and developed into specialized structures. It's not hard to imagine the evolutionary advantages of slowing food's journey through the digestive tract to allow more efficient consumption of nutrients, followed by the development of increasingly complex functions in each section. Such organs are conspicuously absent in early life, and noticeably present only in later forms...

The organs all started as a part of the same digestive tube, growing more compartmentalized and specialized with time. There was no point at which it went "BAM! Stomach. BAM! Intestines." It was the augmentation of a more or less homogeneous gut that led to these developments, with slow changes over time being all it took.

>>2023356
>>2023331
>Fights ignorance with science

Good job buddy, but I really think that other guy is just a troll

>>2023329
You're just as dumb as a rock, aren't you?

>>2023331
1) the mechanism is the theory. 2) what kinds of predictions are you talking about? 3) your link doesn't work, and I have no idea what you mean by evidence for the development of the eye. Obviously an eye developed.

I don't think you're understanding the problem with putting faith in an unfalsifiable hypothesis. That's not what science is supposed to be about.

>>2023374

>>2023374
sage

>>2023356
>You fail to realize that all the organs, bones, etc. are the result of modifications of previous structures.
It depends what you mean by that. What structure in a worm is modified to produce bone? I'm genuinely curious.

>For example, the entire digestive tract more or less began as one long, continuous stretch (such as that which we find in worms) that slowly became segmented with time and developed into specialized structures.
Way to pick the low hanging fruit. Just about the one thing a worm has in common with the mouse is the digestive tract. What about the lymph system, adaptive immune system, the skeletal system, the liver, and cardiovascular system? What are they modifications of in the worm?

And the point isn't that evolution happens, the point is what drives it. The point is that our answer to that question needs to be based in evidence.

>>2023406
Well that's kind of the fucking point you stupid nigger. Why would you respond to creationism when no one's fucking talking about creationism?

>>2023429

THANKS FOR LETTING ME TROLL YOU /sci/

>>2023449
>>2023439
>>2023413
>>2023406
you are an annoying troll. GTFO.

wtf how come is this shit still going? It should've ended at like >>2021985

>>2023472
Tell me about it. I'm the OP, I left hours ago and now when I come back my thread is about ID. What the fuck.

It should have been dead and buried long ago.

At least it seems that both the atheistfags and the christfags agree that Spiritism isn't science. Apart from "Engineers are gay" this is the first consensus I've ever seen on /sci/

>>2022658

>The finite temporal universe comprises a series of causes, which must either be an infinite regress or have a First Cause in something that is not finite or temporal

Why must the 'First Cause' be God?
Why can the 'First Cause' not be the Singularity?
Why can the 'First Cause' not be the creators creator?
Why can the 'First Cause' not be the mother of a giant crocoduck that farted out an intelligent gas cloud, which then created the singularity and set off the Big Bing?

>>2023729
I didn't even try to talk about ID. Fucking /sci/ atheists are so trollable they create strawman trolls when actual trolls aren't present.

>>2023884
gay, bing > bang

>>2023884
>Why must the 'First Cause' be God?
>Why can the 'First Cause' not be the Singularity?
>Why can the 'First Cause' not be the creators creator?
>Why can the 'First Cause' not be the mother of a giant crocoduck that farted out an intelligent gas cloud, which then created the singularity and set off the Big Bing?

Well if you look at the requirements, the First Cause has to be something eternal, immutable, and outside of time and space. I believe this requirement is where the idea of God came from initially, at least for the Greeks.

>>2023907

>Well if you look at the requirements, the First Cause has to be something eternal, immutable, and outside of time and space. I believe this requirement is where the idea of God came from initially, at least for the Greeks.

Ok, but:
a) Why immutable?
b) Why eternal?
c) Why does this exclude the giant crocoducks mother?

or would the answer to those be simply, "because that's the only way to say the god of the bible did it."

What is spirituality?
What is science?

I know what empirical observations are; and I would love to see what sort of "spiritual" experiments have given positive results.
I assume I'll find out at the Nobel Physics Award dinner.

>>2023961
>a) Why immutable?
Because otherwise it would be subject to its own causes and effects, and couldn't serve as a prime cause.
>b) Why eternal?
Because then it would have a beginning, and again require a cause.
>c) Why does this exclude the giant crocoducks mother?
Because crocoducks live only in Taiwan, and Taiwan is part of spacetime.

>or would the answer to those be simply, "because that's the only way to say the god of the bible did it."
If you study history carefully, you'll notice that the ancient greeks didn't actually have the Bible.

>implying that there has to be some kind of "prime cause"
PROTIP: There doesn't.