[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 13 KB, 337x480, jeee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1923630 No.1923630 [Reply] [Original]

Why is evolution and religion argued online? When have you ever seen someone say "I was wrong, your appeal to logic is satisfying and I will now adopt your view as it is the most logical"? Fucking never. Every person feeds the trolls.

>> No.1923643

Bcause we aren't nearly as logical as we think we are...... We are far more irrational than we realise. We aren't thinking machines we are feeling machines that happen to think....

>> No.1923645

Where is the pee pee?

>> No.1923650

>>1923643
true

but you have to value the troll threads that keep the newfags busy, so that oldfags can discuss meaningful topics in other threads (not saying its neccessarily true for /sci/ since i dont come here often, but in general imo)

>> No.1923661

Every argument is repeated ad nauseam, and the same chemical pathways that allow us to feel, allow us to think as well. Creationists are set in their ways, evolutionists much the same.

>> No.1923667

>>1923650

This satisfies.

>> No.1923681

>>1923630
Actually, just now, the other thread has made me seriously consider something.

The argument put forward is that natural selection as a driving force of evolution is not falsifiable. I am unable to conceive of possible falsifying evidence, besides the bullshit ideas of irreducible complexity. (IC is bullshit because lack of imagination is not a valid piece of scientific evidence.)

So, what would be falsifiable evidence for natural selection as the driving force of evolution?

>> No.1923685

evolution is just a theory, jesus christ is our lord savior i hope you repent your sins and be born again

>> No.1923686

>>1923681
Thinking about it more, perhaps it would be simpler: if we found a trait in a lab test, or in the fossil record, which made the survival of the gene worse off, aka which was worse off for natural selection, then this would be counter evidence.

Example: guppies in ponds. When there are predators, guppy evolution tends to match the background color. When there are no predators, then guppy evolution tends to produce bright colors to attract mates. If we saw the opposite of that in tests, then that would be evidence against natural selection as the driving force of evolution.

Oh. Ok. Natural selection is safe again (for me). Excellent. Now to reply to that other thread.

>> No.1923729

The debate doesn't exist to sway the debaters...

There is often a potential audience to the debate, and a good chance that said audience will be young, and raised as creationists. We don't often hear about those who change their views because of such debates, but the fact remains that fundamentalist protestant christianity is not growing in the US at about the same rate that non-religion is... and it's likely access to facts on the internet is driving that shift.

>> No.1923791

I actually do say
>"I was wrong, your appeal to logic is satisfying and I will now adopt your view as it is the most logical"
if that is the case, but that doesnt happen on boards like this one.

Usually I just enjoy the argument and google some keywords from people that make well rounded arguments and then add to my own conclusions that I came to previously.

Its pretty rare that something will totally blow me out of the water and make me rethink something completely, but if it does I say so.
Unless I'm on 4chan, then I troll the person arguing with me and then re-check what I learned later on when I'm bored, and revise(or change) my opinion from that, without letting them know they won.

Generally on non-anonymous boards I let people know they made a difference.