• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evolution or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
grip said:
zyzygy wouldn't believe it because he doesn't want too.
Click to expand...

I disagree with his approach but I do understand where he is coming from. Whats more likely, you are having a psychotic break or God is talking to you? One could argue that psychotic breaks are a lot more likely. But I personally am not prone to them.
 
distraff said:
I disagree with his approach but I do understand where he is coming from. Whats more likely, you are having a psychotic break or God is talking to you? One could argue that psychotic breaks are a lot more likely. But I personally am not prone to them.
Click to expand...

Let's say, you weren't having a break and heard it clearly. But it's a personal thing not meant for others.
 
grip said:
Let's say, you weren't having a break and heard it clearly. But it's a personal thing not meant for others.
Click to expand...

But then crazy people don't think they are crazy. If I heard it, I'd mostly trust myself, but then maybe I'm crazy and I don't know it, but I wouldn't trust the crazy cat lady down the street.
 
grip said:
Don't you realize every scientific theory started out as a hypothesis?
Click to expand...

A scientist does not propose a hypothesis unless he or she has some solid evidence for it, That’s quite different from a “let’s say” in a chat room. Such hypotheticals have no real merit in furthering the discussion,
 
watsup said:
A scientist does not propose a hypothesis unless he or she has some solid evidence for it, That’s quite different from a “let’s say” in a chat room. Such hypotheticals have no real merit in furthering the discussion,
Click to expand...

'Let's pretend that the universe is conscious' can hardly be called a hypothesis.
 
iguanaman said:
It looks blue because that is the spectrum of light that is being emitted most by sunlight being scattered by our atmosphere. Some animals do not see color but it is still blue.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes I know, lets return to the claim that "opinions" have no role in science.

How can you prove this to me?

Before a theory is rigorously formulated one must speculate, consider alternatives, devise experiments, try certain lines of reasoning etc - I do not see how these can be performed by someone who does not have or form, opinions about these things.
 
If the Earth was wiped out today and we all died then it would not make a blind bit of difference to the universe.
 
zyzygy said:
If the Earth was wiped out today and we all died then it would not make a blind bit of difference to the universe.
Click to expand...

Breathtakingly insightful, a sage indeed, how do you do it...

:yawn:
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
You're ignored Watsup, done with you and your antics, later loser.

Man, that's nice, that whining, screeching sound has gone, wonderful...
Click to expand...


Does this mean you that you won’t be reporting me three or four times a week like you normally do? Good!
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Yes, yes I know, lets return to the claim that "opinions" have no role in science.

How can you prove this to me?

Before a theory is rigorously formulated one must speculate, consider alternatives, devise experiments, try certain lines of reasoning etc - I do not see how these can be performed by someone who does not have or form, opinions about these things.
Click to expand...

You are talking about the hypothesis which is the beginning of a scientific quest. Then comes the "proof" which makes it science. The proof must be performed according to "scientific method".

a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
Click to expand...
Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages
 
iguanaman said:
You are talking about the hypothesis which is the beginning of a scientific quest. Then comes the "proof" which makes it science. The proof must be performed according to "scientific method".


Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages
Click to expand...

No, I was talking about opinions, how one must have some kind of opinion to even begin to explore something, even begin to wonder about it, here's two randomly chosen defintions:

belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
Click to expand...

a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
Click to expand...

The reason I'm challenging you here is because you are portraying a naive, sanitized view of science and how science proceeds.

Formalism, rigor is not the first step in science it is among the last steps, the first is the desire to even consider something, to ponder it, speculate about it.

That's all I'm, saying.
 
Last edited:
Sherlock Holmes said:
No, I was talking about opinions, how one must have some kind of opinion to even begin to explore something, even begin to wonder about it, here's two randomly chosen defintions:





The reason I'm challenging you here is because you are portraying a naive, sanitized view of science and how science proceeds.

Formalism, rigor is not the first step in science it is among the last steps, the first is the desire to even consider something, to ponder it, speculate about it.

That's all I'm, saying.
Click to expand...

Whatever you think of the scientific method you cannot say that science has not improved our lives immeasurably. That is what I am saying.
 
iguanaman said:
Whatever you think of the scientific method you cannot say that science has not improved our lives immeasurably. That is what I am saying.
Click to expand...

If we had followed the religious method then we would all still be living in caves.
 
zyzygy said:
If we had followed the religious method then we would all still be living in caves.
Click to expand...

Yes because religions thrive on ignorance and poverty. I know that sounds harsh but it is true.
 
Aletheia said:

Consciousness, a Cosmic Phenomenon—A Hypothesis
Click to expand...

Let's look at the journal that published it. It was published by Journal of Consciousness Studies. When you look that up, it says In contrast to other journals, it attempts to incorporate fields beyond the realm of the natural sciences and the social sciences such as the humanities, philosophy, critical theory, comparative religion, and mysticism.

Now, because they add philosophy comparative religion and mysticism, they really aren't a scientific journal. That makes the 'hypothesis' is the layman's version , which means 'here is an idea.' It's not a scientific hypothesis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom