Do you believe in evolution /pol/?
>non-observable
>lack of transitional fossils
>violates the second law of thermodynamics
>controversial among even the biology community
>all promoters of it are leftists
"no"
>>80795663
>violates the second law of thermodynamics
hey there Teillard de Chardin, how ya doin?
>>80795337
what I don't understand is how you could accurately guess the timeframe of a fossil, like what do you use as a frame of reference that something is 3 billion years old, for example
I can't stand this arrogant nigger. He's used car salesman tier. I'm not sure that he's even a scientist.
>>80795663
>non observable: FALSE
>lack of transitional fossils: American education system failing you there buddy
>Violates the second law of thermodynamics: False
>Controversial among biologists: Wrong
>all Promoters are leftists: Wrong
American/10 try again.
>>80795786
no fossil on earth is 3 billion years old. Radiometric dating can be used to found out the age of something that old however.
>>80795975
>you're wrong because i say you're wrong
Bogan logic. Evolution is a pseudoscience.
>>80795663
>non-observable
????
>lack of transitional fossils
not 100% wrong but it's a dated argument that loses credibility with each transitional fossil we find.
>violates the second law of thermodynamics
Earth aint a closed system my dude, we've got a huge ball of energy constantly shining on the planet.
>controversial among even the biology community
Patently false.
>All promoters of it are leftists
See above.
7/10, you made me reply.
>>80795337
Shut up and go suck monsanto's dick, nigger. GIT ON YO KNEES AND SUCK DAT MUTATED BANAN.
>>80795873
He's a leader of the religion of Science: Scientism. He doesn't do actual science because that would be boring. He just makes broad, sweeping statements about stuff that's essentially impossible to prove or disprove with our current technology and makes science look cool and fun when in reality it's the exact opposite.
>>80795337
Yes, it's scientific fact backed by overwhelming evidence if you're willing to examine it.
i think whatever black science man says the opposite is true
>>80795663
>non-observable
Yes it is. The fossil record is clearly observable and datable.
>lack of transitional fossils
There are transitional fossils. This point is dumb as fuck because you can forever go "what's between A and Z?" and they can list the whole alphabet and you can come back and respond with "what's between A and B? no transitional fossils clearly"
>violates the second law of thermodynamics
No it doesn't. KYS.
>controversial among even the biology community
No it isn't. Even if it was, which it isn't, biology is the shittiest of sciences to go into as it attracts all the people who are shit at math. Dumb people tend to prefer religious beliefs to scientific theory.
>all promoters of it are leftists
I'm pretty fucking conservative.
This bait was too much to pass up.
Doesn't really matter if I believe in it, it's scientific fact.
>>80795663
>evolution is just a theory meme
Proven to exist. Try again next time laddie :)
>>80796117
/thread
>>80795337
Evolution is a well established fact. It does not require belief, only an IQ in the double digits.
>>80796417
>theory
>fact
pick one
>>80795337
Evolution is part of a conspiracy orchestrated by the Chinese aimed at weakening the American industry
#staywoke
>>80795786
Radiometric dating retard.
>>80796549
Theory corroborated by overwhelming evidence becomes fact.
>>80796111
>Evolution is a pseudoscience.
Where in the ignorant fuck do you brainless turds come from?
>>80796089
3 billion year old fossils have actually been discovered on your continent.
>>80796549
Learn what a scientific theory is.
Do you just ignore the fact that retard babies exist? Think of retard babies as evolution gone shitty and wrong.
>>80796549
>theory of gravity
>fact
pick one you colossal floating autist.
>>80795337
I believe in God.
>>80796876
Phrenology used to be a widely accepted 'science' before it was disproven.
But go ahead and push your evolution horseshit.
>MUH SCIENTIFIC EBIDENSE
top autist
>>80796186
>He's a leader of the religion of Science: Scientism
"Scientism" is a made-up pseudoscience to help credulous creationistas feel less butt-hurt over being such incredible retards.
But this is the strangest part. The worst way these fuckwits can insult science or anything else is to call it what?
A religion? Well played, dumbasses!
>>80795337
If God didn't want us to believe in evolution, he wouldn't have created it.
>>80795663
>>80796089
>>80796549
>>80796925
i hope these are bait and people arent really and unironically this unintelligent. You give way too much ammo to the liberals when you start denying the science that the entire field of biology is grounded upon.
>>80795663
>I'm too retarded to understand something so the smart people must be lying!!!
>>80796963
You make it extremely clear you have no idea what a scientific theory is. Pro tip: its not even close to what you think it is.
>A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge
>It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from, and in contrast to, the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, or hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of a scientific theory. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science (less ambiguously called a "scientific prediction") versus "prediction" in non-scientific vernacular speech, the latter of which may even imply a mere hope.
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (see Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g., Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light).
>>80796876
Theories explain facts, No one disputes gravity but you can dispute the theory of gravity, that is, how gravity works. At least as I understand the definitions.
>>80797161
>I'm too much of a sheep to question science so I'll go ahead and believe everything they tell me like the cucked little goyim I am!!
>>80795337
Science these days is like religion in the old days
If you follow people who you think are smarter than you doesn't make you smarter. People follow what they don't know and are told with a blind faith, and if they don't are ostracized. Just like old days when religion ruled.
I'm not saying science is fake. But following blindly just to not be called an idiot to worship people that play God is creating more problems and new problems.
>>80797098
this is the true face of /pol/
they are literally that dumb
>>80797098
>You give way too much ammo to the liberals
The real irony is that you can't tell if OP is a clever liberal or a gullible conservative.
>>80797290
>im literally too retarded to understand basic biology so il just pretend it wasnt true anyways
Pro tip: You can quite literally see bacteria evolving in a pea tree dish if you leave it for long enough.
>>80797297
You realise you can go to natural history museums and see the evidence yourself. or read Origin of Species. No one follows it blindly.
>>80795975
Instead of fuking saying "false" why dont you just tell us why you shitposter.
this is literal pottery. life is sublime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6IrUUDboZo
http://www.wellcometreeoflife.org/interactive/
>>80797262
>As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired.
Do you even read what you write? What's to say your shit Evolution theory isn't going to be disproven?
You seem confident, so go ahead, defend it. Despite the lack of transitional fossils you'll defend it until daylight breaks.
Science worship is a mental illness.
>>80797515
The problem with evolution is that it relies a lot on assumptions. It's a very biased and rhetorical theory.
>>80796876
Something is holding us down. We're not theoretically held in place. Call it gravity, call it a sign from the god of downwards; Objects attract.
Don't be such a pedantic bellend lad. it's the prime reason you're so noticeably miserable and presumably consider self lobotomising almost hourly. One should hope.
>>80797435
we as humans have never seen a new kind of animal come from an existing kind of animal though
prove me wrong
>>80796925
You can believe in both.
>>80798291
sure, but you're an idiot if you do
fucking cuckolics
>people unironically denying evolution
For fuck's sake, just because leftists tend to accept evolution doesn't mean you have to deny it just because you hate leftists, that's fucking retarded.
No, a bearded guy in the sky made it all some 6 thousand years ago.
>>80798693
I bet you'll chide us for being skeptical of climate change next
>>80797763
Lack of transitional fossils?
>>80798913
>these fourteen skulls will surely prove my point!!
Oh look, it's fucking nothing.
>>80797435
>pea tree dish
please tell me that's some /sci/ meme
>>80798832
Not particularly, there's actually much more of a point to be made there with regards to the source of the increased greenhouse effect and to what extent humans are responsible for it.
I'll sure call you a dipshit if you deny it altogether though senpai
threadly reminder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agAiIRkHn2o
>>80798198
Liger
Alternatively I'd like to throw the offspring of a aborigine and and human into the equation. Those upside down niggers are so far from human that even being half that shit is gonna make you if you're very lucky a proto human .
>>80799052
Hey look here's some more
>>80798442
Well when it comes to belief i'm not sure it's fair to call them idiots.
I only "believe" in god.
However, mathematically speaking, evolution is correct. Therefore, evolutionary theory is factual.
>>80795337
Nope.
>>80799500
>if i post animal skeletons, i will prove muh theory
No one's buying your snake oil bullshit.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
>>80799552
>However, mathematically speaking, evolution is correct
People like you actually exist. And you must remind us of it every day.
Question: if evolution doesn't exist how do bacteria develop tolerance to antibiotics?
>>80798693
> Als ik rechts ben zijn mijn standpunten automatisch gebaseerd op het feit dat ik rechts ben.
Nice implication dumbfuck, you're literally opposing yourself.
>>80799767
>People like you actually exist. And you must remind us of it every day.
...People with observational ability?
>>80799607
Hey I mean you wanted evidence of transitional fossils. Believe what you want man
>>80799963
>mathematically speaking, evolution is correct
>>80796262
Arn't facts based on proofs, rather than evidence?
>>80795337
Of course. Anyone who doesn't willfully ignores facts.
>>80800160
>>mathematically speaking, evolution is correct
You understand that all forms of science (from sociology to physics) are math, right?
>>80799896
I was actually paying them the compliment of assuming their reluctance to accept evolution was because it tends to be associated with lefties, as the alternative is that they're incredibly unintelligent.
Yes. Can this be reconciled with the bible?
>>80800340
Please kill me and release me from this stupidity God. I haven't been able to determine if suicide is definitively sinful or not, so I cannot do it myself.
>>80800527
Do it. God is merciful and will understand.
>>80799607
Dude. You're gonna want to research this one. You're looking dumber by the post.
>>80800758
Not gonna risk sin Greece. In no world would I ever risk disobeying my God. What's holding you back from the precipice though, young poverty-man?
>>80801060
Probably the satisfaction he gets from seeing dipshits like you fumble with concepts you can't understand
>>80801300
Might you enlighten us all as to what's being fumbled, good sir retard? ;)
>>80795663
You're making us look bad.
Besides, evolution isn't a belief. It's scientific fact.
>>80800527
You probably need psychiatric help.
>>80801060
God apparently, who must be the same guy that brought me to that state since he's all powerful.
>>80801796
You probably need a higher IQ ;)
>>80801910
You can abdicate responsibility for your choices and outlook on life all you want. Lefties are pretty good at guilt deflection and shifting responsibility for everything that happens in their lives off themselves after all ;)
>>80795337
I tend to believe in a combination of evolution and creation.
The short form is as follows.
Evolutionist: We know creationism is wrong because we can trace the origin of the universe to the big bang.
Me: Do you know what caused the big bang, though? Or for that matter where the base material of the universe originated from before the bang?
Evolutionist: Well... no.
Me: Could it have possibly been God?
Creationist: We know evolutionary theory is wrong because the bible says God spoke everything into existence.
Me: And you're dead sure his exact wording wasn't "BANG"?
The long form involves a theory I've put a great deal of time into that involves the biblical account of creation being dumbed down to suit bronze age primitives who could barely wrap their minds around cooked meat. Plus the absolute refusal on both sides of the equation to accept a unified theory instead of spending countless hours bickering back and forth that could be spent on more productive persuits.
And on that subject, I'm afraid I really must call you a cunt for kindling that argument just a bit further.
>>80802071
Nope, theists believe in a higher all encompassing power so that must mean there is no free will and everything must derive from that power.
When shit doesn't add up they propose free will. How convenient and self contradictory at the same time.
>>80795337
>pretend to be intelligent
>shill for pseudo-science like global warming in that benefits Jewish interests
>atheist
>keep bringing up evolution as if the debate over it hadn't been won years ago
Black science man and Bill Nye the old white guy are faggots.
>>80802071
>You probably need a higher IQ ;)
My IQ is 131 and I'm going to get my Pharmacy Doctorate.
>>80803141
>so that must mean there is no free will and everything must derive from that power
Nope - you conclusion does not follow from the premise.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/david-lewis/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-modal/
Gist:
p1) wills exist
p2) wills can make (and do make) all possible choices over all possible worlds
----
c) Even if God knows what choices you can/will make (which is all possible choices), one cannot possibly be more free than a reality in which you can - and do - make any - and all - decisions
>>80803141
Not a theist but a big part of Christianity is free will, it's the act of CHOOSING to do good instead of evil that makes someone a good Christian. An Entity who is only capable of doing good and does not actively CHOOSE to do good would not be considered a moral agent.
>>80803293
Your major would explain your writing ability. It wouldn't explain your absolutely stunningly stupid statements
>all forms of science (from sociology to physics) are math
and
>mathematically speaking, evolution is correct
respectively, since those have very little to do with articulateness and everything to do with thoughtlessness.
>>80803298
So by that logic god is both good and evil, male and female, gay and straight. In short humans are god.
>>80803663
Lay exactly how you draw out that conclusion from the argument I just provided you in premise-conclusion form please.
>>80803360
That's not god. That's a human. Human don't need God to do good.
>>80803517
Interesting opinion.
I just seriously want you to understand that suicidal thoughts are irrational and require medical attention. If you have them, seek help.
Not only do I believe in it, but I practice it. By failing to reproduce.
>>80803879
Great defense of your brilliant statements my friend. I hope one day you can at least manage to write your signature legibly unlike the vast majority of your future drone colleagues.
>>80804045
Thank you
>>80803517
All forms of science do stem from math though.
With mathematical models we can explain the forecs and particles that make up our universe, which is physics.
With physics we can explain how these particles interact with eachother, which leads to chemistry.
From chemistry we can study organic molecules and the even larger and more interesting structures that they form, in the form, like proteins, cells, etc. (Biology)
Hopefully in the far future we can use our mathematical understandings of these objects to explain even the soft sciences such as Psychology.
>>80802829
Evolution does not deal with anything before life or how life came to be.
It only combines natural selection trough adaptation with mutation and also extinction. In complex organisms this takes time. A lot of time. It can be observed. It is logical.
Saying evolution is wrong is about just one step above the flat earther morons.
>>80795873
He's what Kuhn called a legwork scientist in the lowest sense of the term. Basically he just looks at stars under a spectographic analysis and documents what he finds so that real scientists can possibly use the information to come up with theories.
>>80803790
Reality is created by God. Therefore for God everything must be neutral because everything is a possibility in the environment he created.
Either reality is created by God or reality is something higher than God.
>>80804172
No they don't. Aristotelian biological observation is a paradigmatic example of science and most of it had almost nothing to do with mathematics.
>>80804365
But reality is subjective.
>>80804365
How in the world does
>Therefore for God everything must be neutral
follow from
>because everything is a possibility in the environment he created
?
What in the *world* do you think is the connection between possibility and "neutrality"?
How do people deny evolution when you can see fossil (replicas) in person for free at the Smithsonian museum in dc.
>>80804462
that's self contradictory.
>>80803862
I would beg to differ. Look what is happening to our godless societies, they're deteriorating. The populous of any civilization must believe in something higher for it to work.
>>80804501
Every possible action of man who interacts in a reality god created.
>>80804969
The most religious societies are at almost continuous war ie middle east
>>80804997
That's a complete non-answer to the question. I'll repeat:
What in the *WORLD* does possibility have to do with neutrality?
Are you struggling with the English in this conversation, or is it that you're an idiot, or what? What's going on here Greece?
>>80795337
Evolution:
>can't explain the irreducible complexity
>somehow the species produce new information in their genes from nowhere and form new species
>not scientifically tested
>dogma of atheists scumbags
>based simply on arbitrary fossils overlap
>>80804401
They do.
And even though Aristotle did have a method of science, he did not have a full understanding of what he was observing.
He didn't even have knowledge of the atom, let alone the multitude of other scientific advances which have stemmed from the scientific revolution.
His work on philosophy is great, but our current scientific understanding of the world, one which is based in mathematics, is a more logical/complete understanding of the universe than what he believed.
>>80804969
because now that religion is fading away, people resort to the state for moral guidance, because people can't decide for themselves what's right and wrong. so now the state is gaining power, and they're abusing that power. people need to realize this. if we're going to become an atheist society, we need to keep the state in check.
>>80805165
Has god created reality? Yes or no dumbass?
>>80804969
We believe in things far higher than God, I can assure you. As Nietzsche put it, we have are moving into a world BEYOND good and evil, not a world WITHOUT Good and Evil.
>>80795337
Evolution justifies racism, and disproves egalitarianism. Anyone who considers himself "right-wing" and doesn't believe in evolution is a Christcuck.
>>80805391
loaded question. try again.
>>80804880
It really isn't, everyone has their own reality.
>>80805521
This.
>>80805296
I gave you a definitive example of science having nothing to do with mathematics. I'll give you another.
I want to find out whether or not I can select for a certain color of fur by breeding certain dogs together, and go about trying to do so, recording my observations and methodology and breeding different kinds of dogs, trying to get the fur I want.
What, exactly, is "rooted in math" about that? Since you said - and I quote:
>All forms of science do stem from math
>>80805391
I'm gonna leave you to your inarticulate blithering senpai. You've demonstrated the extent of your English and/or reasoning capabilities loud and clear.
Used to. Now.. Nope not even a little bit.
no science is fucking gay lmao
>>80805847
Thanks for rage quiting and ad hominems.
>>80806065
Bye bye~
>>80805660
there's only one reality, and it's objective. the whole condition of reality is that it's objective. if you're experiencing a different reality from everyone else, you're fantasizing.
>there are daily threads on /pol/ debating the existence of evolution and whether or not the Earth is a sphere
Lol forget black people, you morons should be put in camps.
>>80806102
Be careful of sin you might burn in eternal fire.
>>80806118
Or perhaps he really is experiencing something else. Unless you've got a way to substantiate that he, as a matter of fact, isn't.
>>80805546
How is it loaded?
>>80806217
had a good laugh at this post to be honest
Catholic church has no problem with evolution
Catholic priest created muh big bang theory
It's 2016 how are people still strawmanning fundamentalism
>>80795337
i believe in texas
...
and grassy knoll neil tyson fried chicken
>>80806223
maybe he is, in the same way we don't know you see blue in the same way as me. but we all agree that whatever we're seeing is blue, so that's reality, and it's objective because we can all agree on it.
>>80806310
because you're already assuming there is a god.
>>80795337
>Do you believe in evolution /pol/?
I don't believe in evolution, but I do believe in devolution.
pic related
>>80806737
Yes I was assuming that, because I was answering to someone who is certain there is a God. I was just using his argument.
>>80806737
>but we all agree that whatever we're seeing is blue
Or we're not agreeing at all, and what we each call "blue" is something entirely different from one another. Seemingly agreeing on something does not make it objective. Two people can be imagined to hallucinate the exact same pink elephant. Does by virtue of their agreeing that they experienced a pink elephant instantiate that pink elephant as having been an objective reality? Of course not - that would be nonsense.
>>80805713
Here is how that is rooted in math.
The color of the dogs fur is determined by the epigenetics/genetics of the dog.
The gene sequence and curvature of the chromosomes control what color of fur the dog will have, and how much of it is produced.
Proteins will bind to the DNA and produce a translated RNA chain of the specific gene sequence which control the color of the dog's fur.
These RNA and DNA chains, actually all molecules of the cell, are governed by the laws of chemistry, and by extension, physics.
As the temperature of the earth is relatively low compared to the threshold needed for quantum-mechanically influenced indeterminate interactions, we can predict with accuracy how the molecules will interact with the laws of physics/chemistry.
All physics and chemistry are based in math.
By knowing the state of the system, we can predict everything about it with these laws, through math.
I understand what you're getting at though, breeding a dog to have a more brown fur color is something that can be completely understood and observed scientifically and does not have anything to do with math. This is the kind of science that biologists/psychologists engage in today.
When taken to the deepest level, however,all of these interactions/observations are a result of mathematics.
We do not currently have the technology/computational ability to express and predict such complex interactions in mathematical forms. It will probably be centuries before we do, but it is a possibility, as long as these problems are computational.
>>80795663
Oh boy, you americans do crack me up sometimes
>>80798198
Look at the history of how dogs have been domesticated and selectively bred by humans, and multiply it by x1000
It's not complicated
>>80801560
You're tripfagging on a board where it's reviled. So, soecifically, you're fumbling with social expectations.
>>80807476
That's what happens to autistic people. Daily reminder that Praceteom is /pol/'s resident literal autist tripfag.
>>80806581
This.
>>80806961
you're right, i didn't read his post.
>>80807035
that's exactly what i'm saying. we might not see the same thing, but because we all agree that this is blue, we can verify we're looking at the same thing, so it's objective reality.
>>80807087
To be brief and to the point, observation and experience are what science stem from. Mathematics is a tool by which data gained by observation may be quantified, or else simply a form of deductive quantitative reasoning that has nothing whatsoever innately to do with science (which requires a posteriori reasoning and experiential inputs to even be considered science).
>all of these interactions/observations are a result of mathematics
"Mathematics" doesn't *do* anything. You utilize mathematics (or you don't) toward some end. Your reasons, aims, purposes, and methodologies don't stem from mathematics, you employ mathematics in regard to them.
>>80807587
>we might not see the same thing, but because we all agree that this is blue, we can verify we're looking at the same thing, so it's objective reality
That's exactly what I'm saying is wrong. People (seemingly but not necessarily actually) agreeing on something objective reality does not make. See the pink elephant analogy once more.
>>80795337
It is not something to believe in. The significant amount evidence for it is there, so it's something to be understood.
>>80798913
You know theres a lot of different species of monkeys right
>>80797005
I'm an atheist and accept evolution. The characterization of the pop-sci "science is cool" movement as scientism and religious in spot-on. It's even more complete when you consider the "singularity" movement, which is 100% religious, just replacing "god" with "computers." It's scary when there's big-name Silicon Valley asshats backing it. It's essentially a modern cargo-cult that worships some fantasy of what science and technology is.
The fucking irony is that New Scientism has succeeded in gaining converts from people who would have been creationists otherwise, but instead of being inspired to actually do the hard work of gaining authentic knowledge, just wallow around in intellectual laziness and feeling good about ideas.
>>80804299
When I worked at Burger King we called the equivalent position the "broiler bitch." They're usually brand new or inexperienced, and stuff patties and buns into the conveyor-broiler because they can't even make a fucking burger or use a cash register.
>>80807888
>The significant amount evidence for it is there
according to your opinion
for 6000 years wolves have been producing wolves and other variations of canines depending on their environment
no evolving but adapting
the only difference is you guys throw in the trillions of years bit because you dont understand what actually happened
>>80799052
>it's fucking nothing
stop throwing stones at your glass house,
all this evidence and what have you?
>>80808076
Scientism is incredibly cancerous, yes.
>>80795663
fpbp
>>80808160
>because you dont understand what actually happened
what happened?
>>80806118
What i mean is our perception of reality, of course there is only one.
>>80806961
>because I was answering to someone who is certain there is a God
Just spotted this gem made of straw. I fucking love this board. It's brilliant.
>>80807766
>Two people can be imagined to hallucinate the exact same pink elephant.
so you know they're hallucinating. therefore you know that what they're seeing is not reality. they might think that what they're seeing is reality, but they're hallucinating. the concept of a reality that we all agree on is something we came up with. there has to be a line somewhere as far as how many people need to agree on it for it to be reality but i obviously can't give you that number because we've never had the need to because 99% of us agree on what's reality and what's fantasy.
>>80808302
>what happened?
god created the world.................... genesis 1
god wasnt joking
atheists are gonna look like the biggest fools in the world at the end
>>80808504
>so you know they're hallucinating
I don't exist in this hypothetical. There are two people, who hallucinate exactly the same thing, such that they conclude their experience was real simply because they believe it was shared (which is terrible logic) when in reality they were hallucinating. If you have two people in a box, and the light plays tricks on them in the same way, the conclusions they form about what they actually saw don't become objectively true just because they might think they agree about what they experienced. They can be simply wrong as a matter of fact. Their consensus has absolutely nothing to do with objective fact.
Do you follow?
>>80808471
So you don't believe in God? Are you an agnostic? Which is it?
>>80807638
Math is a tool yes, what I meant was that it is the driving force of interactions in our universe.
A more accurate statement is that the interactions and observations are a result of physics.
The laws of our universe and the fundamental constants drive everything we see around us.
Observation and experience do not create science. I think that's an anthropocentric view of the world.
We are nothing more than particles in a void governed by the laws of our universe, just like everything else we see.
Math is a tool though, you're correct about that.
>>80795337
No; Jesus was black
>>80808809
You can make up anything about my beliefs you want - you've already established you're not concerned with facts and prefer to simply pile up straw everywhere.
Bye bye~
>>80795337
I'm not saying it doesn't exist but to paraphrase filmmaker Ridley Scott, it's an awful lot of accidents to get from a gelatinous blob to where we are now with the massive amounts of diverse life.
>>80808920
>Math is a tool yes, what I meant was that it is the driving force of interactions in our universe
No, I don't think that's true at all. We simply utilize math to help in how we describe what we think the world is actually doing - math isn't actually doing anything itself, so it couldn't even remotely be called "the driving force".
>>80795337
I believe in evolution, but many Le Black Science Man meme-spouting Redditors don't.
They call phenotypes "social constructs", after all.
I just recently had an argument with a leftcuck who was saying all white nationalists are anti-intellectual in saying blacks are predisposed to violence; then a posted links to the "warrior gene" and he went silent.
>>80795337
the funny thing is that professional liar in your pic doesn't either.
>>80808940
What facts? Your mental gymnastics don't count as facts. When faced with the most simple questions you don't answer. That's some shitty trollin actually.
>>80808782
right, and when you ask those two people to record the pink elephant they're seeing, and you watch it and you don't see anything at all, you can confirm that what they saw was a hallunication. if they don't have proof at all you can just discard it as untrue. if there's no third party to show proof to, then that's like asking if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
ofcourse there are people that think they see completely different things than us, but the majority agrees on the same thing because we can do studies and tests to know the truth. just like there are people that believe in a flat earth. they might think they're right, but we have proof that shows the earth is a globe. that doesn't mean reality is subjective, it means there are crazy people in the world.
>>80809805
Or you're hallucinating yourself and there really *is* a pink elephant. How do you determine who is right, exactly?
>>80795337
>believe in evolution
Nope.
I think it's (by far) the best explanation we have for the facts that we have, with some minor details still in dispute or otherwise unsettled.
I do however believe in the scientific *process* for producing theories as it is unequivocally the best process we have ever had (to date) to understand the world around us.
>>80795663
>non-observable
False, it's happening all the time in birds, insects, marine life, and bacteria/viruses
>lack of transitional fossils
False
>violates the second law of thermodynamics
False
>controversial among even the biology community
Absolutely false
>all promoters of it are leftists
Equally false
8/10 made me reply
t. geneticsfag
>>80799299
>leaf
Probably shitposting
>>80809951
if the majority agrees there is no pink elephant (99.9% for most things), we're gonna go with that. if all our brain were wired like those two who are hallucinating, and we all see the elephant, we can touch it, smell it, hear it, then that's our reality.
>>80810399
So it's the majority then? What if, as a matter of fact, 60% of people are *actually* hallucinating and 40% aren't? Is their objectively illusory reality somehow magically true in concrete terms?
>>80805521
Prejudice is the agent by which evolution works, essentially.
>>80810597
like i said before, i can't give you an exact number, because we never had the need for it. there are many loopholes in science. because this is a system that we came up with ourselves. but you can't say the reality is subjective because the concept of it is something we've made up. otherwise if even reality can't be objective, then what IS objective? reality is by definition objective. subjectivity is based on feelings, ideas, and opinions.
>>80811208
You're a government shill.
>>80795337
Do you?
>>80811208
>you can't say the reality is subjective because the concept of it is something we've made up
Read this statement again my friend.
>>80811208
I agree with you that *actual* reality would be objective. But how you determine what is *actual* reality and what isn't is something that may be completely beyond your means, which is the point.
>>80811394
that doesn't have to do with this at all. and i'm actually an anarcho-capitalist.
>>80811559
now read the rest of my post, especially the part where i explain exactly that.
>>80811694
Your response is too perfect for you not to be a shill.
>>80795337
>>80795337
Yes. Niggers like him are evolved to live in the African climate and normal people are evolved to live in the more civilized societies.
>>80809349
It's missing the highest order, the Eskimo.
YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM IS A CREATION OF JEWRY. IT IS NOT PERMITTED FOR TRINITARIAN CHRISTIANS TO BE YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS!
>>80795337
>evolution
Not really
>natural selection
yes
>>80812060
Because he was a devil worshipping animist.
>>80811667
i think the real question is: how good are we at perceiving true reality?
because for all we know all our senses are lying to us and we're actually living in a purple world made of jelly. but that's not what our brains are telling us, so we've made a system of science and philosophy based on what we (99% of us) are perceiving as reality. all we can do is work with the information we have.
>>80812137
If you believe in natural selection you believe in evolution.
>>80811775
can you expand on that?
>>80812206
It's not the same thing. Evolution means something that's objectively better, natural selection means the process of a species adapting to an environment, often at the cost of hindering it's chances of survival in other environments.
>>80812274
You seen that I called you a government shill. Your response was anti-government, which is what you'd expect I would agree with.
>>80812166
>how good are we at perceiving true reality?
You're assuming we are in any extent at all in your posing of that question, which I think is disingenuous given you seemingly can't confirm that.
>>80812348
Natural selection is a process that drives evolution. Do you believe in Young Earth Creationism as preached by Ken Hamm?
>>80796111
Even if you think that evolution isn't scientific, that just makes the notion of "god did it" even more false
>>80812364
so i'm either a statist in which case i'm wrong according to you, or i tell you i'm a libertarian and in that case i'm a shill?
there's really no winning here so there's no point in arguing with you.
>>80812388
right, but we have to work with the information we're getting. our brains are mostly the same, and the vast majority of us agree on what's real and what isn't so we've made a system based on what we perceive. reality is completely based on our perception. but our perceptions are all the same for the most part, so reality is objective.
>>80796111
Please see: >>80812096
Young Earth Creationism is evil and is anti-Christian.
Listen here you government security clearance holding mother fuckers. There beings that keep visiting me will eventually bestow on me incredible technology. I'm going to use it to erase this world.
>>80812943
Obvious troll
>>80795337
Of course, how else would a 200lb gorilla become a scientist.
>>80795337
>Do you believe in evolution /pol/?
No. Any formulation of evolution that involves natural selection violates basic laws of statistics. (Like the Central Limit Theorem.)
>>80813058
Humans didn't evolve from gorillas.
>>80812585
>that drives evolution
Not necessarily in nowaday's use it's normally used as a way to refer to something that's inherently better altogether than it's previous version, which obviously leads to problems like dumbfucks not understanding what I mentioned before and leading to a lot of misunderstanding.
I just prefer to use a different term because it helps people distinguish between what the theory is and what their misconceptions about it are.
>Do you believe in Young Earth Creationism as preached by Ken Hamm?
>>80795873
NdT and his ilk are one of the main reasons I want to get the fuck out of scientific research and move to management or policy.
>>80812925
>reality is completely based on our perception
That would fit the definition of "subjective". That would be the opposite of objective.
*Real* reality is completely separate and independent of our perceptions. What you perceive doesn't necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with objective truth.
>>80795663
Please don't think all of us Americans are like this
>American education
I learned about evolution thoroughly starting in grade school and became able to debunk this post after in depth classes in college (uni).
It's not my fault his parents were too poor to send him to a good school
If you believe children resemble their parents you believe in evolution.
>>80813342
>and became able to debunk this post after in depth classes in college
Shouting "you're wrong!" and citing other faggots who shout "you're wrong!" is not debunking, you moron.
Evolution is a pseudoscience. There is no testable mathematical model of evolution via natural selection, and anything without a testable mathematical model is not science.
Blindly following a religion is just as bad as blindly following "science." These scientists just bathe themselves in their own jizz-covered metaphysics that they claim are true based on mostly hypothetical theories. And these theories go on and on trying to prove each other. I used to be a hardcore atheist fag, then I realized I was just blinded by indoctrination. Evolution = nothing > big explosion out of nothing > planets, stars, blah blah, then out of no where, earth is somehow the perfect breeding ground for life > microscopic single celled organisms become multi-cellular or what ever > then everything comes from that. You cant possibly prove any of this shit, just blind faith.
>>80813126
I think he was making a joke.
>>80813589
I agree with you in sentiment but I'd avoid encroaching on demarcation statements, given you open up an annoying can of worms by arguing in that territory.
>>80813294
by that logic nothing could ever be objective, because we perceive it, and perception makes it subjective. which is wrong. subjectivity is a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery. objectivity is based on truth and facts. something we universally agree on.
>>80795337
I hate almost everything about the far-left.
And the only two things about the far-right that I disagree with are:
>support of the drug war, and
>the denial of evolution.
That being said, I'd still rather live around conservatives.
>>80813698
You're a materialist if I understand correctly?
>>80813589
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Buss
This is who I learned evolution from. Feel free to take it up with him.
>>80813698
>by that logic nothing could ever be objective
No, something could very possibly be objective, we're just not necessarily capable of *CONFIRMING* it as objective.
It's like being in a box and hearing a noise outside. You think it sounds like something in particular. You subjective evaluation leads you to conclude that sound is the sound of an X. Now, it may be *TRUE* that the sound came from an X, which would mean your subjective evaluation is *RIGHT* since it conforms to objective reality. But it might also be true that, instead of coming from X, the sound came from Y, as an objective fact. In that case, your subjective evaluation would be *WRONG*, in that the sound did not, as an objective fact, come from X. But whether it's X or Y or anything else, there is an objective fact to the matter. You just can't necessarily leave the box and confirm what it is. Do you follow?
Pol is having cognitive dissonance right now
you can't be a Nazi and call black people subhuman unless you believe in evolution
>>80813589
>over a hundred years of observation, data, evidence, experimentation, study, research, and facts all supporting the theory of evolution
>nah its not real, its fake science because muh math arbitration
>>80795337
No. God created everything.
>>80813843
yes, why?
>>80814005
right, but according to that logic we can't ever call something objective because we don't know if our senses are lying to us and we're actually living in a purple world with chocolate rivers and pink elephants. you're saying there is an objective answer to everything, we just can't call anything objective with certainty. but we've based this system on what we perceive, and we have to assume that what we're seeing is reality, otherwise we have nothing to go with. so the things that we're perceiving are reality for mankind at least.
>>80814137
This I never understood. How can you be a Christfag and believe in the Jewish conspiracy? Nietzsche thought Jesus was a Jewish plant designed to usurp Roman religion and values. Slave morality = modern cuckoldry. Look it up.
>>80796117
Holy shit your understanding of energy in the universe is wrong.
>>80795337
Yes. It's how I know the nigger in your picture is a fucking coon before I even look up all the times he's fabricated quotes.
Glorified tour guide. Hope he dies of prostate cancer, in agony.
>>80814804
i love it when people say something is wrong and then don't refute it.
>>80814552
>we can't ever call something objective
Sure we can. We're just not necessarily right.
We can establish objectivity very easily, a priori. Like this - "something is either true or it isn't". That's a tautology.
>you're saying there is an objective answer to everything, we just can't call anything objective with certainty
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
>but we've based this system on what we perceive
*I* certainly haven't. I think it's demonstrably silly to do so. I've provided reason as to why that's the case.
>otherwise we have nothing to go with
Not at all. You can operate without the assumption that what you experience is objective reality. You can do whatever you want and are capable of doing regardless of how you think the world actually is or what the limits of your perception and reasoning are.
WHO
GIVES
A
SHIT?
>>80795337
>>80814552
Just asking. In the end I think it is like you said, objective reality is there to be discovered by us in all it's detail. Observation, and experimentation - the scientific method.
>>80815500
and with materialistic i meant that in the philosophical sense, not in the consumerist sense.
>>80814974
the thing is that it would be really hard to make progress in science and philosophy if you use your meanings of objectivity and subjectivity. there needs to be a line somewhere and a good place for that is between reality and opinions.
objective: that's a coat
subjective: that's a beautiful coat
this was a good discussion and i would love to talk further, but i gotta go to work soon. if it's really work in reality. see ya.
>>80815828
>the thing is that it would be really hard to make progress in science and philosophy if you use your meanings of objectivity and subjectivity
Not in the least. We can do the exact same things. You can believe whatever you like - your belief doesn't affect your ability to act in certain ways. I can believe wholeheartedly that if I step on a crack in the sidewalk I will surely die a horrible death. That doesn't actually stop me from stepping on a crack - I am still fully capable of consciously stepping on a crack.
Goodnight yo.
>>80813910
>citing other faggots who shout "you're wrong!" is not debunking, you moron
What did you get on your reading SAT's? 15 points?
>>80814405
Evolution may or may not be true, but as long as mathematical models aren't involved __it simply isn't science__.
Part of the scientific method is making predictions and testing them, and this is impossible without a mathematical apparatus.
>>80815054
That's fuckin funny.
>>80797027
If he did not create evolution we would not have a theory anymore there for god is real and there is no need for faith anymore
>>80800527
Thou shalt not murder , this probably also means killing your self
>>80817832
I don't know if ending one's own life is murder.
Especially in Biblical terms where the word is only ever employed in relation to other souls.
>>80814526
God is life and evolution. God is change.
