₦airaland Forum

plaetton:
It's like deja vu all over again.

I think you missed the part in a previous post where I said that TOE is not a complete package. It has never been. Most scientific Theories do not come as a complete package. What it does is set a starting point of our enquiries and understanding.

The truth remains that majority of people who say they reject TOE have either zero or very limited knowledge of its mechanics.
Funny,I confess that as a science student, as was once in that category. I rejected because I didn't want to accept it, not because I had scientifically valid counter Theory.

triplechoice:
Finally, scientific theories isn't for picking and choosing, It should be questioned. That's what I said. Any science that cannot be questioned is not science but dogma.

plaetton:
Let me give an example.
There is so much we are still trying to understand about our Sun. But from what we know so far, all the planets in our solar system revolve around the Sun ,albeit, with different orbital periods. We also know that our Sun is the source, regulator and sustainer of life in our planet.
Now, if I make the proposition that the Sun is our Heavenly Father and therefore our God( having all the attributes of god).
You may say that you do not subscribe to that characterization of the Sun as our Heavenly father God. You would say for either if 2 reasons: 1. Either the characterization of the Sun as our heavenly father and God offends your religious sensibilities, or 2. You have not been acquainted with the mechanisms through which the Sun control all planets as well sustaining life on Earth.

The point here being that you can subscribe or subscribe to a philosophical proposition. But you are not at liberty to subscribe or unsubscribe to a scientific theory , unless, you can duly refute that theory or come up with a scientifically superior theory.
You refute science with better science, not with feelings .

triplechoice:
But DeepSight hasn't rejected TOE completely and so ,why but him in the same category of those majority whom you say has?

Top scientist right from the very beginning till this very moment have been questioning certain parts of the theory not because they reject it but because they want to improve on it, yet you want to suggest it's only those with zero knowledge that challenges it. That's not true.

The thing is that,you are too quick to assume that anyone who challenges some aspect of TOE is a religious person who has already rejected it. A lot of atheist think that way and I call it knee- jerk rejection.

Everyday247:
The bolded is wrong because the world is filled with billions of people who do not subscribe to scientific theories.

To subscribe means to agree with.

Everyday247:
Check his posts, it was as if he was implying that some biological phenomena couldn't be explained by TOE, and was hinting at intelligent design.

plaetton:
Let me say this for better understanding.

For my friend DeepSight to question or proclaim the inexplicable instincts, he first has obligation to take a deep dive into the subject of protein synthesis, understand it, and then be able to say that the body of accumulated knowledge in protein synthesis and its fundamental link to natural selection and evolution is wrong and incomplete.
You question science with science.

plaetton:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

How many people do not subscribe to the Gravitational Theory ?
Best way to register that one does not subscribe to the theory of Gravitation would be to test it and jump from a multi-storey building.

plaetton:
Let me give an example.
There is so much we are still trying to understand about our Sun. But from what we know so far, all the planets in our solar system revolve around the Sun ,albeit, with different orbital periods. We also know that our Sun is the source, regulator and sustainer of life in our planet.
Now, if I make the proposition that the Sun is our Heavenly Father and therefore our God( having all the attributes of god).
You may say that you do not subscribe to that characterization of the Sun as our Heavenly father God. You would say for either if 2 reasons: 1. Either the characterization of the Sun as our heavenly father and God offends your religious sensibilities, or 2. You have not been acquainted with the mechanisms through which the Sun control all planets as well sustaining life on Earth.

The point here being that you can subscribe or subscribe to a philosophical proposition. But you are not at liberty to subscribe or unsubscribe to a scientific theory , unless, you can duly refute that theory or come up with a scientifically superior theory.
You refute science with better science, not with feelings .

plaetton:
I also asked you if you ' subscribe ' to the Atomic theory or the Germ Theory or the Gravitational Theory.
Funny that no one tries to cast doubts on the Gravitational Theory, even though that particular theory is incomplete as well, with gapping holes.

DeepSight:
And yet not once has there been evidence that you yourself have done this.

I have repeatedly cited even evolutionary biologists when I raise my questions.

Yet you revert with the same old tired tropes.

plaetton:
I am not an expert on the subject, and I don't have to be.
There are volumes of published materials on the subject.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3312679/

Where would I even start from ?

If he hasn't exhausted all the available materials on protein synthesis and evolution, why does he think I or anyone else owes him that knowledge here on Nairaland?

DeepSight:
Who says it is not questioned.
Did Einstein not propound a newer version than Newton's?

DeepSight:
The for Pete's sake drop the pretentious arrogance.

Everyday247:
Check his posts, it was as if he was implying that some biological phenomena couldn't be explained by TOE, and was hinting at intelligent design.

DeepSight:
This lazily suggests that the TOE is as complete and proven as is Gravity.

And that is false.
Unequivocally.

plaetton:
He sure did, but with scientifically sound new ideas of his own.

Question science with science.
Refute science with better science.

plaetton:
TOE has not been refuted after 150yrs of rigorous scientific enquiry.
Even if 60% of the central idea has been validated so far, it only means that we are yet to understand the remaining 40%, not that it is half-truth.

Wait,

Correction!

Scientific Theories, by definition, are half-truths.
That's why the questions and enquiries continue

DeepSight:
There is much in nature that strongly suggests design.

DeepSight:
You are all over the place.
Come down from your horse, I said come down now.

DeepSight:
As I said science can be questioned with logic and indeed science is based on logic.

It is with logical questions that science gets replaced eventually with better science.

plaetton:
And my dear good friend, as I have stated in the past, NOTHING in nature screams ' INTELLIGENT DESIGN ' like snowflakes ❄️.
We can start ascribing that beautiful, perfect symmetrical design to good ol Santa 🎅.

We all know that snow flakes , the beauty, the geometry and perfect symmetry are simply created by random atmospheric flux .

plaetton:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

How many people do not subscribe to the Gravitational Theory ?
Best way to register that one does not subscribe to the theory of Gravitation would be to test it and jump from a multi-storey building.

triplechoice:
No. He only highlighted certain inexplicable phenomenon in nature and seeks to know the answer .

You think he's hinting at intelligent design because his argument seems similar to those of religious people who completely reject TOE.

DeepSight:
What tells newly born puppies to look for the breasts of a mother they have never seen and still cant see?
What tells new born turtles born on a beach to head to the sea once hatched?

Tell me.

On this thread, I intend to cite many examples of inexplicable instinct - inexplicable if the strict materialist random and evolutionary wordview holds true.

DeepSight:
Intelligent Design is not the stupid retarded idea that many atheists or scientists try to make it out as. There is much in nature that strongly suggests design. I don't like the attitude of many that Intelligent Design is somehow the preserve of idiots or illiterates and is somehow taboo.

Personally, I believe in both evolution and some level of design and programming inherent in the world around us, I don't however believe that that design or programming is all encompassing or perfect or even necessarily made for good. Much of it in my sight is downright flawed, morbid, sadistic and barbaric.

I also don't believe that GOD, which I see as the source of all existence, directly created this world and I think it is far more likely that it is the work of vastly lesser beings. I also believe that our existence could be many possible things including a scientific experiment or even a source of cosmic entertainment.

Everyday247:
It's not about disbelieving in the gravitational theory, it's about replacing the theory with something else.

If someone doesn't believe in the gravitational theory, they can simply make up an alternative explanation to it. Kind of like intelligent design to counter evolution.

plaetton:
I agree to some extent.

But Intelligent Design is not a scientific alternative to TOE. It is not based on any testable science.
Is is just wishful thinking by people who cannot accept the absence of a Creator or designer in the scientific Theory Of Evolution.

Everyday247:
Intelligent design actually raises the question, who designed the designers?

And this leads to an infinite regress.

It's also a god of gaps argument, if we can explain something therefore we invoke intelligent designers.

It's a logical leap, how did you leap from not understanding evolution to intelligent designers.

Everyday247:
It's not about what's true or false. It's about opinions.

Eg. Take the question: did aliens build the pyramids?
Some believe so while other do not.

We can also say that some subscribe to the idea while others do not.

DeepSight:
[/quote]

DeepSight post=135992397:
[color=#990000]

[quote author=DeepSight post=135998931]

Everyday247:
DeepSight

I did not even read the thread from the beginning so I missed most of the what happened.

Let me confirm something, are you saying the following?

1. Instincts in animals can't be explained by evolution.

2. Sexual reproduction is too complex to arise through evolution.

Are these your points?