| Author |
Message
|
| Obviously |
 Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:55 pm Post subject: Creationism/Intelligen Design |
 |
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1142
Location: Norway
|
This is merely a pointless debating topic, enjoy. Oh, by the way, flame all you want! 
| daytonturner wrote: |
Well, if one looks at evolution with the same analytical and critical eye that one should look at all of science, one would realize that the evidence for evolution is shakey at best.
If, on the other hand, you accept every scientific concept on face value because it is espoused by someone claiming it is science, then I can understand the whole hog swallowing of evolution.
If your starting point is that God does not exist, then evolution is the only plausible explanation available.
In the short sound bites we get here, it is virtually impossible for anyone to actually develope a significant argument for or against any issue. We merely provide conclusory capsules.
The problems in evolutionary theory are numerous and significant. Science attempts to resolve the problems while evolutionist try to justify them or ignore them.
Obviously offers this formula for religious evolutionary belief: "I believe 1+1+1=1."
If I recall my long ago high school advance algebra class, there was a "proof" for such an equation. My restatment of the formula for what evolution believes would be, "I believe A+?+?+?+CDX+?+?19 missing links+L/V*3millionyears+???=today's tabby cat>God."
Actually, I agree with those giants of mathematical wizardry, the Beatles, that "one and one and one is three." But I doubt we will "come together" on this issue. |
My starting point, or any scientist for that matter, is that there's a natural explanation for the vareity of species we see today. As for all these "problems", I have seen none significant [enough for your side]. The formula I provided merely shows the ignorance of the difference between micro- and macro-evolution, which is timescale.
| daytonturner wrote: |
This is what you said, Obviously:
"They [creationists] misrepresent what they're fighting against and ignore the fact that they've been proven wrong on every account. Evolution is a fact, and creationism doesn't make any sense whatsoever as a viable theory of the variety of species you see to this day."
To creationists, this is role reversal. What you say is almost exactly what creationists feel about evolutionists. (Let me say that to me evolutionist is a pajoritive term denoting a person who is not involved in any field of study related to evolution, who has probably never read Darwin's study, who has read only writings exclusively from only those who support evolution, has never read works from those who remain skeptcal and is not even aware of the many remaining questions and puzzles which real scientists recognize and continue to investigate in an effort to find answers.)
I'm almost convinced if there was a thread about bread dough here, some atheist would someplace along the line figure out some way to throw in an anti-creationist comment. |
Let's look a little closer at this quote-mining. What did I actually say that made my post, according to me, consistent with the OP?
| Obviously wrote: |
| You will always be ridiculed for not believing what other people believe. There's nothing wrong with being yourself, but I'd advice to stay away from creationism. They misrepresent what they're fighting against and ignore the fact that they've been proven wrong on every account. Evolution is a fact, and creationism doesn't make any sense whatsoever as a viable theory of the variety of species you see to this day. |
That was merely an opinion.
_________________
You can't determine what's good and what's bad before you've seen both extremes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| medlakeguy |
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 123
|
oooh flame war, lets keep it simple to start with
the universe has been around for far longer than 6000 years, in fact its been around for far longer than a billion...
show me im wrong |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 11:26 pm Post subject: Re: Creationism/Intelligen Design |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2401
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
just lifted out 3 for comment
| daytonturner wrote: |
| Well, if one looks at evolution with the same analytical and critical eye that one should look at all of science, one would realize that the evidence for evolution is shakey at best. |
which raises the question to daytonturner : are you satisfied that you understand evolutionary theory well enough to pronounce yourself on the matter, or are you at one with 99% of the creationists that you're attacking windmills ?
| daytonturner wrote: |
| If your starting point is that God does not exist, then evolution is the only plausible explanation available. |
not so - evolution is not the default alternative to belief in god
do you know of any science that requires belief in god ? and if not, does that make the whole of science atheistic, or merely as Blaise Pascal famously stated, that it does "not have any need for that hypothesis"
| daytonturner wrote: |
| Let me say that to me evolutionist is a pajoritive term denoting a person who is not involved in any field of study related to evolution, who has probably never read Darwin's study, who has read only writings exclusively from only those who support evolution, has never read works from those who remain skeptcal and is not even aware of the many remaining questions and puzzles which real scientists recognize and continue to investigate in an effort to find answers. |
i consider myself to be an evolutionist, but i don't recognise myself in the definition you employ - in fact most biologists that i know of are evolutionists, because not being one would be a matter of lack of personal integrity
we are probably more aware of the remaining deficiencies in the theory of evolution than you are, and they definitely don't include the fake objections raised by creationists, which by now have been refuted for the past 150 years
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Heliopolis |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 226
|
Actually much of evolutionary theory is pseudo-science as it
is largely based on untestable hypotheses.
Evolution itself appears to be sound, but the mechanisms
used to explain it should not, in my opinion, be regarded
as anything other than possible answers until we are
certain that they are.
There is a whole mass of evidence and logic that goes
against the classic Darwinian model |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 2088
Location: South Africa
|
| Quote: |
There is a whole mass of evidence and logic that goes
against the classic Darwinian model |
Which is why it is not the standard interpretation of the mechanics of evolution among biologists anymore, but some of it's tenets are still in working order, like natural selection.
_________________
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4564
Location: Scotland
|
| Heliopolis wrote: |
Actually much of evolutionary theory is pseudo-science as it is largely based on untestable hypotheses.
|
Cite three examples.
(Plus, as New Scientist points out in an article in the current issue Popper's falsifiability is becoming passé, and arguably never was practised to any great extent.)
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Heliopolis |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 226
|
| Ophiolite wrote: |
| Heliopolis wrote: |
Actually much of evolutionary theory is pseudo-science as it is largely based on untestable hypotheses.
|
Cite three examples.
(Plus, as New Scientist points out in an article in the current issue Popper's falsifiability is becoming passé, and arguably never was practised to any great extent.) |
OK..like "What selective pressures might have been involved to produce this adaptation and what if....etc etc etc...
As Prof Rupert Sheldrake has said:
"Darwinism allows endless stories to be spun".
It is not based on objective, reproducible experimentation...the
very basis for science.
It is just endless speculative conjecture lacking any real
substance.
I have noticed how Darwinists use sophistry instead of reason
to explain their positions. They spend more time criticizing people
like me who dare to dsipute their "findings" than proving their
hypotheses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4564
Location: Scotland
|
When I said 'cite three examples' I meant provide references to specific papers that propose an evolutionary hypothesis that is not falsifiable. Quoting a generic remark out of context is meaningless.
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Heliopolis |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 226
|
| Ophiolite wrote: |
| When I said 'cite three examples' I meant provide references to specific papers that propose an evolutionary hypothesis that is not falsifiable. Quoting a generic remark out of context is meaningless. |
How the giraffe got its long neck
www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf
There are no less than 30 untestable hypotheses that try and
explain it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4564
Location: Scotland
|
Regretably access to this site is restricted by company software which classifies it as a ""Social Networking and Personal Sites".
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Heliopolis |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 226
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1142
Location: Norway
|
"Darwinist"
These terms somehow always make me laugh. 
_________________
You can't determine what's good and what's bad before you've seen both extremes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Heliopolis |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 226
|
| Obviously wrote: |
"Darwinist"
These terms somehow always make me laugh. |
Well then laugh at Dawkins for calling himself a "Neo-Darwinist". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1142
Location: Norway
|
| Heliopolis wrote: |
| Well then laugh at Dawkins for calling himself a "Neo-Darwinist". |
Neo-darwinism is defined:
That doesn't sound bad. Is that supposed to prove a point or something? We all know Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist.
_________________
You can't determine what's good and what's bad before you've seen both extremes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4564
Location: Scotland
|
Certain terms, such as Darwinist, evolutionist, macro-evolution, etc have been used perjoratively by creationists. These are perfectly sound terms, introduced by practising scientists for good reasons, and still having value today. However, the misuse of these terms by creationists has led to some people incorrectly believing they are somehow flawed, inappropriate and unscientific. This is definitely not the case.
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
