02-22-2007, 06:43 PM | #121 | |||
FFR Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 60
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
Quote:
Evidence for the existence of God (like evolution) are typically in the form of inference to the best explanation. Take for instance the impossibility of an infinite past. If the past is finite (say, 10 to 20 billion years starting from the big bang) then the universe began to exist, and since anything that begins to exist requires a case, something must have caused it. Because space-time itself began to exist, the agency that created the universe must transcend space and time. Technically this isn't a proof of God's existence, but it's good practical evidence. How many atheists believe there was a creator of the universe that transcends space and time? The "best explanation" atheists have (when compared to theism) is usually that the universe existed forever, but this does not seem like a plausible belief. Other pieces of evidence could be used, e.g. God is the best explanation for the complex order in the universe (e.g. sophisticated mathematical patterns imprinted into nature), the existence of objective moral values, and the existence of the human soul (the soul must exist if free will exists). Quote:
|
|||
02-22-2007, 07:18 PM | #122 | |
is against custom titles
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
Quote:
--Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
02-22-2007, 07:34 PM | #123 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 60
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
My points are (1) the evidence for evolution relies on indirect methods (as opposed to the roundness of the Earth) and is thus not proven "as close as science can" get. (2) The evidence is not all one-sided in favor of orthodox evolution (as I explained in my previous post). (3) Empirical evidence does not announce what it is evidence for, it has to be interpreted. Both creation and evolution can be modified to fit the data and thus become empirically identical (one would have to rely on non-empirical philosophical principles to choose a theory). In short, if your definition of "proven" is proof "as close as science can" get, evolution (like many other legitimate scientific theories) does not fit the bill even if it is true. |
02-22-2007, 08:15 PM | #124 | ||
FFR Simfile Author
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
Quote:
not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material By definition you cannot provide any evidence for it. Scientific method has its rules for a reason; to keep out nonscientific nonsense like creationism and other things that plagued mankind from advancing for centuries. Your 'evidences' are horrible evidences. They cannot be falsified and are as far from scientific as you can get; everything you brought up about God is arbitrary opinion and thus not evidence. Science works for a reason; it's as right as it needs to be. Anyone can argue we can't prove anything, but that doesn't get us anywhere now does it? Quote:
You're telling myself and guido and others we're making too many assumptions, but look at that! Read that paragraph XD! (objectively ;p) Personally, I'm looking at the argument from a purely objective, scientific standpoint. You can't make any ground for creationism because it isn't science. 'Evidences' cannot be supported because scientific method does not support supernatural ground. Maybe evolution is off a bit. I'm willing to admit that. Maybe your point is true, maybe there is something else that is responsible for macroevolutionary changes or that interferes with microevolution. Some other unknown mechanism. However, right now there really isn't anything to suggest otherwise, aside from pseudo-evidence. And there is lots of purely objective, real scientific evidence to support it.
__________________
Last edited by Reach; 02-22-2007 at 08:31 PM.. |
||
02-22-2007, 09:07 PM | #125 |
Resident Penguin
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
Uh, there is no evidence to my knowledge supporting creationism (aka evidence that there was a flood, that a flood could predict things, that there is a god that created things, etc). Saying, "things are complex, creationism says they should be complex and they are. voila!" is ludicrous. And you're not backing out of this by talking about "orthodox" evolution. No one is a pure Darwinist now, everyone favors the modern synthesis view of evolution.
|
02-22-2007, 09:48 PM | #126 | ||||||||
FFR Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 60
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
Quote:
Just because something is not physical or material does not necessarily imply there can be no evidence for it. Case in point: free will is evidence for the existence of the soul (which is not physical or material). Quote:
Quote:
I think your dismissal of the evidence might require a bit more explanation here. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Even if you dislike the theory, it does predict some data that evolution does not. It predicts the pattern of gaps in the fossil record (as described in post #68) and the types of changes we see in living organisms (see post post #74). This evidence may not be enough to make creationist theory better than evolution, but it is evidence. Again, I think we should recognize that the evidence is not all one-sided in favor of either theory. Quote:
Last edited by Tisthammerw; 02-22-2007 at 09:54 PM.. |
||||||||
02-22-2007, 09:53 PM | #127 | ||
FFR Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 60
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
Quote:
This form of creation theory does predict some data that evolution does not as I explained earlier (see post #68) and post #74). Why exactly is this not evidence? Note what I am not saying here. I am not saying that creation has more evidence than evolution, only that creation has some evidence (even if evolution has a great deal more). Quote:
|
||
02-22-2007, 11:59 PM | #128 |
Resident Penguin
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
Interpreting large gaps in the fossil record (the cambrian explosion or whatever) as evidence for arbitrary creation is a bit of a stretch, to say the least. For one thing, one interpretation does not equate to unequivocal evidence until it rules out all other possible interpretations.
And don't even bring the existence or not of the soul into this. I'm almost out of hair to tear out. |
02-23-2007, 12:50 AM | #129 | |
FFR Player
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
Quote:
A theory that describes the creation of the vast, infinite universe proven by fossil records on one measly planet orbiting one of 10^21 stars. How cute. |
|
02-24-2007, 11:56 AM | #130 | |||
FFR Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 60
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
Quote:
Quote:
If empirical data alone cannot decide which theory to accept, how does science work? One principle (that seems to work here) is which theory predicts the data. What makes creationist theory have evidence here is not that it rules out all other possibilities--but that it predicts data that evolution does not. Likewise, what makes evolution have evidential support is not that it rules out creation as a possibility--but that it predicts data that creation does not. Quote:
|
|||
02-24-2007, 12:56 PM | #131 |
Resident Penguin
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
Evolution is right, creationism is wrong, I'm done with this thread.
|
02-25-2007, 03:14 PM | #132 | ||
FFR Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 60
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
Quote:
|
||
02-25-2007, 04:10 PM | #133 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 60
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
Unfortunately, even if the statement is true, simple statements like these can sometimes lead to overzealous conclusions. For instance, grand sweeping statements like "creation has no evidence" despite the fact that creation makes some predictions of empirical data that evolution does not. This is the sort of thing we should avoid, because the evidence is not all one-sided in favor of either theory.
|
02-25-2007, 05:44 PM | #134 |
FFR Simfile Author
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
Creationism is wrong.
Creationism, by definition, is the literal reading of the Genesis as proposed by the Holy Bible. There is absolutely no way to defend this ground. Also, realize that 'creation science', I.E. the supernatural creation of species on Earth, came to be partially because creationism is obviously false. So instead, since the fundies won't give up or grow brains, they concealed the biblical version of the Genesis into what appeared to be something that might actually have some validity behind it. As such much pseudoevidence and pseudoscience was created, and some of it has actually (sadly) filtered into the american school system. However, no, Creationism wether traditional or pseudoscientific, is completely and udderly ridiculous, as both are founded on Christian religious ideology.
__________________
|
02-25-2007, 06:05 PM | #135 | |
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 159
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
Quote:
As for random mutation.. Its not random. Its based on environment or specific needs. Acording to theory at least. Last edited by Kekiz; 02-25-2007 at 06:07 PM.. |
|
02-25-2007, 06:35 PM | #136 |
is against custom titles
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
|
02-25-2007, 06:54 PM | #137 | |
FFR Hall of Fame
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
Quote:
Evolution debates have a tendency to be abhorrently large without going anywhere useful. I think it's because no one understands that the argument is an epistemological one. The scientist can say that macroevolution is true because science says its true; the creationist can say that it is false because the Bible says creationism is true. The only way you are going to convince the other side of your belief is to: a) Prove your point inside their system. or b) Move out a level to the level of epistemology and discuss from there.
__________________
|
|
02-26-2007, 01:06 PM | #138 | |
FFR Simfile Author
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
Quote:
Your point on systems likely explains why this debate is never ending. I think the problem is you can't prove any points in their system...which if anything gives me more ground upon which to refute Creationism.
__________________
|
|
02-26-2007, 01:11 PM | #139 | |
FFR Hall of Fame
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
Quote:
I know you got what I said above, but you're trying to dig ways out of it to validate all your previous ranting. You can't explain why their system is empty and biology is not because it relies on assumptions you make about what emptiness is... That's why this argument is epistemological.
__________________
|
|
02-27-2007, 05:39 PM | #140 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 38
|
Re: A big problem for Evolution?
I'll say one more thing before I'm done with this thread.
Many things the Bible has been saying for thousands of years, science has been saying for the past couple hundred years. Places like Isreal, the Red Sea (I think that's the sea Moses parted...not that it's to big a deal), and many cities in the middle east today are all mentioned and have a role in the Bible. The Bible talks about dinosaurs which we bury up today. More cities like Rome and so many more things. Now to say there is no proof to support creationism or to say God isn't real does not make sence. There is plenty of evidence supporting the Bible. No matter what anyone says it is impossible to deny the Bible's truth. One topic of controversy that is popular, did humans evolve from monkeys (or apes). I'll say two things about that. One is I don't want to believe any idea that I evolved from a monkey, I prefer to be human. Two is there are billions of people in this world and the chance some will look somewhat like a monkey is a high possibility. That does not mean that we evolved from them though. You have to think of this in a logical way to understand what the whole issue is. If you focus on evolution (like many of you are), you don't see what us christians think. You say your right just because it makes "sense" yet your not considering that we (christians) feel the same way about you (athiests). We think you people don't make muth sence. We say there isn't much evidence supporting evolution and we'll use the Bible as our facts. If you say 'Oh, the Bible has no evidence' well I'll say 'Oh, evolution doesn't have much evidence. I'll listen to yuor opinions and consider them. But when they don't try to incorporate my side of thinking, I simply do try to listen. I believe in the Bible but I still agree with many views of science. I try to base my opinion on combining both science (evolutiom) and the Bible. I say what if God created the Big Bang and that's how life came to be in a way (as in just to quickly summarize it). As for evolution, I think there were humans years ago. I do think they may not have been the same a us today but non the less they were humans (not monkeys or apes). Before you go posting and commenting on my post. THINK about creationism and how it too is true in many ways. Think about the parts of evolution that don't make sense. Put 2 and 2 together and then say your thoughts. If you are completely one sided no one (other than those who completely agree with you) will want to listen to your ideas. You attract more attantion is you can incorporate other peoples views into your own. Biology has never been my strongpoint in science BUT at least I can understand the foundation of the arguement instead of going one sided and making little point. Ok, I said all I need. Bye all! P.S. - I'd argue back but I find it pointless argueing with people who are narrow minded. Last edited by das1ngerplayer; 02-27-2007 at 07:59 PM.. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|