Evolutionary Debate
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 16:16
VIEWED: 20170
PAGE 20 of 20
Quote:And an honest layman will admit that theories that account for most of the data are better than hypotheses that account for none.
... an honost scientist will admit that he doesnt know every mechanism of the universe- and cant physically account for or validify something allegedly billions of years removed from us.
The process of science is this: If you don't like the current theory come up with a better one. It should have a nature-based explanation for all of the data at-hand.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anti- I've been trying to understand your position. I think you're hoping for the moment when scientists collectively say "By everything that we know about the natural universe 'X' should have never happened. Therefore there must have been a supernatural force involved."
For some people, "X" is evolution. For others, it's the origins of life, and for still others it's the universe itself. Which "X" are you?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen-
ID is repackaged Creation, it's not science and your entire argument has been pretty lame and based entirely on your own lack of knowledge.
you CAN make a distinction.. there are some who are not of any particular religious persuasion, but feel that evolution could not possibly account for all live on earth- i would consider them IDers. 'creationists' are usually christians who are IDers but have a specific religious belief. you can dispute the creationists all you want, its entirely possible they are basing their opinion potentially off of a prior bias(or maybe a post bias)- but there are such things as objective scientists, and ID is evidently not out of the range of possibility(especially if all life can evolve at random). what im hearing is that, whereas im saying science doesnt know every law yet, so we should be more willingly to entertain the possibility, some of you are certain you know every square inch of the universe already, and not only know God doesnt exist, but that such a Creator would leave no visible evidence of his higher intelligence at work(and i just dont think we can state that immutably)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
antimason:
ID is repackaged creation. And the creation myth was around long before christianity.
ID is repackaged creation. Not science, repackaged creation myth.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
so whats abiogenesis? are you gonna tell me its proven fact? but itll be drafted into the evolution debate as if we saw it all first hand....a few billion yrs ago..
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've been over all this with you before. All the questions in your last post and this one, I'm not in the mood to repeat myself, if you want the answers read what I've already said because frankly your beginning to piss me off.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
so whats abiogenesis? are you gonna tell me its proven fact? but itll be drafted into the evolution debate as if we saw it all first hand....a few billion yrs ago..
There are no such things as facts - there are merely things that have been observed, and proven (to the best of our extent) countless times. Abiogenesis...
Y'know what, this does a better job than I do:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ANTI-
Quote:This is a very unclear statement. Does this mean that IDers can account for SOME species but not others? Does this mean that IDers accept evolution but not abiogenisis? The reason why you're getting in a tangle is because you yourself have not presented a clear statement of ID. That's why I asked "Which 'X' are you?" I'm not sure YOU know which 'X' you are.
you CAN make a distinction.. there are some who are not of any particular religious persuasion, but feel that evolution could not possibly account for all live on earth- i would consider them IDers.
Quote:As far as I can tell, "Creationists" reject the theory of evolution. In their belief, God made all species as they exist today, and fossil records, carbon dating, geological evidence are "tests of faith".
'creationists' are usually christians who are IDers but have a specific religious belief. you can dispute the creationists all you want, its entirely possible they are basing their opinion potentially off of a prior bias(or maybe a post bias)
Quote:ANTI- You have a terrible, fundamental misunderstanding of science. Any scientist who claims to understand the entire workings of the universe is NOT a scientist. The purpose of science is to ask "how". Please do not impute that belief to science or scientists.
but there are such things as objective scientists, and ID is evidently not out of the range of possibility(especially if all life can evolve at random). what im hearing is that, whereas im saying science doesnt know every law yet, so we should be more willingly to entertain the possibility, some of you are certain you know every square inch of the universe already, and not only know God doesnt exist, but that such a Creator would leave no visible evidence of his higher intelligence at work(and i just dont think we can state that immutably)
HOWEVER- There are certain fundamental tenets of science, assumptions which underpin the workings of science which leave no room for 'super'natural.
(a) The first tenet is that we are part of a real, objective universe.
(b) The second is that our senses tell us something about it.
(c) The third is that it operates according to consistent laws or principles.
Up to that last point, I can imagine a 'super'natural universe parallel to ours. However, if a supernatural entity is fickle and messes with the workings of the universe at random then the universe is no longer repeatable, predictable, or capable of being studied. The notion of science goes out the window and we're back to propitiating the gods.
That doesn't mean that there is no mystery in the universe. Our limited human minds cannot possibly analogize everything there is to know. It's possible to stand in awe of the universe without resorting to the notion of god.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME