DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> The Co-existence of Science and Theology
Pages:   ... ... [65]
Showing posts 326 - 350 of 1614, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/15/2007 07:49:57 PM · #326
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Originally posted by zxaar:

that was not argument in favour of hinduism or any religion.
My point was that if we have to believe in holy books, the truth changes with the reference frame. The truth according to hindu books is different than bible.
And the truth will vary if you look through kuran.
But the truth being the truth should not vary.
Science is science whether we are hindu muslim or Christian.

This whole thing is missed in this discussion. Mainly because most of you are Chritstians.


I got it; but only because of your previous posts.

BTW, I'm dying to find out what you make of that theory of everything.


This week i am very very much, I will try to read on the weekend, if possible. At one look it looks complicated to me.
 11/15/2007 07:51:30 PM · #327
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
BTW, I'm dying to find out what you make of that theory of everything.


This week i am very very much, I will try to read on the weekend, if possible. At one look it looks complicated to me.

I did read through it. But I don't have a physics PhD, so I admit most of it was over my head, especially the mathematics.
 11/15/2007 07:54:27 PM · #328
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
BTW, I'm dying to find out what you make of that theory of everything.


This week i am very very much, I will try to read on the weekend, if possible. At one look it looks complicated to me.

I did read through it. But I don't have a physics PhD, so I admit most of it was over my head, especially the mathematics.


Me too, but the pictures are so pretty!
 11/15/2007 07:54:39 PM · #329
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
BTW, I'm dying to find out what you make of that theory of everything.


This week i am very very much, I will try to read on the weekend, if possible. At one look it looks complicated to me.

I did read through it. But I don't have a physics PhD, so I admit most of it was over my head, especially the mathematics.


Yes maths is what worry me, though i like maths the part he refers is not touched upon. I am mostly working with numerical maths, since this is what we use. But I have a friend who is studd in maths (gold medal in math Olympiads if I remember correctly), might contact him about it.
 11/15/2007 08:11:28 PM · #330
Incidentally, for those who missed it, here is a link to the NOVA documentary Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial which first was presented last Tuesday on PBS. Apparently, it wasn't shown by PBS in all regions. It's follows the court case regarding the attempt to get statements regarding intelligent design creationism into science classes in the Dover, Pennsylvania school system.
 11/15/2007 10:01:18 PM · #331
Originally posted by zxaar:
that was not argument in favour of hinduism or any religion. My point was that if we have to believe in holy books, the truth changes with the reference frame. The truth according to hindu books is different than bible.
And the truth will vary if you look through kuran.
But the truth being the truth should not vary.
Science is science whether we are hindu muslim or Christian.

This whole thing is missed in this discussion. Mainly because most of you are Chritstians.

No, not at all, that's been part of it since the outset. I cannot understand why there can't be some middle ground, which with men of faith as scientists, there can be.

But a literal, devout follower, no matter what faith, will never be able to coexist with anyone outside his/her faith simply because they constantly defy all "normal, rational thoughts and beliefs". They effectively alienate everyone around them because they are faithful in the face of facts, logic, reason, and common sense as the rest of the world sees it.

Not that I have anything against that, but I am starting to understand how religious persecution came about.
 11/15/2007 10:02:55 PM · #332
Originally posted by milo655321:
Incidentally, for those who missed it, here is a link to the NOVA documentary Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial which first was presented last Tuesday on PBS. Apparently, it wasn't shown by PBS in all regions. It's follows the court case regarding the attempt to get statements regarding intelligent design creationism into science classes in the Dover, Pennsylvania school system.

Life was interesting here....I live about a half an hour from Dover.

It's not exactly a bastion of forward thinkers....I was surprised that the town gained such infamy.
 11/16/2007 09:47:54 AM · #333
I think the answer to this thread's "question" of whether or not Science and Theology can co-exist is:

Not really. Bummer.

The whole 14 pages of this are proof that people can be largely stubborn and stuck in their beliefs (I'm not excluding myself from that and I'm not saying that's a bad thing). While this is a great opportunity to share our opinions with one another, it also shows how little people are willing to change because of debate.

Fun as hell though. :D
 11/16/2007 09:52:22 AM · #334
Originally posted by JBHale:
Fun as hell though. :D


I'm not sure I agree with part of this claim. ;-P
 11/16/2007 09:59:55 AM · #335
Originally posted by JBHale:
While this is a great opportunity to share our opinions with one another, it also shows how little people are willing to change because of debate.

There's little chance that someone with even a modicum of critical analysis available to them is going to switch from a practical understanding of the mechanics of the theory of evolution to a blind belief in creationism that refutes all available evidence. Little chance indeed.
 11/16/2007 10:04:30 AM · #336
Originally posted by JBHale:
Not really. Bummer.


LOL!

I think you are right!
 11/16/2007 12:08:44 PM · #337
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Should I give more credibility to you as a scientist than, to say, geneticist Dr. James Allen, Ph.D., who is a creationist? Or to plant physiologist David Catchpoole, B.Ag.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D., who is also a creationist? Or to molecular biologist Dr Dudley Eirich (Ph.D), who is also a creationist? Are you implying that THEY are not fairly well positioned to answer this?

Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.

Why??????

Because.

Please take note that your Wikipedia link says the following ( highlights mine )

Creation science is a movement which attempts to provide scientific corroboration for divine intervention in the creation of the world. [1] [2] Its most vocal proponents are Christian fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals in the United States. They seek scientific explanations which would confirm the historicity of a literal interpretation of the creation and other events as described in the Bible's Book of Genesis, and to mount a challenge against science's Darwinian theory of evolution

Note: They are not seeking CREATION explanations, but SCIENTIFIC explanations that provide SCIENTIFIC corroboration for CREATION THEORY. An undertaking that is completily analogous to the Evolutionist seeking scientific explanations that provide scientific corroboration for the theory of evolution.

If they are using scientific methods, open to peer review, why would you so quickly discount their credibility?
 11/16/2007 01:23:14 PM · #338
Originally posted by RonB:
If they are using scientific methods, open to peer review, why would you so quickly discount their credibility?

Because their methods are not scientific. If they simply state that their methods are scientific, that in no way makes them scientific. Note also the following, summarized, but not otherwise altered, from the same article:

* The most vocal proponents of "creation science" are Christian fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals in the United States (as opposed to non-partisan scientists merely seeking a sounder theory of, say, evolution)

* Though creation science purports to be a true scientific challenge to Darwinian evolution, it has never been recognized by or accepted within the established scientific community as a scientifically valid method of inquiry.

* Creation science fails to meet the key criteria of any true science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural events.

* Creation science seeks to offer an alternative explanation of observable phenomena compatible with the Biblical account, and thus:

* Creation science makes the a priori metaphysical assumption that the Creator exists

* Creationists in general see a doctrinaire commitment to exclude the supreme being and miracles as a motivating factor in Darwinism, a term used in a derogatory fashion to refer to evolutionary biology (any use of derision against sound, accepted theories is tantamount to ridicule, and is otherwise a de facto refutation of observable data; this compromises the "scientificness" of any alternative data presented for peer review)

* As a matter of principle, creation science advocates single out only those scientific theories that they have determined are most in conflict with their beliefs, and it is against those theories that they concentrate their efforts. This is not scientific method, it is promotion of dogma.

* Creation science's lack of adherence to the standards of the scientific method mean that it cannot be said to be scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined by the leading world science organisations.

This is more than ample evidence that they are not using scientific methods, and that "peer review" is therefore moot.
 11/16/2007 01:36:08 PM · #339
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Ron, the more I'm around, the more I want to understand how you reconcile your faith, and your heart, with what seems to be a reasonable and inteligent brain.

Am I to understand that you actually pretty much discount everything that the scientific community has discovered about this earth that extends back past that magic 4-6000 year mark?

Other than the age of the universe, the age of the earth, and the age of some highly isolated igneous rocks, the answer is yes.

I do have doubts about radiometric dating in general. It is, after all, based on the assumptions that a) isotopic half-lives are constant ( there is no proof that they are, since they've only been measured over the last few decades ), b) that initial parent/child ratios are known ( the ratios are, for the most part, estimated based on the estimated age of the sample ( is that circular logic? )), and c) that nothing external can influence the amount of either parent or child isotopes over time.
Given those doubt, I do not fully subscribe to the estimated ages given for the universe or our planet. BUT...that is not a sticking point for me. Genesis doesn't say that the universe was created on day 1 a few thousand years ago. It says "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". From the "beginning" to day 1 of creation, it could have been a minute or it could have been 13 billion years - Scripture doesn't say.

I DO believe that that first creation day was NOT billions or even millions of years ago. Here's why:

I have doubts about the scientific estimates of the age of SEDIMENTARY rock ( the only kind in which fossils appear ), since sedimentary rocks do not make good subjects for radiometric dating - and are therefore estimated based on their position relative to an igneous outpouring. Unless scientists know HOW those outpourings occurred, their dates are based on assumptions. ( For example, some of the igneous outpouring at the TOP of the Grand Canyon has been dated as YOUNGER than the igneous outpouring at the BOTTOM of the Canyon ). Talk Origins, an anti-Creationist web site admits that: "whole-rock samples of multiple flows yields the time since their common source was isotopically homogeneous. It could also be the age of the flows, but it does not have to be."

That being said, the question about estimating the ages of sedimentary rocks ( and therefore fossils contained therein ) becomes "How do we determine the date ( age ) of the igneous rock FLOW ( or outpouring ) - not it's ORIGIN?".

Since the theory of evolution is so dependent on fossil dating, and fossil dating so dependent on ( correctly ) estimating the age of the sedimentary rock in which it is found, and sedimentary rock dating so dependent on ( correctly ) estimating the age of the igneous rock OUTPOURING ( which is FAR MORE DIFFICULT than obtaining a radiometric age of its ORIGIN ), then the entire theory is called into question ( at least, by me ).

Now, all of that being said, let me state that I DO trust the empirical evidence of what science has discovered. I trust that there are fossils. I trust that scientists do their level best to reconstruct what an animal looked like based on the actual samples that they can examine. And I appreciate the work that they do to try to unravel the mysteries of the world in which we live ( like how geckos can walk on a ceiling ).

I trust almost ALL of "pure" science and follow their discoveries closely. In fact, there are only three major conflicts I have with science ( at present ). First ( as if you couldn't have guessed ) is the theory of evolution. Second is the consensus that Global Warming ( Climate change ) is anthropogenic. And third is that nearly all scientists are intent on finding evidence that does NOT require a creator. This bias severly limits their work, in my opinion.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
What my question is after all this lead in......do I have to make a great big leap of faith and disallow everything I've learned about natural history, and take it all on faith?

I think that the answer is no. It is not a big leap - the only thing you have to disallow is a blind acceptance of what the consensus of scientists say. Accept that their theories are "best guesses" based on a) the real evidence, and b) some assumptions ( that may or may not be valid ). Note, that if they did not MAKE assumptions, they wouldn't find themselves constantly in need of updating their positions ( like the perching toe on Archeopteryx, for example ).
 11/16/2007 02:06:12 PM · #340
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
If they are using scientific methods, open to peer review, why would you so quickly discount their credibility?

Because their methods are not scientific. If they simply state that their methods are scientific, that in no way makes them scientific.

The same can be said for scientists who do not believe in creation.

Originally posted by Louis:
Note also the following, summarized, but not otherwise altered, from the same article:


Originally posted by Wikipedia:
* The most vocal proponents of "creation science" are Christian fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals in the United States (as opposed to non-partisan scientists merely seeking a sounder theory of, say, evolution)

And their ideology should affect their credibility, why?

Originally posted by Wikipedia:
* Though creation science purports to be a true scientific challenge to Darwinian evolution, it has never been recognized by or accepted within the established scientific community as a scientifically valid method of inquiry.

Just anti-creationist scientists protecting their turf. If you don't reach conclusions they like, they won't recognize your research as valid.

Originally posted by Wikipedia:
* Creation science fails to meet the key criteria of any true science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural events.

Ah, that damnable attempt to credit something which is not testable - kind of reminds me of macroevolution.

Originally posted by Wikipedia:
* Creation science seeks to offer an alternative explanation of observable phenomena compatible with the Biblical account, and thus:

And the goal discredits the work, why?

Originally posted by Wikipedia:
* Creation science makes the a priori metaphysical assumption that the Creator exists

And anti-creation scientists make an a priori assumption that the Creator does NOT exist. And their assumption is logically MORE valid, why?

Originally posted by Wikipedia:
* Creationists in general see a doctrinaire commitment to exclude the supreme being and miracles as a motivating factor in Darwinism, a term used in a derogatory fashion to refer to evolutionary biology (any use of derision against sound, accepted theories is tantamount to ridicule, and is otherwise a de facto refutation of observable data; this compromises the "scientificness" of any alternative data presented for peer review)

That about says it all. Same is true for the global-warming skeptics. Since they "deride sound, accepted ( consensus ) theories" their views are "tanatmount to ridicule" and are "a de facto refutation of observable date" and thus "compromise the "scientificness"" of their alternative data. Hence, they ( the skeptics ) are ( oh, my ) RIDICULED as outliers by the scientific community protecting its turf.

Originally posted by Wikipedia:
* As a matter of principle, creation science advocates single out only those scientific theories that they have determined are most in conflict with their beliefs, and it is against those theories that they concentrate their efforts. This is not scientific method, it is promotion of dogma.

So, REAL scientists don't have areas of interest in which they "concentrate their efforts"? It's only those darned Creation science advocates that do?

Originally posted by Wikepedia:
* Creation science's lack of adherence to the standards of the scientific method mean that it cannot be said to be scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined by the leading world science organisations.

Leading world science organisations. I like that. They say, in effect, "We define it. And if they ( creationists ) meet ( or exceed ) it, then we'll change it so that they don't."
The only part of the "scientific method" that the Creation scientists don't meet is the reaching of an anti-Creation conclusion.

Originally posted by Louis:
This is more than ample evidence that they are not using scientific methods, and that "peer review" is therefore moot.

I'd be really, really interested in having you provide just a couple of the "ample" evidences you claim that show that they are not using the same scientific methods as the anti-creationist scientists.
 11/16/2007 02:07:59 PM · #341
Originally posted by RonB:
Note, that if they did not MAKE assumptions, they wouldn't find themselves constantly in need of updating their positions ( like the perching toe on Archeopteryx, for example ).

You continue to display an apparent misunderstanding of the scientific method. Theorizing and updating theories is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. See my previous post for a priori assumptions made by creationists. Why are those assumptions acceptable to you? Why is theorizing based on demonstrable evidence, and updating theories when even more evidence becomes available, such anathema to you?
 11/16/2007 02:29:00 PM · #342
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
If they are using scientific methods, open to peer review, why would you so quickly discount their credibility?

Because their methods are not scientific. If they simply state that their methods are scientific, that in no way makes them scientific.

The same can be said for scientists who do not believe in creation.

The difference being that scientists use scientific method, creationist "scientists" demonstrably do not.

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Wikipedia:
* The most vocal proponents of "creation science" are Christian fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals in the United States (as opposed to non-partisan scientists merely seeking a sounder theory of, say, evolution)

And their ideology should affect their credibility, why?

It doesn't. Their ideology affects their methodology, which affects their credibility.

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Wikipedia:
* Though creation science purports to be a true scientific challenge to Darwinian evolution, it has never been recognized by or accepted within the established scientific community as a scientifically valid method of inquiry.

Just anti-creationist scientists protecting their turf. If you don't reach conclusions they like, they won't recognize your research as valid.

Sorry, that smacks of adolescent nay-saying. Or provide tangible evidence that that's what's going on.

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Wikipedia:
* Creation science fails to meet the key criteria of any true science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural events.

Ah, that damnable attempt to credit something which is not testable - kind of reminds me of macroevolution.

As demonstrated before, it is observable within the framework of a sound theoretical model, and therefore passes the strict criteria imposed on it by scientific method. "Scientific creationism" is not and does not.

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Wikipedia:
* Creation science seeks to offer an alternative explanation of observable phenomena compatible with the Biblical account, and thus:

And the goal discredits the work, why?

Because of the aforementioned a priori assumptions. True science seeks knowledge it doesn't currently have; it does not attempt to build theories around results that have been predetermined by the investigators.

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Wikipedia:
* Creation science makes the a priori metaphysical assumption that the Creator exists

And anti-creation [sic] scientists make an a priori assumption that the Creator does NOT exist. And their assumption is logically MORE valid, why?

No they do not. Scientists make no assumptions whatsoever. They work from the position that nothing is known, and in order for something to become known, empiricial data supporting a conclusion must be gathered. Creationists work in the opposite direction. They think they know something, and they seek data that corroborates a position they have already arrived at without first gathering facts. As has already been pointed out, a scientist will accept the existence of a god without hesitation once objective, observable evidence has been gathered.

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Wikipedia:
* Creationists in general see a doctrinaire commitment to exclude the supreme being and miracles as a motivating factor in Darwinism, a term used in a derogatory fashion to refer to evolutionary biology (any use of derision against sound, accepted theories is tantamount to ridicule, and is otherwise a de facto refutation of observable data; this compromises the "scientificness" of any alternative data presented for peer review)

That about says it all. Same is true for the global-warming skeptics.

Shall we stay on topic, or shan't we? (And thanks for the in-kind ridicule.)

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Wikipedia:
* As a matter of principle, creation science advocates single out only those scientific theories that they have determined are most in conflict with their beliefs, and it is against those theories that they concentrate their efforts. This is not scientific method, it is promotion of dogma.

So, REAL scientists don't have areas of interest in which they "concentrate their efforts"? It's only those darned Creation science advocates that do?

You have misread, or intentionally miscast what was said. No, of course real scientists concentrate efforts on their area of interest. What they do not do is select which sound theories arrived at by rigourous sicentific testing they will ignore because it does not fit a conclusion that has already been arrived at, despite any and all evidence, theories, or explanations to the contrary.

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Wikepedia:
* Creation science's lack of adherence to the standards of the scientific method mean that it cannot be said to be scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined by the leading world science organisations.

Leading world science organisations. I like that. They say, in effect, "We define it. And if they ( creationists ) meet ( or exceed ) it, then we'll change it so that they don't."
The only part of the "scientific method" that the Creation scientists don't meet is the reaching of an anti-Creation conclusion.

Do you refute that there are more reputable scientific bodies than others? Do you refute that there are some scientists more qualified to work in specific fields than others? Do you have evidence that these leading scientific bodies and scientists falsify their own theories in order to defeat the work of "creation scientists"? That they, in effect, are not scientists at all, but charlatans?

Originally posted by RonB:
I'd be really, really interested in having you provide just a couple of the "ample" evidences you claim that show that they are not using the same scientific methods as the anti-creationist scientists.

Good. Then re-read both my post, and the Wikipedia article.
 11/16/2007 02:31:28 PM · #343
Originally posted by RonB:
do have doubts about radiometric dating in general. It is, after all, based on the assumptions.... sedimentary rocks do not make good subjects for radiometric dating - and are therefore estimated based on their position relative to an igneous outpouring.


Again, you demonstrate utter ignorance of the techniques you question. Radiometric dating is based upon physics and mathematical theorems. It has been repeatedly tested and corroborated a staggering number of times. In the case of isotopes with short half-lives, even historical accounts of known dates has provided very accurate corroboration. To claim that what we can model and predict with stunning accuracy within all of recorded history didn't also work the same way in the distant past, without a shred of evidence to that effect, is a HUGE assumption that, even if true, would require a sudden and massive difference in the rate of isotopic decay to make the earth any less than millions of years old.

Fossils are typically dated with uranium-lead dating, which offers the advantage of a built-in crosscheck of two separate isotopes. The article you quoted was about the accuracy of dating lava flows with strontium-rubidium. It had nothing to do with fossils, and the presence or absence of igneous rock is completely irrelevant when dating those- all you need are multiple samples within the same strata of sediment.

Originally posted by RonB:
if they did not MAKE assumptions, they wouldn't find themselves constantly in need of updating their positions ( like the perching toe on Archeopteryx, for example ).


You're describing individual facts, not theories. Watch the Nova documentary that was linked a few posts back.

Message edited by author 2007-11-16 14:53:38.
 11/16/2007 02:35:27 PM · #344
Originally posted by JBHale:
I think the answer to this thread's "question" of whether or not Science and Theology can co-exist is:

Not really. Bummer.

I concur.......not really & bummer!

Originally posted by JBHale:
The whole 14 pages of this are proof that people can be largely stubborn and stuck in their beliefs (I'm not excluding myself from that and I'm not saying that's a bad thing). While this is a great opportunity to share our opinions with one another, it also shows how little people are willing to change because of debate.

Fun as hell though. :D

I concur.......not change & fun as hell!

I do think that there is more scientists with faith than I thought before, and I am certainly a lot more cognizant of how deeply creationists seem to believ in the face of what is to me, indisputable facts.

It has been mot interesting and informative, and in the long run, in a debate of matters of this magnitude, if you can make the other guy think about his own stance, and yours, then it was worth the time.
 11/16/2007 02:36:36 PM · #345
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Note, that if they did not MAKE assumptions, they wouldn't find themselves constantly in need of updating their positions ( like the perching toe on Archeopteryx, for example ).

You continue to display an apparent misunderstanding of the scientific method. Theorizing and updating theories is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. See my previous post for a priori assumptions made by creationists. Why are those assumptions acceptable to you?

For the same reason that the a priori assumptions made by anti-creationist scientists is acceptable to you. Creation fits my worldview, evolution fits yours.

Originally posted by Louis:
Why is theorizing based on demonstrable evidence, and updating theories when even more evidence becomes available, such anathema to you?

Theorizing is not anathema to me, when it's based on demonstrable evidence.
For example, the theory of gravity. It can be demonstrated. It may, someday, be tweaked to account for some as yet unknown cosmic mystery, but it is, at present, wholly consistent with measurable, repeatable, demonstrable experiments that bear out the conclusions the theory puts forth. Same with what used to be the wave theory of light. It was consistent, measurable, repeatable, and demonstrable. But it didn't last, because new cosmological evidence was found that made it no longer valid. That's fine. And THAT is what a scientific theory should be/do.

The theory of evolution, however, is not those others. It is not based on demonstrable evidence. ( mind you, if it were the theory of Microevolution, I would accept it wholeheartedly - because it can be verified via documented evidence - heck it can even be demonstrated ( e.g. cloning )). But, since the theory of evolution encompasses much more than microevolution, it is not demonstrable - no one has ever recorded, nor have they ever demonstrated macroevolution.

11/16/2007 02:41:33 PM · #346
Originally posted by RonB:
The theory of evolution, however, is not those others. It is not based on demonstrable evidence. ( mind you, if it were the theory of Microevolution, I would accept it wholeheartedly - because it can be verified via documented evidence - heck it can even be demonstrated ( e.g. cloning )). But, since the theory of evolution encompasses much more than microevolution, it is not demonstrable - no one has ever recorded, nor have they ever demonstrated macroevolution.

So, you seem to accept that we can measure genetic data.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that an analysis of the DNA of Darwin's Finches (from the Galapagos Islands) will show that they derived from a common ancestor, though they are now distinct species (as you defined it earlier, and according to mainstream taxonomy).

Message edited by author 2007-11-16 14:41:55.
 11/16/2007 02:43:35 PM · #347
Originally posted by RonB:
no one has ever recorded, nor have they ever demonstrated macroevolution.


Sure they have, and dramatically so. You just choose not to look at it. You don't have to believe me on blind faith- just watch the Nova documentary and you can draw your own conclusions.

I was taken aback at interviewed members of the Dover school board repeating the misnomer that "it's just a theory." For someone on a school board to be that ignorant of basic scientific principles is simply appalling. :-(

Message edited by author 2007-11-16 15:11:05.
 11/16/2007 02:44:00 PM · #348
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Note, that if they did not MAKE assumptions, they wouldn't find themselves constantly in need of updating their positions ( like the perching toe on Archeopteryx, for example ).

You continue to display an apparent misunderstanding of the scientific method. Theorizing and updating theories is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. See my previous post for a priori assumptions made by creationists. Why are those assumptions acceptable to you?

For the same reason that the a priori assumptions made by anti-creationist scientists [sic] is acceptable to you. Creation fits my worldview, evolution fits yours.

Evolution does not fit my world view. Evolution is merely the best scientific explanation in existence for the abundance and variety of life on earth, and therefore I accept it.

The admission that a priori assumptions required for any acceptance of creationism are acceptable to you because its otherwise unfounded conclusion best fits your world view speaks volumes, and I thank you for your participation.

NEXT!

Message edited by author 2007-11-16 14:46:48.
 11/16/2007 03:21:17 PM · #349
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
The theory of evolution, however, is not those others. It is not based on demonstrable evidence. ( mind you, if it were the theory of Microevolution, I would accept it wholeheartedly - because it can be verified via documented evidence - heck it can even be demonstrated ( e.g. cloning )). But, since the theory of evolution encompasses much more than microevolution, it is not demonstrable - no one has ever recorded, nor have they ever demonstrated macroevolution.

So, you seem to accept that we can measure genetic data.

Yes, I accept that we can measure genetic data.

Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that an analysis of the DNA of Darwin's Finches (from the Galapagos Islands) will show that they derived from a common ancestor, though they are now distinct species (as you defined it earlier, and according to mainstream taxonomy).

No, it won't. An analysis of the DNA of Darwin's Finches will not SHOW that they derived from a common ancestor. Such an analysis will only point some into hypothesizing such a derivation. A corroborated geneological chart, if one existed, would SHOW the direct line of descent from a common ancestor. Without that chart, it is conjecture.
 11/16/2007 03:28:28 PM · #350
Originally posted by Louis:
Evolution does not fit my world view. Evolution is merely the best scientific explanation in existence for the abundance and variety of life on earth, and therefore I accept it.


If you accept that evolution is the best scientific explanation for the abundance and variety of life on earth, then evolution fits your worldview.

Worldview:
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

It appears, at least to me, that evolution is one of the beliefs about life that is in your collection, and influences the perspective from which you see and interpret the world. You just said as much.
Pages:   ... ... [65]
Current Server Time: 06/26/2025 09:00:13 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/26/2025 09:00:13 AM EDT.