Ok all I ever see on this forum is people defending evolution from half assed arguments. So I ask those of you who don't believe in it:
Whats your alternative, the answer has to be based in science, not religious text. If what you put forward can be argued scientifically, without contradictions, half truths and arm waving then I will happily admit that its a valid theory.
If it can't be defended then you must admit that science contradicts your beliefs and that they can never be justified within the scientific community... It doesn't mean you have to abandon you faith, just admit that it doesn't agree with good science.
Fair?
Also I'm referring specifically to evolution here, not origin or the big bang....
Originally posted by Mexico Ok all I ever see on this forum is people defending evolution from half assed arguments. So I ask those of you who don't believe in it:
Whats your alternative, the answer has to be based in science, not religious text. If what you put forward can be argued scientifically, without contradictions, half truths and arm waving then I will happily admit that its ...[text shortened]... Fair?
Also I'm referring specifically to evolution here, not origin or the big bang....
The fact that everything is complicated makes evolution impossible, and implies the existence of the Christian God, therefore proving the Bible.
There, I summed up the argument. No more need to talk about it.
Originally posted by UzumakiAi The fact that everything is complicated makes evolution impossible, and implies the existence of the Christian God, therefore proving the Bible.
There, I summed up the argument. No more need to talk about it.
Ah you see you've already made up your mind. And these are exactly the type of comments I'm trying to avoid. I want to hear the the scientific arguments from someone who can articulate them in an intelligent way. And then see if they have any validity or basis in science.....
Originally posted by Mexico If it can't be defended then you must admit that science contradicts your beliefs and that they can never be justified within the scientific community... It doesn't mean you have to abandon you faith, just admit that it doesn't agree with good science.
This argument seems flawed. Just because science currently contradicts the beliefs of some, it doesn't necessarily mean that it always will. As science develops more accurate conceptual models of reality, many currently held beliefs of science will be abandoned. How much of current science is "good science" has yet to be seen.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne This argument seems flawed. Just because science currently contradicts the beliefs of some, it doesn't necessarily mean that it always will. As science develops more accurate conceptual models of reality, many currently held beliefs of science will be abandoned. How much of current science is "good science" has yet to be seen.
Yes but good science is science that adhears to an established set of rules and checks. Good science never changes..... The interpretations may change as new data becomes apparent. But the morals, principals and ideals behind science haven't changed in a long long time.
Therefore to re iterate my point - If an Idea which fits observations and follows all the principals of good science can be put forward that matches or outstrips Evolutionary theory for explaining all the documented and observed evidence, then I will happily acknowledge it as a valid theory.
My reason for asking this is simple. All I ever see is people picking holes in the ever shrinking gaps of theory of evolution. Never actually putting forward any sort of vaild alternative.......
Originally posted by Mexico Yes but good science is science that adhears to an established set of rules and checks. Good science never changes..... The interpretations may change as new data becomes apparent. But the morals, principals and ideals behind science haven't changed in a long long time.
Therefore to re iterate my point - If an Idea which fits observations and follows all t ...[text shortened]... aps of theory of evolution. Never actually putting forward any sort of vaild alternative.......
Did you read what I posted within context of what I quoted from your post? Did you reply within the context of my post? I don't see how what you posted here applies.
Your picking holes in my posts. Not answering my questions. The reason I quoted you was so that you'd know I was addressing you. As to your "good science" arguement my point is that all modern science that is published and accepted is good science. Just as Newtons gravitational laws we're good science. They're not entirely accurate in many cases but they still followed the principals of good science using the data that was available. Now that we have more data to work with we know newtonian Physics is often flawed. But the principals he followed when he generated his theories are the same as those who later proved them wrong.
So back to my question.....
Give me an alternative theory that follows good scientific principals that refutes the currently accepted theory of evolution. Or at leasts fits the available data to an equal extent. If it can be done then there is no reason not to accept it. If it can't then those who don't accept evolution must accept (or at least should) that their argument has no grounding in science but is based entirely on their religious beliefs.
Originally posted by Mexico Your picking holes in my posts. Not answering my questions. The reason I quoted you was so that you'd know I was addressing you. As to your "good science" arguement my point is that all modern science that is published and accepted is good science. Just as Newtons gravitational laws we're good science. They're not entirely accurate in many cases but they stil ...[text shortened]... ir argument has no grounding in science but is based entirely on their religious beliefs.
You made an assertion. I questioned that assertion. Now it seems that perhaps you've backed off from your original assertion. Have you?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne You made an assertion. I questioned that assertion. Now it seems that perhaps you've backed off from your original assertion. Have you?
What assertion did I make?
I have no desire to argue about the very foundations of science with anyone, I just want to hear my question answered.
The question remains......
I want to understand the alternatives to evolutionary theory and see if they have any grounding in science. As all I've ever heard against evolution is people knocking at small parts of the overall theory.
Its very easy to know down someone else work. But where's your alternative?
Originally posted by Mexico What assertion did I make?
I have no desire to argue about the very foundations of science with anyone, I just want to hear my question answered.
The question remains......
I want to understand the alternatives to evolutionary theory and see if they have any grounding in science. As all I've ever heard against evolution is people knocking at small pa ...[text shortened]... overall theory.
Its very easy to know down someone else work. But where's your alternative?
The assertion that I originally quoted:
"If it can't be defended then you must admit that science contradicts your beliefs and that they can never be justified within the scientific community... It doesn't mean you have to abandon you faith, just admit that it doesn't agree with good science.
The point is that the conceptual models of science are ever changing in an attempt to better reflect reality. When you use phrases like "can never be justified within the scientific community" and "doesn't agree with good science", there's an air of absoluteness to your conception of science. If that wasn't your intent and you don't see the current state of science as absolute, what's the point of putting it up as the standard against which to judge the beliefs of others?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne The assertion that I originally quoted:
[b]"If it can't be defended then you must admit that science contradicts your beliefs and that they can never be justified within the scientific community... It doesn't mean you have to abandon you faith, just admit that it doesn't agree with good science.
The point is that the conceptual models of science a ...[text shortened]... oint of putting it up as the standard against which to judge the beliefs of others?[/b]
I have never judged the beliefs of others, and have stated many times that I don't care what you believe as long as you don't shove it up my nose.
My problem with this argument in particular is that there are many many people that believe that evolution is based on science and that Creation has a valid grounding within the scientific community. Neither of which is true.
I don't want to knock others beliefs, but if people start believing its got science to back it up then we have a real problem....
Originally posted by Mexico Ok all I ever see on this forum is people defending evolution from half assed arguments. So I ask those of you who don't believe in it:
Whats your alternative, the answer has to be based in science, not religious text. If what you put forward can be argued scientifically, without contradictions, half truths and arm waving then I will happily admit that its ...[text shortened]... Fair?
Also I'm referring specifically to evolution here, not origin or the big bang....
The answer has to be based in science, and why is that? You believe
that is the only method we can grasp reality?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay The answer has to be based in science, and why is that? You believe
that is the only method we can grasp reality?
Kelly
No because it keeps getting pushed as valid science. There's debate about putting it in science classes. I've no problem with religious classes, I was thought for years about religion in school, although it was all religions. But this is a debate about putting it in science classes therefore surley it must have a grounding in science.
I don't mind how you grasp reality as long as its clear where your beliefs come from.
Originally posted by Mexico I have never judged the beliefs of others, and have stated many times that I don't care what you believe as long as you don't shove it up my nose.
My problem with this argument in particular is that there are many many people that believe that the alternatives to evolution are based on science and that Creation has a valid grounding within the scientific ...[text shortened]... , but if people start believing its got science to back it up then we have a real problem....
Originally posted by Mexico No because it keeps getting pushed as valid science. There's debate about putting it in science classes. I've no problem with religious classes, I was thought for years about religion in school, although it was all religions. But this is a debate about putting it in science classes therefore surley it must have a grounding in science.
I don't mind how you grasp reality as long as its clear where your beliefs come from.
I don't have a problem with how you grasp reality either as long as
its clear where your beliefs come from too, you have a point?
Kelly
Bring up Evloution Again....
22 Feb '08 22:08
Back to Top