- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by sonhouseYou mean that you don't evaluate the evidence for yourself?
All you have ever done is deny, deny, deny. That is not debate. That is simply deny, deny, deny. You don't help your cause when all you can say is 'show me the money', especially after entire volumes have been written by real scientists with solid evidence to back them up, you don't really read those books, your mind is already made up and no amount of evidence will go past your totally fixated mind.
Solid evidence?? You mean Nebraskan man or are you maybe talking about Piltdown man?
Originally posted by sonhouse
... You don't help your cause when all you can say is 'show me the money', especially after entire volumes have been written by real scientists with solid evidence to back them up, you don't really read those books, ...
Originally posted by dj2becker
You mean that you don't evaluate the evidence for yourself?
Solid evidence?? You mean Nebraskan man or are you maybe talking about Piltdown man?
So are you saying that only direct first hand experience is ever valid? You will never believe anything that has been written by anyone else? You'd better throw away your religion then because it is based on a book written centuries ago by people you have never met.
At least the scientific books, papers and articles, particularly those published in peer-reviewed journals can be studied, tested and verified, or refuted if wrong.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by scottishinnz1. "The universe itself"
Feel free to prove any of those statements. You might like to give us your alternative too, with evidence, of course.
Natural selection--- which is claimed to be the control mechanism of all life--- cannot explain the universe.
2. "Evolution itself"
Stop me if you've heard this one, but natural selection is not a force and, to date, has not been defined as anything other than a dangling disconnected control mechanism.
3. "The laws of physics themselves"
Closely related to the above, but with numbers involved. ALL laws of physics can be expressed in formulas... along their exceptions. Of course, this says nothing of the many ways in which natural selection would have to work in complete contradiction to the various laws, itself another story.
4. "The body of evidence itself"
Sometimes known as fossils, the BoE refers to the shocking lack of intermediary life forms which could otherwise be pointed to as bridges between speicies.
Now one can assume that in order to debunk any theory, one must have an alternative theory waiting in the wings. Although not necessary, such is the case here. It begins in Genesis 1, and you are free to debunk it on any level. You will not get far, as your current alternative theory is wanting on many more levels than you will find wanting from the biblical account.
Some scientists (from that bastion of truth, Science) cling to the basic outline of evolution fully aware of the many gaps, in hopes that the gaps will be satisfied by future revelation. Explain to us how that is any different than a theists' cling to Genesis 1.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH1. "The universe itself"
1. "The universe itself"
Natural selection--- which is claimed to be the control mechanism of all life--- cannot explain the universe.
2. "Evolution itself"
Stop me if you've heard this one, but natural selection is not a force and, to date, has not been defined as anything other than a dangling disconnected control mechanism.
3. "The laws of physi ...[text shortened]... velation. Explain to us how that is any different than a theists' cling to Genesis 1.
Natural selection--- which is claimed to be the control mechanism of all life--- cannot explain the universe.
Not true. TOE makes no claim to explain the universe. It is a theory which is used to explain the diversity of life on earth
2. "Evolution itself"
Stop me if you've heard this one, but natural selection is not a force and, to date, has not been defined as anything other than a dangling disconnected control mechanism
Please try to make your point more clearly
3. "The laws of physics themselves"
Closely related to the above, but with numbers involved. ALL laws of physics can be expressed in formulas... along their exceptions. Of course, this says nothing of the many ways in which natural selection would have to work in complete contradiction to the various laws, itself another story.
Are wae talking thermodynamics here? Just remember that we're not talking about a closed system here.
4. "The body of evidence itself"
Sometimes known as fossils, the BoE refers to the shocking lack of intermediary life forms which could otherwise be pointed to as bridges between speicies.
I would refer you to an article from Sept New Scientist which I posted links to earlier in this thread. It gives an excellent example of an intermediate. There are many more.
Please don't bother referring me to the bible. The myths of an iron age people do not explain the diversity of life on earth any more than they cast light onto the workings of the internal combustion engine or sub atomic physics. We have moved on since the Iron Age. Just get used to it
Originally posted by dj2beckerIf you think that Neanderthals are just made up fakes then what do you think of this story:
Are you saying that almost every single archeologist has found a Neanderthal???
Researchers decode Neanderthal DNA
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/16025202.htm
Are they faking it? Are they looking at ape DNA? Are they just mistaken?
Is it human DNA?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by PenguinSo are you saying that only direct first hand experience is ever valid?
Originally posted by sonhouse
... You don't help your cause when all you can say is 'show me the money', especially after entire volumes have been written by real scientists with solid evidence to back them up, you don't really read those books, ...
Originally posted by dj2becker
You mean that you don't evaluate the evidence for yoursel eviewed journals can be studied, tested and verified, or refuted if wrong.
--- Penguin.
No. I am saying that if something has been demonstrated to be invalid then it is invalid.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen did I say that they are all fakes? All I am doing is pointing out that there is a lot of guess work involved. I specifically used the example of Nebraskan man to demonstrate this. The entire ape man was reconstructed around a single tooth, which was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.
If you think that Neanderthals are just made up fakes then what do you think of this story:
Researchers decode Neanderthal DNA
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/16025202.htm
Are they faking it? Are they looking at ape DNA? Are they just mistaken?
Is it human DNA?
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo can we also conclude that Christianity is based on a lot of guess work considering that someone in China made up a whole religion based on two verses in the Bible?
When did I say that they are all fakes? All I am doing is pointing out that there is a lot of guess work involved. I specifically used the example of Nebraskan man to demonstrate this. The entire ape man was reconstructed around a single tooth, which was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.
Some early astronomers made wild guesses about the orbits of planets going around the earth. Some of these look contrived and ridiculous today. does that mean that you therefore think that the current known orbits of planets is based on guesswork?
Science thrives on hypothesis and speculation but however wildly off the mark they may be it does not shed doubt on established theories.
I notice that you haven't actually said what you do think about Neanderthal man.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by twhiteheadMost of the established Scientific Theories are perfectly testable and reproducible.
So can we also conclude that Christianity is based on a lot of guess work considering that someone in China made up a whole religion based on two verses in the Bible?
Some early astronomers made wild guesses about the orbits of planets going around the earth. Some of these look contrived and ridiculous today. does that mean that you therefore think tha ...[text shortened]... d theories.
I notice that you haven't actually said what you do think about Neanderthal man.
My beef is with people that base their entire belief system on something that contains so many holes in it, (just to justify their morality) and on top of it they have the cheek to call it a Scientific Fact.
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo is the existence of remnants of Neanderthal man in the category or testable in your opinion?
Most of the established Scientific Theories are perfectly testable and reproducible.
My beef is with people that base their entire belief system on something that contains so many holes in it, (just to justify their morality) and on top of it they have the cheek to call it a Scientific Fact.
I do not base my belief system on the Theory of Evolution or in fact on any scientific theories. No do I accept any scientific theories as fact based on my belief system. Nor do I base my morality on scientific theories.
I consider evolution to be scientific fact because it makes sense to me, because the basic processes are obvious to me and I have observed them personally, and because the evidence is overwhelming, and because I am yet to hear of an alternative hypothesis other than a very vague 'God did it but we don't know how.'
I would think that you will find that 'most' of the established Scientific Theories are related to one another and if you accept the Biblical account as factual then more than half of science is in conflict with it.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDoctor Frankenhooker says you're certifiable!
1. "The universe itself"
Natural selection--- which is claimed to be the control mechanism of all life--- cannot explain the universe.
2. "Evolution itself"
Stop me if you've heard this one, but natural selection is not a force and, to date, has not been defined as anything other than a dangling disconnected control mechanism.
3. "The laws of physi ...[text shortened]... velation. Explain to us how that is any different than a theists' cling to Genesis 1.
Originally posted by amannionI agree science isn't about reality and the universe; it is how we view it
I'll try it one more time Kelly ...
science is not about 'knowing' the reality of the universe, since - as I've said before - any scientific explanation is contingent, that is it is just our best explanation, not 'the' best, not 'the' truth.
This is the difference between your explanation, which you assume to be the truth, and a scientific explanation, wh ...[text shortened]... gue them as if they were 'the truth'. You'll have to forgive this - human foibles ...
which changes over time as we gather new data points. Truth does not
depend on human knowledge, the universe is what it is and as we
define it we simply spin it the way it fits our current set of data points
it is not truth. Science is an ever learning but never coming to
knowledge method, which is not wrong, it simply is what it is. Yet you
have people who are so solidly wrapped up in what they think is true
because of what 'science' has revealed to them they have faith in
views that they believe are true, but that truth is only found if all of
presumptions are correct, which they have to take on faith.
Oh well, I should be back next year some time, this is my last post for
a while, it has been fun.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThis post shows exactly how little you know about science. You don't make assumptions that can't be tested if you want to finish with something other than a hypothesis.
I agree science isn't about reality and the universe; it is how we view it
which changes over time as we gather new data points. Truth does not
depend on human knowledge, the universe is what it is and as we
define it we simply spin it the way it fits our current set of data points
it is not truth. Science is an ever learning but never coming to
knowle ...[text shortened]... hould be back next year some time, this is my last post for
a while, it has been fun.
Kelly
Originally posted by XanthosNZI'm not so sure.
This post shows exactly how little you know about science. You don't make assumptions that can't be tested if you want to finish with something other than a hypothesis.
While I don't agree with Kelly's position, many of the pro-evolutionary posts in this thread have amounted to not much more than dogmas themselves.
Certainly it's the case that people who disagree with an evolutionary description of life will do so no matter what evidence or principles we throw at them. But I think many have done science a bit of a disservice here in their attempts at rebuking religious nuts.