12 Apr 07
Only one convinced of a position without question can so whole-heartedly accept such position without objectivity. Objectivity demands that one view the whole, not simply select parts.
Truth demands objectivity. Failing to see the shortcomings and gaping holes in the application of the theory of evolution is a sign of two possibilities. One either know too little of the theory or one refuses to apply the acid test. Since those who know the theory much better than any who frequent here are forthcoming in their findings, one is left to determine for oneself what group that leaves the rest in.
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAgain, Freaky, what are these "shortcomings" you keep alluding to but never produce?
Only one convinced of a position without question can so whole-heartedly accept such position without objectivity. Objectivity demands that one view the whole, not simply select parts.
Truth demands objectivity. Failing to see the shortcomings and gaping holes in the application of the theory of evolution is a sign of two possibilities. One ...[text shortened]... ming in their findings, one is left to determine for oneself what group that leaves the rest in.
13 Apr 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNice one Freaky. Broad sweeping statements without any substance. You're right of course about objectivity, which is a position that should be applied to all scientific theories.
Only one convinced of a position without question can so whole-heartedly accept such position without objectivity. Objectivity demands that one view the whole, not simply select parts.
Truth demands objectivity. Failing to see the shortcomings and gaping holes in the application of the theory of evolution is a sign of two possibilities. One ...[text shortened]... ming in their findings, one is left to determine for oneself what group that leaves the rest in.
Shortcomings and gaping holes are the buzzwords of the creationists. Oh it's obvious, they say, that evolution is wrong. Look at all the gaping holes and shortcomings.
When we examine any problems with the theory in detail and with objectivity, they disappear. I'm not saying that evolution is truth. We can't say that about any scientific theory. But what we can say about any currently accepted theory is that it's the best one we have to enable explanations and predictions - and evolution certainly does that.
While you write your response, if you can be bothered, showing us these shortcomings and gaping holes, also maybe consider showing us your alterntiave to evolution that makes for a better theory.
I can't wait.
13 Apr 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow would you know that unless you have studied the theory and enough science to make a valid judgment?
I have no bone to pick with the theory, nor do I have a pet theory which receives preferential treatment. On the contrary, I think it important for all ideas to be able to withstand at least minimal scrutiny. Evolution, as a means of producing the variety currently evident, is woefully inadequate.
If someone puts forward a hypothesis that he claims explains a phenomena then for you to show that his hypothesis is inadequate you must show in detail why it is so, not just make a statement. If you feel that the hypothesis is incorrect or flawed then you must point out the flaws (which no one has managed to do in this thread with regards to the theory of evolution)
It has been show many times by many different people that the variety of life we see today is adequately explained by the Theory of Evolution, if you disagree then you must show that their methods were wrong.
14 Apr 07
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowOutside of the fact that you may see small changes now, and it is
In 204 pages of this thread I've yet to see any "obvious shortcomings" of evolution.
assumed they have gone from the simple life form at the beginning
of life to the variety we have around us today?
Kelly
14 Apr 07
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are questioning the suffciency of the evidence, which, by the way, you are underrepresenting. Even if there were virtually no evidence, it would not be a shortcoming in the predictive power of evolutionary theory. When scientists criticize String Theory, it isn't the lack of evidence that is described as the shortcoming, although it doesn't help, it is predictivity of it.
Outside of the fact that you may see small changes now, and it is
assumed they have gone from the simple life form at the beginning
of life to the variety we have around us today?
Kelly
Evolutionary Theory explains most of modern biology, this is fact. We can use it to make predictions and logical explanations of many facts follow directly from stated theory. Where are the shortcomings in this respect, I've yet to see any?
I've had the argument with you about evidence before, but that would be a shortcoming in the evidence for evolution, not a shortcoming in evolutionary theory itself.
15 Apr 07
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowI do not have to question that there is evidence, I question the
You are questioning the suffciency of the evidence, which, by the way, you are underrepresenting. Even if there were virtually no evidence, it would not be a shortcoming in the predictive power of evolutionary theory. When scientists criticize String Theory, it isn't the lack of evidence that is described as the shortcoming, although it doesn't help, ...[text shortened]... oming in the evidence for evolution, not a shortcoming in evolutionary theory itself.
beliefs that are sometimes generated because of it. When someone
comes up with a story to suit a belief, that is a story to suit a belief,
if it is something that can be justified, fine if it will always lay in the
realm of beliefs, because it can never be proved right or wrong that
too should be noted. Beyond that I'm fine with the whole process.
Kelly
16 Apr 07
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd we're back to completely ignoring the scientific method.
I do not have to question that there is evidence, I question the
beliefs that are sometimes generated because of it. When someone
comes up with a story to suit a belief, that is a story to suit a belief,
if it is something that can be justified, fine if it will always lay in the
realm of beliefs, because it can never be proved right or wrong that
too should be noted. Beyond that I'm fine with the whole process.
Kelly
16 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZNo, never, just call things what they are. You come up with a story
And we're back to completely ignoring the scientific method.
about events that occurred billions of years ago we can more than
likely call that science, but reality no. Those that believe the story are
putting their faith in it, it isn't something that can be proven or
disproven so there is it isn't much different that and a religious text.
Kelly
16 Apr 07
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, it is disprovable and that is the difference between the scientific story and the religious one: find a pre-cambrian rabbit fossil and the TOEBNS is dead. The religious version on the other hand can never be disproved and that is why we should not place our faith in it.
No, never, just call things what they are. You come up with a story
about events that occurred billions of years ago we can more than
likely call that science, but reality no. Those that believe the story are
putting their faith in it, it isn't something that can be proven or
disproven so there is it isn't much different that and a religious text.
Kelly
--- Penguin.
16 Apr 07
Originally posted by PenguinYou believe in a billion year old history? Is that a reality or a matter
No, it [b]is disprovable and that is the difference between the scientific story and the religious one: find a pre-cambrian rabbit fossil and the TOEBNS is dead. The religious version on the other hand can never be disproved and that is why we should not place our faith in it.
--- Penguin.[/b]
of belief and faith?
Kelly