|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5843 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
The DNA arrangement could be explained by special creation just as well: God being economic. Why choose one explanation over another? As WK has already pointed out, I don't think this is a fair asessment of the molecular evidence but that is definitely a topic's worth on its own. Suffice to say that it throws up enough questions about special creation to suggest evolution . Besides, I've been mulling this over and think that this statement is more revealing about the different attitudes:
Let's say we didn't have any of that. This appears to be one of the main differences in how the two sides approach the argument, and is therefore of vital importance to understand. It seems to me that arguments which are more symphathetic to the creationist side will constantly think of pieces of evidence totally independent of one another. As a result they often attempt to pick them apart one by one, hoping that it will unravel the whole theory. Those coming from the evolution side of things are more likely to view it as a body of evidence. The evidence should be viewed as struts which form a very solid supporting framework for a theory. No one strut is more important than the others because they answer different questions. The only difference is the order they went up. Hope that makes my position clearer - I fear that I may have gone over the top with the analogies
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
In other words, I don't believe that there is anthing we could find where we could reasonably conclude, "God would never have done this, it must have happened without his guidance." Yes, there is: fossils.
This post is an attempt to apply the lessons learned in this thread, so give me a grade. No need to be kind, I don't need grade inflation, I'm trying to learn. A--for fairmindedness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It seems to me that arguments which are more symphathetic to the creationist side I'm not sympathetic to the creationist side. I'm trying to make a point about the nature of evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Utterly, utterly irrelevant. "Why" is not irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
A "prediction" in science is simply a "logical consequence" of the theory. quote: OK, then call it a "logical consequence of a hypothesis or theory." To most scientists and those who understand the jargon, using "prediction" means exactly the same thing, but if your own personal definition is different than that, then by all means, use the phrase in quotes above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: If the Germ Theory of Disease is true we should see... is a prediction that can never be verified. It's all a matter of interpretation. There may be other explanations of what you predicted to occur and saw. You'll never know because there is no way to test it. If the Theory of Relativity is true we should see... is a prediction that can never be verified. It's all a matter of interpretation. There may be other explanations of what you predicted to occur and saw. You'll never know because there is no way to test it. If the Atomic Theory of Matter is true we should see... is a prediction that can never be verified. It's all a matter of interpretation. There may be other explanations of what you predicted to occur and saw. You'll never know because there is no way to test it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Yes, there is: fossils. What you've been asked several times is, why? Why wouldn't God have made fake fossils? To assume he wouldn't choose to do that is to claim knowledge about the character of a being previously defined as unknowable. God could have done it; we don't know that he didn't; plenty of people do believe that he did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
robin,
"Why" is not irrelevant. Yes it is. But for the record, I already told you why, "because he wanted to". Why would god create life? Do you know? Of course not, you didn't need to know to invoke the argument God did it. So I don't have to know why he put fossils where they are. What's good for the goose... The point is that you have invoked an ad hoc argument to elevate fossil evidence above DNA evidence, I did exactly the same to put it back again. There is absolutely no qualitative difference between the two scenarios. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5843 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
I'm not sympathetic to the creationist side. I not accusing you of that. But you were arguing that the molecular evidence for evolution could not stand up on its own. You were arguing that special creation was just as likely an explanation. This is certainly an argument which is sympathetic to the creationist cause. In fact, it's one of their common rallying calls.
I'm trying to make a point about the nature of evidence. so am I. My point is that by viewing fossils and molecular evidence as independent strands of evidence, and by ranking one over the other, I think that you fall into the same trap as creationists do. I suppose what I want to know is why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If the Germ Theory of Disease is true we should see... is a prediction that can never be verified. It's all a matter of interpretation. There may be other explanations of what you predicted to occur and saw. You'll never know because there is no way to test it. No, the germ theory of disease is quite testable because it is replicable. You have endless opportunities to check for microbes in relation to particular symptom patterns. Not so with the ToE. You have one prediction and if it works you assume you've proved the ToE. Alternative explanations for what worked can't be checked.
If the Theory of Relativity is true we should see... is a prediction that can never be verified. It's all a matter of interpretation. There may be other explanations of what you predicted to occur and saw. You'll never know because there is no way to test it. This is false. I believe RR gave an example of an actual prediction that has borne out. Something replicable. I don't undersatnd the ToR well enough to dream up a test but I'm sure there are endless opportunities to test it as anything in physics or chemistry can be tested. If you want to test the existence of gravity you have endless opportunities and ways to test it. Not so the ToE.
If the Atomic Theory of Matter is true we should see... is a prediction that can never be verified. It's all a matter of interpretation. There may be other explanations of what you predicted to occur and saw. You'll never know because there is no way to test it. Obviously you haven't Clue One about what this is all about. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-09-2006 01:48 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Why wouldn't God have made fake fossils? That is not a reasonable action to attribute to the traditional idea of the Almighty. However, creating a method of gene flow by which we could all be similar yet different is very understandable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It's not a question of whether God could do something. Obviously He could do anything that's not contradictory (round squares). The question is, would some action be a reasonable act to attribute to God?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
robin,
That is not a reasonable action to attribute to the traditional idea of the Almighty. What makes you think god conforms to tradition? You haven't a scooby as to the nature of the "almighty". Therefore you are unable to dismiss the notion that god could make false fossils. Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The complete ignorance about what creationists believe about what God would have created that is being shown on this thread at least must illustrate how evos don't pay the slightest attention to creos.
There is no way God would have just PUT fossils there. They have nothing to do with creation. Genesis makes it clear that LIVING THINGS were originally created, and as far as I know, there is not ONE claim by anybody that He created anything after the first six days of creation. He RESTED on the seventh day, His Creation being complete and perfect. The fossils occurred according to physical and chemical principles that have been in place from the beginning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
robin,
The question is, would some action be a reasonable act to attribute to God? How can you possibly know what is reasonable to attribute to something you know nothing about? Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024