Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has natural selection really been tested and verified?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 210 of 302 (537349)
11-28-2009 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Peg
11-28-2009 8:25 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Now while i'll never subscribe to evolution
Ah, you obviously haven't seen the odds we've given you in the book we're running Tho' to be fair, slevesque is favourite at the moment. Care to place a wager?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 8:25 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 8:37 AM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 212 of 302 (537351)
11-28-2009 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Bolder-dash
11-28-2009 7:49 AM


Re: Back to Basics
the intellectual community that also happens to see there are gaping holes in this theory
Excellent, a new definition of the empty set {}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 7:49 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 9:52 AM cavediver has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 226 of 302 (537392)
11-28-2009 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Bolder-dash
11-28-2009 9:52 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Bolder-dash, The Theory of Evolution is not "my" theory. I am a physicist/mathematician who specialises in relativity, cosmology, string theory and the like. However, as a scientist, I am suffciently familiar with evolutionary science to recognise how the ToE and common descent fits the available evidence sufficiently well for me to regard it as close to fact; in the same way that I regard Special Relativity as close to fact. This isn't out of any pre-conceived ideas or (anti)religious motivation. I was an evangelical Christian for many many years, and a creationist for a short while. I could not hold to creationism as the intellectual suicide it demanded was far too high a price to pay.
I challenge anyone to present a university-employed publishing biological scientist, unaffiliated with a religious organisation, who does not think as I do regarding the Theory of Evolution. It is not in the slightest bit surpising that 99.99% of those claiming that there are huge gaps in the Theory of Evolution are from the three major Abrahamic relgions.
This leaves you with the simple choice - either you are wrong, or the entire world-wide a-religious community of scientists is deluded or involved in the world's largest conspiracy. And I should add that the vast majority of the world's religious scientists also have exactly the same opinion regarding the ToE, including many of my envangelical Christian friends. So they too would have to be in on this conspiracy...
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 9:52 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 10:36 AM cavediver has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 231 of 302 (537398)
11-28-2009 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Bolder-dash
11-28-2009 10:36 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Cavediver writes:
I challenge anyone to present a university-employed publishing biological scientist, unaffiliated with a religious organisation, who does not think as I do regarding the Theory of Evolution.
Simon Conway Morris...
Christian *AND* scientist who accepts the ToE
You're just deternmined to be an epic failure here, aren't you?
Admittedly, Morris has some fanciful ideas about higher purpose seen in evolution and the Universe at large, but so do I every other Thursday...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 10:36 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 10:59 AM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 270 of 302 (537515)
11-29-2009 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Bolder-dash
11-29-2009 3:01 AM


"Well, I think the Theory of evolution has so many basic problems to it scientifically... ...so it seems there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things"
Oh, sorry, that disqualifies you from being able to analyze the ToE!
Yes, of course that disqualifies you - from any kind of science. If you do not think that Evolution or Natural Selection has been successfully tested and verified, if you think there are large holes in the theory, then you can and develop a new theory which explains what we see. You don't go running off, crying - see, see, we need a non-materialistic explanation. If scientists acted like that we would still be in the dark ages.
When it was noticed that the advance of perihelion of the orbit of Mercury could not be explained by Newtonian gravitation, was that the time we should have decided that "there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things"?
When it was found that an electric current could deflect a compass, was that the time we should have decided that "there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things"?
When it was found that radium could fog a photographic plate, was that the time we should have decided that "there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-29-2009 3:01 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024