Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8928 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-24-2019 5:07 PM
32 online now:
Faith, Jedothek, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (8 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,372 Year: 15,408/19,786 Month: 2,131/3,058 Week: 505/404 Day: 20/89 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can Biologists believe in the ToE?
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 304 (392717)
04-01-2007 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
04-01-2007 9:06 AM


In the US, there are probably about 20 times as many Clausians as biologists (where a Clausian is a person who accepts the validity of the existence of Santa Claus based on the overwhelming evidence). And yet, the majority of people in the US reject the validity of SC's existence, even though they are familiar with the same evidence, and in many cases were the ones who first exposed the believers to that evidence. I have no idea if this is relevant to your point, or if its just one of those tu quoquequidproquo arguments that MiketheWhiz is so fond of exposing.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 04-01-2007 9:06 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-18-2007 10:57 AM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 173 of 304 (422996)
09-19-2007 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by RAZD
09-18-2007 9:50 AM


Understanding the pervue of scientific theories.
When Newton propounded his gravitational theory to explain the observed motion of the planets and their satellites, he did not (have to) start out with some 'preamble' explaining the origins of the universe, the solar system, or even the planets and moons. His theory was an 'B to Z', or more correctly, an 'L to P' type of explanation, and still has proved very powerful and accurate in explaining exactly what it set out to explain. Newton did not have to posit whether time or space were finite or infinite in extent. That didn't enter into the description. That his theories of gravity and mechanics happen to contradict a literal interpretation of the bible is the bible literalists' problem, not Newton's.

And so it is with all theories that we have to date. Quantum field theory assumes the standard model with the existence of certain particles and their properties. It does not (yet) have an explanation for why those particular particles and properties are the ones observed. And yet, it is able to predict and accurately describe a cornucopia of observed phenomena and support many massive technological industries, including the one that produced the computer on which you write your nonsensical posts.

Darwin's ToE accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do, explaining the mechanism for the origin of species starting out with the earliest and simplest life forms. It's validity is in no way predicated on its explaining the processes that led up to the conditions that produced that (or those) earliest life forms. Questions concerning the spacial or temporal extent of the universe, other than the need for an energy source and sufficient time for his evolutionary mechanism to occur, do not enter in any way into his theory or its fabulous success in explaining so much that is observed in the biological sciences. And, yes, Darwin's theory, as do all theories of biological evolution, contradicts the genesis account of the origin of species: that all species were created independently and within a single week.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2007 9:50 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by bluegenes, posted 09-19-2007 7:23 AM AnswersInGenitals has responded
 Message 182 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2007 1:56 PM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 181 of 304 (423052)
09-19-2007 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by bluegenes
09-19-2007 7:23 AM


Re: Err... wrong person
I think you accidentally replied to the wrong post,

Yes. Quite correct. I, of course, meant to reply to IAmJoseph. Is there anyway to change the post you're responding to?

Sorry, RAZD, I never consider any of your insightful posts to be nonsensical.

Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : No reason given.

Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by bluegenes, posted 09-19-2007 7:23 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019