quote:Well said for the most part. But surely you would recognize that just as Creationism is not homogenus (not all the same), neither is Evolution.
The fundamental principles of the ToE are not debated by evolutionary biologists. Specific issues such as molecular clocks, specific taxonomies, rates of evolution among certain branches of life are debated. There is no common theme to creationism other than they all assume God/Gods/Intelligent Designer did it but nobody knows how and there is no way to tell how.
quote: Some believe we came from sponges, others say RNA.
Look on the list of common misconceptions of creationists..this one is on it i.e. that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing.
quote: Some subscibe to Gould's punctuated equilibrium, others say we have yet to find significant transitional fossils.
This is hardly a debate about whether or not the theory of evolution is correct or not. PE deals with pace of evolution and transitionals deal with the fact that not every single organism that ever lived is fossilized.
quote:I would agree that open-mindedness does not mean agreeing with the opposing view, hastily dismissing our own beliefs. Yet merely putting forward our own views will not lead anywhere. We have to be willing to do more than that, to recognize that perhaps our own beliefs are not set in stone.
I think the point of this thread deals with two issues. 1) No creationist has ever put forward a scientific hypothesis for creationism. Nobody has ever proposed a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of creation and therefore it is not science. Thus, science has no reason to consider it. 2) The same arguments against evolution come up stunningly regularly from different creationists...almost as if they all get a standard handbook of misconceptions and distortions of science, the scientific method, and evolution. Just yesterday a new poster arrived spewing several of the noted creationist distortions we have all heard hundreds of times yet again..this thread is a testament to the ease with which one CAN generalize about creationist thinking.
quote:Also, when you say "supporters of science", I assume you are referring to (perhaps indirectly) Evolutionists, you must see that many Creationists see themselves as "supporters of science."
For reasons mentioned before, creationists have excluded themselves from being "supporters of science" as they have no hypothesis to test....most are armchair critics and nay sayers of scientific fields in which they have no background but derive their feelings of certainty from ignorance. That creationists fail to understand how belief and faith is not part of the scientific method and that the inability to even formulate a testable hypothesis excludes them from being "supporters of science".
quote:I would say the real task in this debate is to examine the evidence we see, ask questions, and accept the strongest logical conclusion
I think the task of the debate is for advocates of science to see what the predominant misconceptions are among those with little or no background and try to address them. Examining the evidence requires actual research and training in order to achieve the competence with which to draw any conclusion. Only a minority of the people here (or anywhere) are willing to invest the time and energy to actually participate as active scientists or extremely knowledgeable laymen. To date, I have only encountered two creationists with a scientific background and niether of them specialized in fields related to evolution.
quote:Yet my point is, that perhaps the strongest conclusion is not exactly what we have always thought to be true, and we must be willing to accept what science and logic tell us to accept. That is what science is all about, is it not? Finding the truth in the world by examining the evidence, even if it means tweaking our own beliefs? Truth is out there, and we must do our best to find it, even if it is not what we thought was true to begin with. Would you agree with this?
This statement is absolutely correct. That is why all scientific hypotheses, theories, etc. are tentative. They are the best description of natural observations to date based on being the best explanation possible. That does not mean that fundamental principles in science cannot be overturned and they are fairly regularly. Evolution is one of the most robust theories as it has gained support from multiple scientific disciplines, continues to do so, and has not been overturned. If a major evolutionary principle is going to be falsified, it will come from scientists using methodological naturalism and not from creationists using "goddidit" arguments or arguments from incredulity.
quote:Finally to answer your last question, I'd like all views to be heard, and see if they survive the test of logic and science.
On this board, all views are welcome and are expressed. Welcome aboard.
Hi Soracilla, thanks for your clarification regarding abiogenesis and evolution. Note that there is an entire forum on the subject of abiogenesis "Origin of Life" which has recently become fairly active again. Looking forward to your contribution. Cheers, M
quote:The scientific hypothesis for creation is that there is a Creator, and that all of the universe we can experience exists because this Creator put it there.
This is not a scientific hypothesis because 1. it is not testable 2. it is not falsifiable.
"Goddidit" hypotheses go nowhere because they fail these two criteria of scientific hypotheses. Methodological naturalism is the way that science has progressed and has been dramatically successful. Please point out a single discovery or scientific theory that has benefited or been a result of appeals to mythological god/gods/pink unicorns etc.
quote:It has meaning according to the purpose or whim of this Creator. "It is there for such or so reason in the mind of the Creator, or because it appealed to the subjective desires of the Creator." This is, in part, a psychological hypothesis, since it addresses the mind and emotions of the Creator.
Again, it could be a sentient cosmic candied apple in the galactic goats rectum that is responsible...it could be the ghost of Elvis. Just like your statement, you cannot falsify either of my "creation hypotheses" nor can you test them...that is why such whimsical thought is absent from scientific hypotheses and only holds sway among the superstitious.
quote:Bible Code research is the most sophisticated. Theomatics qualifies as well, prayer studies. All that I know of appeal to the God Jehovah.
Incidently, Malachi 3:10 cites Jehovah's "falsify Me" experiment. The above one of the many possible ways of scientifically studying the hypothesis. Thomas, in putting his hand in the wounds of Yeshua, was an early example of this sort of thing.
Quoting the bible as a confirmation of the validity of..the bible? It would seem that the scientific ignorance you accuse me of belongs to you alone.
Show how any of the above mentioned supposed hypotheses are actually testable and falsifiable. Appeals to mythological figures are not evidence of anything.
quote:Your sarcasm suggests a subjective pressure in your remark that might excuse an otherwise awful display of scientific ignorance.
However there is absolutely no excuse for your complete ignorance of how one constructs a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis as opposed to ad hoc fairy tales that can neither be tested nor falsified.
quote:Science has a way of separating competing hypotheses, called strong inference.
Yes, methodolgical naturalism is very effective at separating out competing hypotheses...appeals to the supernatural unfortunately is an absolute failure at separating out anything except one group of people from another.
quote:But ad hoc explanations do not weaken the plausibility of a hypothesis whose predictions have been confirmed.
However, there is no reason to generate a non scientific ad hoc explanation for natural phenomenon except for religious dogmatism bred from ignorance. The principles of genetics (principles which are extremely well supported) gain no greater explanatory power by claiming "Goddidit". In addition, there is no evidence that Goddidit or that God exists. There is no way to test it, no way to falsify it..therefore, it is useless as a scientific concept. That you imply attaching personal mythology on the coattails of actual science somehow gives said mythology credibility demonstrates the weakness of your position.
quote:The Jehovah is real hypothesis has many, many scientific confirmations, and so is rather plausible. Deal with it.
Deal with this, even among the religious you cannot find consensus of these so called "scientific confirmations". You cannot provide a testable hypothesis of the existence of Jehovah other than to say repeatedly that the bible confirms it. In addition you can no more falsify Jehovah's existence than Vishnu's, the Pink Unicorn, or Elvis as god.
Thus merely attaching the word "scientific" to your poorly constructed musings gives them no greater weight but does provide clear evidence that you are at present unable to "deal with" science or scientific methodology...a pity really.
quote:It will take time, always does. The scoffers resist, and the true scientists plod ahead.
Yes it does take time..those scoffers blinded by religious fundamentalism and the extreme self importance that comes with it will resist every step that methodological naturalism makes...and true scientists will plod ahead overturning hypotheses..maybe knocking down a few theories and continuously improving our understanding of the natural world based on evidence. Too bad you will be in a corner with your thumbs in your ear hiding from imaginary demons and denying that any progess has been made...perhaps you should join the Amish or start your own cult..Fretwellism perhaps?
quote:I think you are ranting, but I'm not sure. Anyway, you sure give a confusing picture of MN.
If you say, "I choose life." a lot of what's going on here will be more understandable. Well, you have to mean it.
You may feel free to think what you like. However, you are not capable of scientific (and given your exposition on farts as evidence of demons) or rational thought. I don't think you have any grasp of science and certianly no concept of how to formulate scientific hypotheses. That you equate scientific exploration with some psuedo-moralistic search for the meaning of life emphasizes this point.