|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1499 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5892 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: First, congratulations on an excellent initial post. Welcome to the forum. Moose, I think, has mentioned that "proof" is not the realm of science. Science observes facts or phenomena, then develops theories to explain the observations. A scientific theory cannot, unfortunately, be "proven". Newton's theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, etc, are not "proven". However, scientific theories spawn numerous hypotheses - statements or predictions based on some part of a theory - which CAN be tested. If the test, which must be replicatable by other scientists, shows the hypothesis to be invalid, then either the specific prediction was incorrect, or something is wrong with the theory. If the hypothesis is valid, otoh, it doesn't "prove" the theory is correct - merely that one particular aspect of the theory (the testable hypothesis it spawned) has been validated. Science tends to be very parsimonious with the label "theory" - to be acceptable, a theory must undergo numerous tests. If it fails consistently, it gets scrapped. If it passes consistently, then it can be said we are asymptotically approaching truth (not that the theory is true). In science, "beyond reasonable doubt" is the criteria. If it fails part of the time but passes some tests, then it generally is revised. Even once an idea is graced with the term "theory" by the concensus of those scientists who study the phenomena, it doesn't mean that it can't be wrong. (Newton's theory was ultimately subsumed in Einstein's relativity, which was in turn subsumed in Schrodinger et al quantum mechanics - I can't wait to see what happens next...). If you are so convinced that so-called "macroevolution" is impossible, perhaps you'd care to explain why? What and where is the barrier that prevents RM&NS (the processes of "microevolution") over time from leading to changes in higher taxa? How does this barrier work? What evidence is there that such a barrier exists? (Hint: the statement "We haven't seen it happening." is NOT evidence. You haven't seen your deity happening either. You weren't present at the First Event. Unfortunately, pRNA didn't invent camcorders while inventing autocatalysis and self-replication. Too bad Adam and Eve didn't either.)
quote: Actually, there's quite a bit that would lend credence to creationism. There are a number of other threads that discuss possibilities. IMO, you'd need to start out by showing that your particular interpretation of deity was correct, and all the rest of the world was wrong and going to hell (or whatever trips your trigger for those who deny your particular cult). After that, you could try making a couple of testable hypotheses showing undeniable evidence of divine intervention. It would have to be something pretty spectacular to convince me - maybe like a booming voice out of the sky heard simultaneously all over the world by every individual in their own language. Hey, if He wants people to fall down and worship, He needs to get their attention first.
quote: This doesn't answer the question: what would constitute such evidence?
quote: Once again, you are requiring that science provide that which science cannot - and never claimed. Evidence - the evidence of the incredible diversity and at the same time relatedness of all life - is the only thing that matters. I concur that misinterpreting evidence can lead scientists down the primrose path. However, the scientific method contains built-in error correcting mechanisms. No hypothesis (let alone a theory) will be accepted as valid unless the same test can be applied by other scientists. There are, in fact, scientists who've built their entire careers on debunking the ideas of other scientists. Even the worst errors of science are sooner or later corrected by other scientists (cold fusion comes to mind, as does Archeoraptor, Haeckel's ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, etc). No scientific error has EVER been corrected or even detected by a non-scientist. Can you point to a single instance of religious beliefs being self-corrected?
quote: I disagree. Science and religion are the original odd couple. They deal with completely separate and incompatible magisteria. Science deals with what is. Religion deals with what comes after. Science makes no claim to ethics or morality - any more than does nature itself. That is the proper purview of religion and belief. As long as this separation is understood and maintained, there is no conflict. Many people, some on this board, hold belief in God fully compatible with evolution and see no problem, as their religion speaks to a different aspect of their lives. Science most assuredly makes no claim to "Undeniable, Unchangeable, and Immovable" Truth (TM). The conflict arises when the highly vocal but statistically insignificant Protestant fundamentalists demand that science become subservient to their literalist interpretation of an ancient religious text, and that it conform to the dictat of theirnarrow, xenophobic worldview. The evolution-deniers do so by rejecting the evidence. Evidence which, btw, has shown evolution to be true "beyond reasonable doubt".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5892 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
What an amazing rant.
quote: Great! Does that mean you'll stop preaching, since the evilutionists are all doomed anyway?
quote: Please name one and cite something that could be construed as proselytizing.
quote: Actually, anyone that came up with evidence refuting ToE probably WOULD have a tough sell. However, if the evidence was good, repeatable, and valid, they'd win a Nobel Prize. The only "positional beliefs" that are attacked are the superstitions, supernatural, or pseudoscientific "beliefs" held by a vanishingly small but highly vocal and politically active minority of Protestant Christian fundamentalists. And those beliefs are only confronted when this minority tries to impose their narrow worldview on everyone else.
quote: No. The truth of the matter is that the original theory was proposed as an explanation of observations made in the natural world (not supernatural). Oddly, the more people look at it and examine the evidence - and the more science refines its tools - the better it becomes in the aggregate, although some details have had to be refined. Even Darwin didn't get everything right.
quote: Provide an example of any reputable scientist being the object of the kind of propaganda you assert.
quote: Who, for instance? quote: Again, who?
quote: [cheap comment about creationists deleted]quote: Gee, ever thought that your friends might be the rule rather than the exception? Especially with no examples to back up your claim.
quote: True. quote: True, as far as it goes. However, we have to understand that just because someone espouses a particular idea, doesn't mean it is valid. Argumentum ad populum fallacy aside, some ideas are simply wrong, not because people believe them, but simply because there is either no evidence for, or there exists contrary evidence against, them. quote: You need to show how that little soundbite even follows from your rant, let alone means anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5892 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
This is now the second post you've made wherein you alluded to so-called "fringe evolutionists" (message 36 and 41). You have, in fact, accused these unidentified agents of neo-nazi tactics. I ask you again to provide any reference, cite, website or published work showing evidence of this claim. If you have none, as I suspect, then you are not discussing the issue, merely ranting - in fact using the exact same tactics you "find appalling".
I await your reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5892 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Thanks QS. Odd I never received a reply to that post. Oh well. Mayhaps it was too pointed.
INRE: neo-hitlerian evilutionists. Keep it up: yer on the list, pal. First against the wall come the revolution...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024