|
|
|
larry_boy
New Member
14 Posts |
 Posted - 07/18/2005 : 12:50:38
|
Considering the massive amount of name calling, non-sequesters and spurious arguments made in the previous creationist/evolutionist thread, I thought it might be enlightening to have a more civilized debate.
Considering the massive amount of name calling, non-sequesters and spurious arguments made in the previous creationist/evolutionist thread, I thought it might be enlightening to have a more civilized debate.
Let me kick this one off by asking for people's thoughts on what evidence would, in theory, prove compelling enough to reject evolutionary interpretations.
I do not think that facts alone are ever compelling enough to force the adoption of specific theories (though they might force rejections) and wish to understand what is a sufficient reason for accepting a theory as compelling.
I also wish to illustrate why Hybrid's responses and many of the comments regarding his responses do not further the goals of understanding by having a conversation which does enlighten us on issues surrounding creationism/evolution. This is not intended as a criticisms of anyone involved, but merely an observation that two opposing views were not sufficiently articulated in the previous thread to form an informed judgment.
I, for one, hope we live in a world were all the big questions can be answered.
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2005 : 13:03:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by larry_boy
Let me kick this one off by asking for people's thoughts on what evidence would, in theory, prove compelling enough to reject evolutionary interpretations.
A cat giving birth to a dog (obviously without human meddling) would be very compelling evidence that evolution is false.
Perhaps it's a bit ironic that the absence of such an occurence is often misunderstood as being a problem for evolution. |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 07/18/2005 16:38:16 |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2005 : 13:05:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by larry_boy
Considering the massive amount of name calling, non-sequesters and spurious arguments made in the previous creationist/evolutionist thread, I thought it might be enlightening to have a more civilized debate.
Considering the massive amount of name calling, non-sequesters and spurious arguments made in the previous creationist/evolutionist thread, I thought it might be enlightening to have a more civilized debate.
Let me kick this one off by asking for people's thoughts on what evidence would, in theory, prove compelling enough to reject evolutionary interpretations.
I do not think that facts alone are ever compelling enough to force the adoption of specific theories (though they might force rejections) and wish to understand what is a sufficient reason for accepting a theory as compelling.
I also wish to illustrate why Hybrid's responses and many of the comments regarding his responses do not further the goals of understanding by having a conversation which does enlighten us on issues surrounding creationism/evolution. This is not intended as a criticisms of anyone involved, but merely an observation that two opposing views were not sufficiently articulated in the previous thread to form an informed judgment.
I, for one, hope we live in a world were all the big questions can be answered.
Evolution as being critter lines change over time is well established. If it could be shown that such changes did not happen, it would falsify the established fact.
Evolution as being the mechanism of change has a body of evidence suggesting random gene mutations and DNA frame shifts cause critter lines to change over time. If one could prove that these genetic changes made no impact on the functionality of the organism, the theory could be falsified.
Our main problem with Hybrid is that he made assertations and then when asked for sources, he became insulting, condescending, and made multiple appeals to anonymous authorities. Indeed, the timbre of his original posts indicated he expected to be insulted so he was going to get his licks in first. This did nothing to bolster his arguements and when informed of it, he took offense that we were not accepting at face value his statements and claimed exemption from the rules of logic.
If you have evidence which may falsify evolutionary theory as we know it, by all means, please present it. We will be happy to research any source you care to list and evaluate it.
Welcome to SFN. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2005 : 13:08:55 [Permalink]
|
I am going to take a quick stab at this since I am new.
1. I believe that Steven Gould said that debates aren't about finding the truth, but about winning arguments. You could debate me about whetehr the Earth is flat and win, thus "proving" that the earth is flat. But that does not make the earth flat. The natural world is what it is, no matter what we believe.
2. The creation/evolution argument is a false bifurcation. It isn't either-or. There could be a wholly different theory to explain the fossil record, et. al.
3. It is up to the creationists to correctly predict findings based on their "research" and to publish these findings for peer-review.
Any debate here is most likely to be fruitless. the Creationists believe they are doing God's work and thus, only see things through that worldview. Evolutionists get sick-and-tired of having to answer the same old questions time and time again because the creationists fail to listen. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2005 : 13:19:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by larry_boy
Let me kick this one off by asking for people's thoughts on what evidence would, in theory, prove compelling enough to reject evolutionary interpretations.
Welcome to the SFN.
Compelling evidence could include a clear-cut "signature" within all creatures' DNA (or other biological entity) that it was created (or at least that different species have not evolved from one another).quote:
I do not think that facts alone are ever compelling enough to force the adoption of specific theories (though they might force rejections) and wish to understand what is a sufficient reason for accepting a theory as compelling.
Theories explain observations (evidence). They are built from the evidence. A theory without evidence to support it is not compelling at all. If a theory successfully explains the evidence we have, it is a compelling theory.quote:
I also wish to illustrate why Hybrid's responses and many of the comments regarding his responses do not further the goals of understanding by having a conversation which does enlighten us on issues surrounding creationism/evolution.
It was quickly clear that HYBRID had no "goal of understanding."quote:
This is not intended as a criticisms of anyone involved, but merely an observation that two opposing views were not sufficiently articulated in the previous thread to form an informed judgment.
An informed judgement about which is correct, evolution or HYBRID's objections to it? Obviously not. To make an informed judgement on the theories of evolution, one must actually study them, first, and be able to correctly articulate what they are and how they were created. No matter how much I'd like it to happen, I doubt very much that the SFN will ever become a repository for graduate-level evolutionary textbooks. Anyone coming here expecting to be able to make an informed decision regarding the validity of evolution has very high expectations, indeed (although we're more than happy to steer people to web sites from which the information can be gleaned).quote:
I, for one, hope we live in a world were all the big questions can be answered.
Just so you know, I'm quite convinced that there are plenty of questions which can never be answered. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2005 : 16:33:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Let me kick this one off by asking for people's thoughts on what evidence would, in theory, prove compelling enough to reject evolutionary interpretations.
Molecular genetic studies could do it. For example, finding that the DNA differences between beavers and rabbits is greater than the DNA differences between beavers and flatworms (this is akin to a cat giving birth to a dog). Or that, for example, the genetic material of beavers (or insert your eukaryotic life-form of choice here) was not (mainly) DNA-based. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2005 : 16:52:00 [Permalink]
|
Several attempts were made to offer HYBRID help in clearing out misinterpretations HYBRID made from other members' posts, in order to increase understanding. Offers that were rudely rejected.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2005 : 19:48:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Let me kick this one off by asking for people's thoughts on what evidence would, in theory, prove compelling enough to reject evolutionary interpretations.
The current ToE is built upon evidence from multiple branches of science. Biology, geology, archeology, to name a few. The massive amount of evidence in support of the most basic prediction of the ToE (species change over time) from all these different fields is one of the main reasons that the ToE is so powerfull.
Any evidence capable of causing a rejection of the evolutionary context would have to offer a better explanation for all the evidence than the current ToE does.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2005 : 20:23:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Any evidence capable of causing a rejection of the evolutionary context would have to offer a better explanation for all the evidence than the current ToE does.
I think we have be careful to differetiate between the facts and the theory of evolution. Any evidence (fact) against ToE does not in it self have to offer an explanation for anything (and it wouldn't, since that's the job of the theory). Also, it is possible to reject the theory of evoultion without having a better alternative. If ToE was falsified, we could always say that "we don't know what created the diversity of life on this planet". Given the amount of supporting evidence, this seems unlikely, though.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2005 : 21:06:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Any evidence capable of causing a rejection of the evolutionary context would have to offer a better explanation for all the evidence than the current ToE does.
I think we have be careful to differetiate between the facts and the theory of evolution. Any evidence (fact) against ToE does not in it self have to offer an explanation for anything (and it wouldn't, since that's the job of the theory). Also, it is possible to reject the theory of evoultion without having a better alternative. If ToE was falsified, we could always say that "we don't know what created the diversity of life on this planet". Given the amount of supporting evidence, this seems unlikely, though.
If we did have a better alternative, then evidence against evolution would not be nessecary. Evolution would simply have been surpassed by a better theory. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2005 : 21:16:43 [Permalink]
|
It's still possible, Matt, that something might be found which makes evolutionary theory unworkable.
Heck, there's an article in the latest Scientific American about how certain problems with the current best inflationary theory of the universe's origins may make that theory fail, but there's no better theory which can replace it (yet). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2005 : 21:29:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It's still possible, Matt, that something might be found which makes evolutionary theory unworkable.
Um... yea, I agree. Did I say something to make you think I didn't?
 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2005 : 23:32:59 [Permalink]
|
A verifiable, out of place fossil would do it. The fossil record is so well ordered, from the Precambrian on, that it can be and is used as an index to the life in existance at virtually any time in the ancient past.
The fossil of any mammal in, say, Devonian strata would do it. If the alledged fossil 'human' tracks tracks that were associated with dinosaurs were anything but eroded dino tracks coupled with a little outright fraud, that would cause a lot of scientists to sit down and think about it.
And so forth.
HYBRID did not cause us into ascend to a higher and enlightened moment; quite the contrary. I do not think that he came here to argue his point of view. If he had, he would have done so instead of trying to pick a fight with almost every post. I regret getting involved with him at all.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2005 : 00:25:10 [Permalink]
|
A true chimera, like a griffin say, would also be a problem for evolution. I think I read this in another thread around here someplace.quote:
Originally posted by filthy
HYBRID did not cause us into ascend to a higher and enlightened moment; quite the contrary. I do not think that he came here to argue his point of view. If he had, he would have done so instead of trying to pick a fight with almost every post. I regret getting involved with him at all.
Ah well, water under the bridge, he was at least good for a laugh. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2005 : 06:19:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Um... yea, I agree. Did I say something to make you think I didn't?
Ahhhhh... good point! My apologies for reading something in there that wasn't really there. Sorry. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
