View Single Post
Old 12-22-2005, 04:00 PM   #15
StaffSaberist's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The United States of America... and damn proud of it!
Posts: 1,092
Sorry, been sick as a dog. And the last thing you do when you have a splitting headache is debate. Looks like a lot has happened.

Aside from the preponderance of evidence and predictions that have come from the theory of evolution, I can only say that there is no other demonstrable mechanism to explain our existence. The creation explanation can be immediately disgarded, since there are many hundreds of variations of these and none are testable.
That so? I've only heard one. Please tell me what variations you have heard. Also, how can you get evidence from a theory? I suppose you can get evidence for a theory, but a theory is not absolute.

1) We are discussing evolution, not the origin of the universe. These are two different concepts and deserve separate threads. Personally, I'll likely not post in the universe thread since I have limited education in astronomy and cosmology. I make the distinction because in nearly every evolution argument I've been in, within a few posts the opponent to the fact of evolution will bring up the beginning of the universe.
Rather than just bring up the beginning of the universe, I will at least humor you enough to explain how they're related. If we evolved, then we must have a beginning, something to evolve from, do we not? And of course, we must have a place to evolve. Does our world have no beginning, always here, or did it evolve as well? Nowhere did this thread say it was only human evolution.

But don't worry. I'll touch on the universe only when necessary, and I'll focus on humans as much as possible.

2) The word "theory" does not some how imply a hierarchy that evolution aspires to become, specifically moving on to be a "law." Theories and laws are two different, but related, things. Laws are generalizations, principles or pattersn in nature, while theories are the explanations of those generalizations. Theories in science are very different that the "theories" of colloquial speech in that they are based on one or more hypotheses that have been tested in some way.
Whoa, evolution has been tested? If you can show where evolution was tested, I'll back down now.

But I can't imagine that anyone these days would dare challenge evolution as an explanation for life as we know it. There simply aren't any other viable explanations and the evolution explanation has far too much evidence supporting it. Okay... I'm trolling a little. But just a little
Not only are you trolling there, you are dead wrong.

His basic postulation, that Darwinism has failed because it has yet to produce definitive proof in the limited amount of time that it has existed as a scientific theory shows an absolute misunderstanding about how science really works.
He thus concludes that all thinking, rational people will abandon the theory for a creationist point-of-view eventually.

Personally, I believe this goes a long was to show the absolute importance for a world-class science education for each and every person in this country. That this type of backwards warping of what the scientific method is and how it works can even exist in this day and age by someone who holds a somewhat influential position baffles my mind.
When I saw your avvy and recognized it from the political threads, I felt that I was about to have a huge brawl with you. But no, I actually agree with you. It appears that science of today is, "let's create a theory and find evidence to back it up". Whether it's for one side or the other, that's pathetic. I say, educate us on all the facts, and then let us choose. That would be Fox's goal, too bad they son't succeed.

One of the major things that continues to convince me that it is true is that with every new discovery and new scientific method we develop we keep finding more and more evidence that supports it, and still haven't found anything that disproves it
I haven't found anything that supports it. It may be a "blinding flash of the obvious" to you guys, but the obviosity eludes me. Where is the evidence it exists? Provide sources! Show me all sides of every shred of evidence! Not all at once if you can't, but a bit at a time is enough. I'd like to see what the scientists are saying today. I tend to mentally block off this kind of thing if I see it on TV, because it is presented as fact and not theory.

Now, I am not able to get through the entire thread and reply to it all. (Sorry to disappoint you, ShadowTemplar.) I'll be back in a bit. But let me make something perfectly clear:


Carbon dating is perfectly accurate, IMO. The Earth is a few billion years old. You see, there is religious grounding in that. According to the Bible, to God a thousand years is to a day as a day is to a thousand years. So when he says 'day' in Genesis, He may have meant it to symbolize an epoch. Or not, but that's my interperentation, anyhow.

Deception, the best SP level-set in the world, is done! Get it here!
"Query: What is it you wish, fat one?" - HK-47 at his best
I have begun modding TSL. Check it out here. and My Fanfic
StaffSaberist is offline   you may: