View Single Post
Old 12-27-2005, 11:04 AM   #32
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
Also, how can you get evidence from a theory? I suppose you can get evidence for a theory, but a theory is not absolute.
Ah, the vagarities of grammar. The 'from' refers to the 'predictions' part, not the 'evidence' part.

Quote:
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.
No, but Skin limited it to exclusively biological evolution. Haring off on cosmology trips would be both beyond the scope of this thread and, frankly, venture into theories far less substantiated than the theory of (biological) evolution (actually most theories short of gravity and quantum mechanics are less substantiated than the ToE).

Quote:
Whoa, evolution has been tested? If you can show where evolution was tested, I'll back down now.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

It's long and it's complicated. And, no, nobody expects you to read and respond to it all. But science is long and complicated, and you asked for evidence.

Quote:
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.
Yes and no. There are two main avenues available for scientific progress: One is drawing inferences from already established theories. This can lead in radically new directions - as indeed it did when Maxwell proposed his correction of Biot Savart's Law. The other way new theories can grow out of old ones is through an abundance of experimental evidence revealing flaws in old theories - as was what happened through much of Quantum Mechanics' early years. Discrediting either of those approaches would hamstring science for no good reason.

The last way to increase scientific knowledge is the revolutionary leap of genius, where a theory is proposed on the basis of flimsy evidence and has little connection with previous theories - its only justification being that it 'feels right'. That has happened in the past (the theory whose centennial we're celebrating this year is one example). And it will undoubtedly happen in the future as well. But that is very, very rare.

And evolution is not such a theory. In fact, evolution is a straight-line generalisation of Malthus' population models, much the same way Maxwell's equations grow naturally out of classical electrodynamics.

Quote:
Now, I am not able to get through the entire thread and reply to it all. (Sorry to disappoint you, ShadowTemplar.)
Actually, much of what's been said previously has been idle banter while we waited for you to show up. You didn't miss a lot. What I really inteded with this thread was a place for people like you to ask honest questions and present what they percieve as problems with evolution in a calm and civilised environment. I was hoping that we could then sort through them - or at the very least that Skin and I could point people in the direction of further reading.

Quote:
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.
Funny. I seem to recall an AiG tract saying differently.

But theological discussions aside, carbon dating and dendrochronology go back only roughly .05 Myrs. Ar-K and U-U dating, OTOH...

Quote:
What I was saying was that the vast majority of world populace does not believe in evolution.
That's actually not quite correct... You don't have to be an atheist to value sound science. I can name several qualified biologists and physicists who'd be frankly insulted at the insinuation that they are somehow less christian because they acknowledge the validity of scientific theories.

Quote:
Lath made a statement about polytheistic creeds never having a problem with evolutionary theory. And while I haven't heard anyone publically rail against evolutionary theory on religious terms and not use some strain of Christianity as the basis, I would argue that there are plenty of polytheistic creation stories, that if taken as literally as certain Christian groups take Genesis, they'd have the exact same problems.
Indeed. In fact there are several fundie hindu groups who reject evolution - because according to their fundie view the world has always existed and has always been the same - so change is impossible and beginning is impossible. And while we don't hear as much about it in the West, Muslim creationism is also rampant in many parts of the world. Of course they buy into the rethoric and propaganda originating in the US, but that's probably only because the US creationist movements have rather a lot more funding than the Middle Eastern ones.

Quote:
PS: Freud's mythmaking on religion is fun to read, but hardly provable anymore than certain feminist theories of a golden age of matriarchy. Makes for breathtaking political rhetoric, but nothing really substantial in evidence.
Freud is a cheap hoax and a political pseudoscientist. His crap's so deep that he compares disfavorably with even the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.

But that's for another thread...


Last edited by ShadowTemplar; 12-27-2005 at 11:19 AM.
ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,