Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,114 Year: 5,371/9,624 Month: 396/323 Week: 36/204 Day: 12/24 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   For ToErs Eyes Only
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 18 of 110 (252203)
10-16-2005 2:50 PM


Scientific Creationism vs Faith
We seem to be getting a lot off topic, let me see if I can bring 'er around.
We have individuals here like Faith who have agreed that they have nothing to say regarding any science and don't expect their beliefs to be taught in any science classes. There is no use, need or value in discussing anything with those who honestly hold to this view. That is not what this forum is, at it's core, about.
The real issue that must be discussed and attacked is that of so-called scientific creationism. The adherents of which are of a weaker faith and seem to need physical evidence to support. They claim they have scientific support for their views and want them taught in the science classroom.
The approach should be to take them at their word. To discuss it based on the evidence and reasoning brought forth.
However, this requires some very basic conceptual work. The smarter of these neo-creationists have begun to realize that they can not, in fact, win at that game. Instead they are trying to redefine the game by weakening science as an intellectual discipline. By trying to redefine it to remove some of the constraints; for example the base of evidence or of falsification.
To my mind the approach there is to ask about how this new method of examining the physical world will actually work. We get a lot of fluff about how science isn't the only way to learn about the world but when asked for an alternative we get nothing in reply.

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 24 of 110 (252307)
10-17-2005 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Ben!
10-17-2005 12:10 AM


The topic isn't religion
The topic isn't religion (though it is to some individuals).
While religion of a certain kind underlays the problem with the teaching and acceptance of evolutionary biology, religion in general isn't the problem. And if someone suggests a strategy that is based on eliminating all religious thinking then I think they have a mistaken view of the situation.
The problem is to tackle, with a reasonably tight focus those who use, and more, misuse religion in a political fight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Ben!, posted 10-17-2005 12:10 AM Ben! has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 83 of 110 (313676)
05-19-2006 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by mr_matrix
05-19-2006 8:06 PM


Re: Onerwhelming Evidence?
But, where is that evidence?
Where have you looked? ABE -- I am near enough 100% sure you have, in fact, not looked very hard at all.
If I ask any evolutionist to explain to me how a certain organism evolved, all I hear is imaginary tales of evolution and with no evidence.
If you think the evidence is "imaginary" then why not go to the various threads covering it and point out the flaws.
Guessing that you are not in agreement with the current dates of various events in earth's history you should start with:
Message 1
and any threads it refers to.
If you are in agreement with the dating then:
Message 1
Might be a good starting place.
Note: Neither of these is covering evidence for evolution. You have to be sure you understand the basics before you get further into it.
Edited by NosyNed, : Needs a little bit of a dig.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by mr_matrix, posted 05-19-2006 8:06 PM mr_matrix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by mr_matrix, posted 05-19-2006 8:21 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 85 of 110 (313689)
05-19-2006 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by mr_matrix
05-19-2006 8:21 PM


Getting the topic right
I need to know, for example, how can a cell can be formed by chance? Without the use of the usual evolutionary imagination.
Good, I'm glad you understand the time frames involved and the basics of the theory.
Now, then why, with that understanding would you bring up a topic (the formation of the first living (or something enough like it) thing which is not a part of the evolutionary explanation for how populations of living, things change over time.
Of course, no one is suggesting that a modern cell formed by chance. How life actually arose we don't know. So what? Are you one who thinks it is good theology to suggest a proof of God is anything we don't know the answer too. That's had a very poor track record over history.
About evolution simplified, i did check this thread but still, how do you call this an evidence? This is in fact a typical exiplanations of evolutionary mechanisms but that does not mean they are evidences.
I told you it wasn't evidence just back ground prepartion. You will have to read more carefully if you are going to make any progress here.
Now that you are prepared with an understanding of time frames and the basic theory you can go to the various thread (or create your own) and tell us what is wrong with the evidence presented.
Calling it "imaginary" doesn't really help much does it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mr_matrix, posted 05-19-2006 8:21 PM mr_matrix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by mr_matrix, posted 05-19-2006 8:49 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 87 of 110 (313703)
05-19-2006 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by mr_matrix
05-19-2006 8:49 PM


Re: Getting the topic right
Are you going to talk about evolution or abiogenesis?
Saying we don't know how it arose doesn't mean that it could not have arisen by chance or that it isn't inevitable. You don't know either.
The is no "lack of logic" in proposing a chance origin to the first imperfect replicators. If chance is used though, you have to describe an environment and a simple enough first replicator that the odds become reasonable over a few 100 million years. Note that even rather unlikely events can happen if you keep trying for something like 300 million years.
There is, of course, work being done on the question and various things have been learned about the chemistry involved. Won't you feel a bit foolish if you hitch your faith to a, possibly temporary, "I dunno"?
How about we leave it at "dunno" for now and get back to evolution and mutation rates. Ok?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by mr_matrix, posted 05-19-2006 8:49 PM mr_matrix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by mr_matrix, posted 05-19-2006 9:03 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 89 by mr_matrix, posted 05-19-2006 9:06 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 91 of 110 (313734)
05-19-2006 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by mr_matrix
05-19-2006 9:06 PM


A cell?? -- who said
NO look! the "dunno" philosophy is not the absolute base of my faith. Im just showing you how a cell being formed by chance is as impossible as randomly throwing letters on a paper to form a beautiful poem by "Chance".
Well since no one suggests a cell formed by chance or was the form of first life there is no disagreement there.
I suggest you learn about these things before engaging mouth gears.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by mr_matrix, posted 05-19-2006 9:06 PM mr_matrix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by mr_matrix, posted 05-20-2006 2:59 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 95 by mr_matrix, posted 05-20-2006 3:22 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024