Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,213 Year: 5,470/9,624 Month: 495/323 Week: 135/204 Day: 5/4 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussion on Creation article...
subbie
Member (Idle past 1368 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 5 of 95 (320880)
06-12-2006 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SR71
06-12-2006 11:47 AM


More important than the answers to those questions.....
While interesting, those questions are not particularly important in evaluating the weight of the ToE. A scientific theory is not condemned simply because there are questions within the theory that cannot be fully answered. In fact, in every field of scientific endeavor, you can find 100s, 1,000s of questions that cannot yet be answered. Believe it or not, the fact that there are unsolved questions is one of the hallmarks of a strong field of scientific investigation. (That's a big part of the reason why creationism is not scientific. Goddidit is the answer to everything, and ends all inquiry.)
The ToE is a vital, important scientific theory because of the vast number of questions that it can answer. If you choose to reject it because it hasn't yet explained every detail of ever possible question in the field of natural history, you might as well reject every other science as well. That's an impossible standard.
It's indisputable that there are questions that the ToE can't answer. There always will be. But before any of those unanswered questions are going to be significant enough for us to abandon the ToE, someone is going to have to come up with a theory that explains things better than the ToE does. Since creationism, and intelligent design, don't explain anything, they fall far short of replacing the ToE.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SR71, posted 06-12-2006 11:47 AM SR71 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Chiroptera, posted 06-12-2006 6:19 PM subbie has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1368 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 21 of 95 (329107)
07-05-2006 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mr_matrix
07-04-2006 2:34 PM


Re: More Fantasies!
In other words, ignore the details and stick to a dogmatic belief in evolution no matter how many opposing evidences you might face. If evolution is stuck on some details then how can you accept the bigger image? Other scientific theories can be demonstrated, experimented and proven. But evolution is more like a belief system rather than a clearly demonstrated and proven fact.
You know, it's easy to pretend you've responded to someone if you ignore the main point and pick one sentence fragment to reply to. Answer this, if you can:
The ToE is a vital, important scientific theory because of the vast number of questions that it can answer. If you choose to reject it because it hasn't yet explained every detail of ever possible question in the field of natural history, you might as well reject every other science as well. That's an impossible standard.
I said that creationism and intelligent design don't explain anything. You replied,
Realy? Creationism is simple: There is intellegent design all over nature and has to be the product of an intellegent creator. But the ToE relies totally on blind and unconcious chances and mechanisms that can only provide and imaginary way of discarding the intellegent design in nature, but it fall far short of replacing intellegent design. And you call it a logical theory!!
That doesn't explain anything. Creationism certainly is simple, but it is devoid of explanatory power. You ask any question about the natural world and the only answer creationism has is, "Goddit." That doesn't explain why marsupials are only found in Australia. That doesn't explain why the panda, which needs an opposible thumb to eat, doesn't have one. That doesn't explain why fossils have been found in the Antarctic, and it certainly doesn't explain why the particular fossils that were found were there.
Before we can rationally discard the ToE, there has to be a better theory to replace it. Please explain to me how a theory that explains nothing is better than a theory that explains a lot.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mr_matrix, posted 07-04-2006 2:34 PM mr_matrix 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