Gatts
Joined: Jun 18, 2004
|
 Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 19:41 |
 
|
| Quote: |
See, Mezir, I've gone there, but all that means is that the order of events or species appearance has been mis-interpreted, and needs to be re-thought, it doesn't de-bunk the idea.
|
Quote Mac
I think some understanding is needed in what happens and what should happen when something is diwscovered that seems to be a problem for a generally accepted scientific theory.
First of all I'd like to use an analogy with the world of physics, and as i've said before: This isnt my forte so if some phycisist out there'd like to correct me when i go wrong i'd be delighted.
Newtonian and Einsteinian physics doesnt seem to work when applied to quantum effects. This is a well know fact and still phycisists all over the world stick to the theory of relativity and the theory of gravity, true there are people working with the problem but they do not abandon the theory alltogether. Why don't they.. they seem to have been disproven.. relativity predicts one thing, something else happens.
The reason they don't is ofcourse since it's such a usefull and good theory in all other aspects, it works so to speak and .. we have nothing else. If someone came along with a slick theory that explained as much as relativism/newton does and also explains the quantomproblem.. sure then I bet evrybody would be glad to tag along for the ride. But to simply discard the theory is unthinkable.
And yet that's what's beeing done to the theory of evolution by Creationists. If a rabbit skeleton was found in the yadayada period it would be a problem for the current theory of evolution, and scientists would undoubtedly search for explanations. They would have, as you say rethink the order of species appearance or alter the theory in some other way. Or better yet, when that rabbit skeleton is found, why not ask a creationist to supply them with a better alternative. But as long as all they have to offer is: god made it so (the erquivalent in our phycsics example of saying: Things stay up becasue they want to)
the scientists will (and they should) stick with the theory of evolution.
Go ahead, make a suggestion present the scientific community with a better alternative and I'm sure they'll jump on it. I know i would, but so far what I've seen of creationism isn't it. |
Last edited by Gatts on %b %06, %2006 - %19:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
torsoboy
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 19:51 |
|
| Macavity wrote: | Darwin's actual has been dis-proven. We are not saying we are smarter, but there is a much larger base of information on genetics to work with now. Darwin theorized that the changes made to an individual during their lifetime would effect the genetic material they passed on (to put it REALLY simply), a fellow named Lanark refined that a LONG LONG time ago.
Plato thought the world was flat, I'm not claiming to be smarter than him when I say it's not. |
Yes, we got off the Lamarck train some time ago. Darwin had no idea how heredity really worked, luckily, we do now (thanks to Mendel's work on genetics). Now, I hope you're not playing the "Darwin was wrong on one thing, so the whole deal is flawed" card. Science works by improving upon existing ideas, and rejecting theories that are known to be disproven.
Whereas evolution has tons of evidence backing it up, religion has almost none. Playing the "both sides need faith" doesn't really fly with me. It almost becomes solipsistic to pull such extremes. |
|
|
SnakeSanders
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 20:00 |
|
not going to really comment on this thread, as Im comfortable with my own faith (believe it or not I support the idea of macroevolution, and I also believe that the world wasnt created in 7 days, but thats off topic!)
I do agree with Mnemon that we are unlikely to be intelligent eough to grasp some of the more complicated aspects of creationism and evolution, there will be things we cant explain, Im just intetested, not going to try to convert anyone, but what would you do/think if it was proved tomorrow that creationism was true? Would you reject it? I could elaborate here, but im not going to because of time constraints and I forget my train of thought because of my bad short term memory! I dont want to flame
Rob |
|
|
Mnemon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 20:07 |
|
Have to add to that that us being part of the system is the thing that is important. I think it is not too hard to understand a lot of the rules, and really perceive them from outside of a system (though you'll never understand what it "feels like" to be part of it), but impossible for someone within the system. It's sort of like a 2-D stick man trying to understand the concept of a 3-D (or even 4-D) space. Might be able to guess and perceive a lot, but getting to the grounds and ends of it ... not that convinced.
[Mind you, ain't Christian, but just not an utterly faithful believer in the ultimate truth and power of science either.]
-Mnemon |
|
|
ibambe
Joined: Jun 27, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 20:08 |
|
The universe and all in it were created by Nuffle in 11 days.
Anyone who says different, will be promptly smote by a righteous deluge of double and triple skulls. |
|
|
fen
Joined: Sep 10, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 20:08 |
|
| brownrob wrote: | | but what would you do/think if it was proved tomorrow that creationism was true? |
I'd start worshiping the flying spaghetti monster. Seriously. |
|
|
Blackcrag
Joined: Jul 02, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 20:08 |
|
The french biologist/Nobel prize winner Jacques Lucien Monod once proposed that religious faith could be explained with the theory of the "survival-of-the-fittest" in that the religion helps uniting the tribal society - so religious persons (of the same faith) would naturally cooperate more with one another, thus helping them survive in general and excel in competition with other tribes in particular...
Now was that an attempt to unite Creationism with Darwinism? I don't know about you but i find it easier for me believe in this than in Zen-Buddhism - not that either "faith" seems likely to me though... |
|
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 20:12 |
|
Wowzers... I enter into a debate I don't care about out of boredom, and am magically accused of holding every bone-headed view on evolution present since the dawn of time. If you read carefully, I've never stated my opinion on it in this thread. All I'm trying to say, is that someone who is determined to believe in it, cannot be dissuaded anymore than a creationist. So far, only Mezir has reponded to that, and (for the reasons I've stated) I'm not convinced the appearance of said rabbit would dissuade.
I AM NOT suggesting that the entire process is bunk, or that there is no evidence for it, there is in fact copious evidence it has happened.
Thanks for the correction on Lamarck.
Once again, not claiming that science takes as much faith as religion, not, in fact discussing either. I'm talking about Creation and Evolution which, in my mind, are fully compatible ideas, and presenting the idea that a person who chooses to belief one or the other cannot be dissuaded. That's all.
/me leaves large amount of space between self and anti-evolutionists. |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 20:23 |
|
I think it has become clear that i don't believe that creation and evolution are compatible.
To the rabbit example: to prove creation would be a revolution in science, indeed it would be the death of the scientific method. As such, a rabbit is rather unlikely to be the cause for that. More probable is that the creator reveals itself and shows itself to the whole of mankind. That would be proof, and that would never be rejected.
I know that Brownrob didn't want to flame, but his question can indeed be insulting to a scientist. He asks wether something proven would be rejected. To a scientist, that is a rethorical question - and not very a polite one by the implicit underlying meaning. |
|
|
torsoboy
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 20:26 |
|
| brownrob wrote: | not going to really comment on this thread, as Im comfortable with my own faith (believe it or not I support the idea of macroevolution, and I also believe that the world wasnt created in 7 days, but thats off topic!)
I do agree with Mnemon that we are unlikely to be intelligent eough to grasp some of the more complicated aspects of creationism and evolution, there will be things we cant explain, Im just intetested, not going to try to convert anyone, but what would you do/think if it was proved tomorrow that creationism was true? Would you reject it? I could elaborate here, but im not going to because of time constraints and I forget my train of thought because of my bad short term memory! I dont want to flame
Rob |
How would creationism be proved? It would involve prove of the existance of the creating deity at the time of creation. Which would defeat the whole idea of faith, which is the foundation of religion.
Now, the most fanatic proponents of ID seem to be all christians. If creationism IS true, then it seems to me that it CANNOT be the christian/judeo god, because the Old Testament is full of contradicting facts. However, I see a lot of effort is put into applying "science" to events in the OT. I saw a presentation of Kent Hovind's the other day, and he claimed people and animals were bigger and lived way longer in the beginning than they do now; which accounts for dinosaurs (simply very long lived and old lizards). It was very amusing.
I would be the first to say I would embrace creationism wholeheartedly if it was proven true, but I can't see that happening. Evolution, as a theory is so powerfully coherent to me, that it would take heaps, tons, libraries of proof to "convert" me. The counterarguments to evolution have been found meaningless time and again. Most of it were just plain illogical.
If we aren't keeping ourselves to logic, then yes, you could claim some deity was the cause of everything, but then I could claim that same deity is a celestial Chinese tea pot. If we are to use logic, it seems to me that evolution has more going for it, as an explanation to how life became how it is, than any creation theory. |
|
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 20:26 |
|
Sorry, F_alk, gotta jump on you there..... How would proof of creation kill the scientific method?
Torsoboy.... Anyone who says the Bible is meant to be read literally, or as a book of science is clinically insane. Refer them to me, and I will explain to them why. |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
torsoboy
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 20:30 |
|
| Macavity wrote: |
Once again, not claiming that science takes as much faith as religion, not, in fact discussing either. I'm talking about Creation and Evolution which, in my mind, are fully compatible ideas, and presenting the idea that a person who chooses to belief one or the other cannot be dissuaded. That's all.
/me leaves large amount of space between self and anti-evolutionists. |
Well, you are right on that. If one really really wants to believe, there's nothing that can be done to persuade him or her otherwise. |
|
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 20:33 |
|
Ok, now, should we wish, I can discuss the problems with both ideas with my new friend Torsoboy! Do ya wanna?  |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis
Last edited by Macavity on %b %06, %2006 - %20:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
PeteW
Joined: Aug 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 20:35 |
|
I'm a Christian, and I'd also class myself as a kind of scientist (at least, I have a PhD in mathematical medicine...)
Now I believe that God created the world. I don't however, claim to know exactly how he did it - that would be a bit arrogant and presumptuous imo.
My views on evolution do not see how it can disprove God (as I believe Dawkins tries to assert, although I may be wrong here) but I do not believe that it can be a complete theory yet. Let me explain what I mean...
Newton's theory of gravity was all well and good as a model for how things worked. But some things didn't fit and Einstein worked out a new model with his theory of relativity. Then comes along quantum physics and relativity doesn't hold there. So, theories are good models for how things work and happen, but to some extent all models are wrong, some just more wrong than others!
Hence, I think it would be a mistake to claim the the theory of evolution solves everything. There are plenty of holes and gaps and places where it doesn't work but that doesn't matter since the theory itself is also evolving with time.
Now if God used evolution to create his world then well done God, but we have a long way to go before we can understand his creation as well as he does! ;P
I'm rambling now, so I'll stop, but I would encourage people to take God seriously, not write him off, since I do not think that science and God are incompatible!
Have fun everyone! |
_________________
"Jesus loves me this I know, 'cos my Bible tells me so." MrMojo - where did you go? |
|
f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 20:38 |
|
| Macavity wrote: | | Sorry, F_alk, gotta jump on you there..... How would proof of creation kill the scientific method? |
In very short words (there is a game i want to watch  ):
"uncaused cause" vs. "cause-and-effect" |
|
|
|
|
| |
Why did GW nerf guar...
Search
