Evolution vs Intelligent design/creationism

[DavidFirth]

You have double standards and your position is inconsistent. I pointed that out, as I would anyone else I was conversing with. Your being Christian has very little, if anything, to do with it.

You haven't pointed anything out except for the fact that you prefer materialism over spiritualism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Even science admits that NOTHING is 100% certain, nothing is 100% provable, and that nothing is 100% exact.

On the contrary most people of faith I know acknowledge their faith as such.

This often doesn't apply to other beliefs

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact..."

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

 

[SkepticThinker]

You haven't pointed anything out except for the fact that you prefer materialism over spiritualism.

Actually I did in posts #204, 205 and 211. Someone else pointed it out to you in post #196. Your response did not address any of them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

On the contrary most people of faith I know acknowledge their faith as such.

This often doesn't apply to other beliefs

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact..."

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

He's right. Evolution is a demonstrable fact.

 

[DavidFirth]

Actually I did in posts #204, 205 and 211. Someone else pointed it out to you in post #196. Your response did not address any of them.

That's because your points were sad attempts at making points at best.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

He's right. Evolution is a demonstrable fact.

^ that's my point, academic opinion often claims scientific absolutes in inherently speculative areas; The claim serves in lieu of evidence. The bones of Piltdown man belonged together 'without question'.


When we forbid questioning, nothing could be further from the scientific method

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's because your points were sad attempts at making points at best.

A second ago you said they didn't exist.

You seem to contradict yourself often.

 

[SkepticThinker]

^ that's my point, academic opinion often claims scientific absolutes in speculative areas; The bones of Piltdown man belonged together 'without question'.


When we forbid questioning, nothing could be further from the scientific method

Who said anything about forbidding questioning?

 

[DavidFirth]

A second ago you said they didn't exist.

You seem to contradict yourself often.

I seem a lot of things. The truth is what matters. Science by itself will never discover truth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I seem a lot of things. The truth is what matters. Science by itself will never discover truth.

You don't get to truth by contradicting yourself and holding double standards.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Who said anything about forbidding questioning?

Forbidding questioning the theory as a whole, once you claim fact- you believe the theory is 'undeniable'. hence the problem is perceived to be with the person questioning the theory- not the theory itself-
a great way to halt scientific progress in it's tracks

]
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane [or wicked]

^ I think he's a reasonably intelligent guy, just wrong

 

[Jose Fly]

]
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane [or wicked]

^ I think he's a reasonably intelligent guy, just wrong

Dawkins is right in both cases. Evolution is a fact because we see it happen, right before our eyes, every single day. Pretty much every population of organisms we study evolves (they only way they wouldn't is if they replicated themselves perfectly forever). So anyone who denies that repeatedly observed reality is just as ignorant, stupid, or insane as someone who denies erosion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Forbidding questioning the theory as a whole, once you claim fact- you believe the theory is 'undeniable'. hence the problem is perceived to be with the person questioning the theory- not the theory itself-
a great way to halt scientific progress in it's tracks

]
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane [or wicked]

^ I think he's a reasonably intelligent guy, just wrong

Evolution and the theory of evolution are not the same thing. Organisms evolve, that's a fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation for that observation. I don't think I've ever seen anybody say that the proposed mechanisms should not be open to questioning, given that scientists do it all the time.

 

[DavidFirth]

You don't get to truth by contradicting yourself and holding double standards.

I'm glad you at least know that much.

So how will you get truth without having to worry about somebody changing your theory or coming up with a better one?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolution and the theory of evolution are not the same thing. Organisms evolve, that's a fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation for that observation. I don't think I've ever seen anybody say that the proposed mechanisms should not be open to questioning, given that scientists do it all the time.

Organisms show some ability to adapt yes, and the make-up of life has changed in the remote past. If we widen the definition to this, then of course we don't disagree, neither does the book of Genesis.

But I'm glad you agree, skeptics of Darwinism have perfectly valid scientific reasons to be skeptical, but some here do often insist otherwise.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm glad you at least know that much.

You should probably think a littler harder about it yourself.

So how will you get truth without having to worry about somebody changing your theory or coming up with a better one?

The best method that human beings have come up with to help us obtain the most knowledge about the world we live has been the scientific method. It's the reasons we've come so far in such a short period of time. It's the reason for the burst of knowledge we've attained just within the last 200 years or so.

I don't know of any other way. Reading words from ancient texts written by people who knew far less about the world they lived in than we do now hasn't turned out to be the most effective method in obtaining objective truths about the universe. It might be great for spiritual enlightenment and all that, but it's not so great for building on knowledge. Observation, experimentation, repetition, etc. lead us down the road to knowledge, rather than old books that never change.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Organisms show some ability to adapt yes, and the make-up of life has changed in the remote past. If we widen the definition to this, then of course we don't disagree, neither does the book of Genesis.

But I'm glad you agree, skeptics of Darwinism have perfectly valid scientific reasons to be skeptical, but some here do often insist otherwise.

I said nothing about "Darwinism" and I don't know what you mean by that.

Of course scientific theories aren't written in stone. There is still plenty of discussion going on about the specific mechanisms involved in evolution.

 

[DavidFirth]

You should probably think a littler harder about it yourself.


The best method that human beings have come up with to help us obtain the most knowledge about the world we live has been the scientific method. It's the reasons we've come so far in such a short period of time. It's the reason for the burst of knowledge we've attained just within the last 200 years or so.

I don't know of any other way. Reading words from ancient texts written by people who knew far less about the world they lived in than we do now hasn't turned out to be the most effective method in obtaining objective truths about the universe. It might be great for spiritual enlightenment and all that, but it's not so great for building on knowledge. Observation, experimentation, repetition, etc. lead us down the road to knowledge, rather than old books that never change.

It's been several thousand years and your way still comes up short.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I said nothing about "Darwinism" and I don't know what you mean by that.

Of course scientific theories aren't written in stone. There is still plenty of discussion going on about the specific mechanisms involved in evolution.

It's a pretty commonly known theory; Darwin's theory of evolution? Darwinian theory?, Neo-Darwinism some might call it today if you prefer?- But 'Darwinism ' is the generally accepted catch all

Darwinism - Wikipedia

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory

There are valid scientific doubts about the entire premise of Darwinism of course, it is not 'undeniable fact' as some insist

So I think we agree on this?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's been several thousand years and your way still comes up short.

Nope. What advancements in knowledge have we obtained from reading ancient holy texts that come anywhere close to matching everything we have gleaned using the scientific method?