History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum Lockedcreationism or evolution

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 29>
Poll Question: which do you believe is right and why
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
12 [16.67%]
47 [65.28%]
13 [18.06%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
bgturk View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 04-Jun-2007
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 80
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bgturk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Dec-2007 at 09:07
Originally posted by JanusRook JanusRook wrote:


Really? Because I'd like to know where it was proven? Which laboratory has duplicated the results of evolution?

Laboratory experimentation does not have to be the sole source of verifcation for science. Scientists cannot simulate the collision of galaxies or black holes in laboratory environments, but hardly anyone dismisses Newton's theory of gravity and modern Atrophysics on those grounds. Evolution is similar because of the time scale in which occurs it cannot be directly demonstrated in a lab and is based on indirect observational evidence.

Quote
What do I think? I think that neither evolution or creationism is right and that more money should be spent researching alternative theories.

Can you cite any credible articles published in peer-reviewed journals that support your assertions about evolution and use that as evidence to dispute its overall validity? I doubt that you will find any.

Also I find comparing evolution with creationism to be a deceptive tactic employed by creationists in other to give some credibility to their nonsensical theory. Creationism is not a scientific theory, as unlike evolution it is not verifiable. Every scientific theory should provide empirical and observational tests that can prove it wrong. Creationists provide no such tests, they merely assert their beliefs as a dogma. In this respect creationism has far more in common with religion than any resemblance of science. It is not surprising that the desperate attempts to rebrandish it into the "intelligence design" theory all ended miserably in utter failure.

A good review of the myths of the evolution vs creationism debate is
Quote
  • Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate. by Tim M. Berra
Author(s) of Review: Michael Zimmerman
The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Mar., 1991), pp. 77-78


found here
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0033-5770(199103)66%3A1%3C77%3AEATMOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

I will post the article here later if I get the chance .

Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Dec-2007 at 11:01

I wonder how long it takes for some people to realiye that scientific theories are consistent yet they are not complete.

For example, Newton's mechanics are not inconsistent it just can't give explanations to everything. That doesn't mean it doesn't work. Actually, most of our activities are done using it. If an engineer calculates the dimensions of a beam he would not use quantum physics he would just use Newton's derived old and reliable formulae. I'm sure sir Isaac himself would understand Einstein, yet he would not have sufficient logical arguments to agree with a so called "creation theory" or "intelligent design". The later seems to be the great discovery for religious people to sustain their beliefs. Yet it is so obviously based on a circular logic path.
Nowadays computers are almost on the verge to turn into real AIs. Who would they see as Creator: mankind or God? And what would be their equivalent of the Genesis and the Decalogue? 
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1116
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Dec-2007 at 11:06
For something to evoluate, it first have to exist.

For something to exist, it should be an explanation.

Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 07:39
Originally posted by Menumorut Menumorut wrote:

For something to evoluate, it first have to exist.

For something to exist, it should be an explanation.
Existance doesn't need an explanation. To explain things that exist is somethings we humans do. I doubt a bacteria is very much preocupied with the fact that there is a Creator or not.
So, religion is an explanation, generated by humans, of the existance.
Evolution is a theory and a process. The theory attempts to explain the process. It is not complete, since it can't be if trying to remain consistent.
 
I'm not hanging on to the idea of the beginning like so many do. Beyond Big Bang was something but by now we have not a very good idea what. As long as our knowledge will evolve, eventually there would be an explanation for BBB. (A) God is all that we have right know but ... 
 
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 07:58
Cezar, I have my doubts our knowledge will ever go beyond Big Bang (basically the current paradigm holds that everything we can notice empyrically was created then, so unless there's some yet hidden "feature" of the universe, we can't see what was before that First Cause). The religious epistemology replaces Big Bang with a Beginning (a Creation, sometimes refered also as Beginning of Time). Actually one of the early proponents of Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest and the theory in its early years was met with much suspicion from the contemporary scholars, seeing in it a reminescence of the Christian doctrine.
 
However, the problem of origins and the problem of evolution are distinct. The equivalent of Creation are Big Bang, the formation of solar system, the path from anorganic matter to life, etc., the evolutionism on the other hand is mirrored by the theory of creationism (intelligent design).
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1116
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 08:05
Quote Existance doesn't need an explanation. To explain things that exist is somethings we humans do.
....
I'm not hanging on to the idea of the beginning like so many do. Beyond Big Bang was something but by now we have not a very good idea what. As long as our knowledge will evolve, eventually there would be an explanation for BBB. (A) God is all that we have right know but ..


If you cann't explain the prime cause of the things, then all other explanations are not serious. Is like you try to explain what is happening in a magic show without taking that it can be an illusion.

Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 11:05

Quote If you cann't explain the prime cause of the things, then all other explanations are not serious. Is like you try to explain what is happening in a magic show without taking that it can be an illusion.

There are two answers to that:
a) this argument is self-defeating. Since you can't explain the first cause (or do you? please do!) all your arguments (explanations) are not serious, including the one that the inability to explain the first cause makes all explanations not serious.
b) the argument in itself begs the question. Not serious for what? Do we want metaphysics? Many don't. So why would someone care for a first cause, as long as he's only interested in how to bake a bread, to play chess, to launch a shuttle in space, etc. - there explanations are serious enough to guarantee with a good enough accuracy that the bread is baked, that the chess game is won, that the shuttle is launched.
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1116
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 13:21
I'm not aiming for building a strong system, just want sincerely to know the truth about existence. Is common sense to look for the prime cause because anything else is relative.
What do you want, to take something as true only because is confortable?

Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 13:32
Menumorut, what is truth? Tell me one true thing and why is it so, and we'll see how much sense is to talk about existence or first cause or anything at all in such a way.

On the other hand if you deny a priori the usefulness of knowledge, one cannot wonder why are you discussing this with us in the first place? Why do you argue on history topics? Why do you spend your intellect with such "non-serious" activities?
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 12-Dec-2007 at 13:37
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1116
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 15:11
The truth is that what is existing. If you take some images (senzorial, ideatic) as truth you surely are wrong. You have to understand the nature of the images, even in a medical/biological way. These images are only in your conscience, they doesn't exist somewhere else.

Their cause you don't know. You may presume that they are coresponding to some physical things, but a better explanation is that they are simulated only in your conscience. Because if these images exist then a spiritual being (you) is existing and if spiritual beings exist than the Principle of existence cann't be material.


I do not deny the usefulness of knowledge, on contrary, I dedicate most of my time to study. But I see it not as revealing the secrets of existence. It constitutes (this knowledge) a medium which is not the truth but help us to build a way of orientating ourselves when analysing things.

Edited by Menumorut - 12-Dec-2007 at 17:49

Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 17:29
And how can you estabilish an existence in the first place? Not through perceptions (i.e. images)? For medicine, biology, etc. you don't need perceptions, or in other words empyrical experiments? You'll see that going down the spiral, at one point you'll have to trust your senses, the empyrical. Otherwise nothing can build up at all. You can't even bake that bread I was talking about earlier.
 
The belief that things are just simulated in our conscience is another self-defeating belief. When making this statement one'll be in one of the following two cases:
a) in reality the things are not simulated -> the belief is false
b) in reality the things are simulated; but then in this case the belief is no longer about real things, real consciences, real simulations (which are unknown to the one having that thought), but about simulated things, consciences, simulation, and thus it cannot say anything about reality
 
I can agree with your approach on knowledge. At the same time I do not make claims on absolute truths. Nor honest science does. What I do not understand is how the attempt of knowing a part of this world (let it be evolutionism), without understanding that first cause (or whatever absolute truth) can be reduced to non-serious knowledge. This is the only knowledge we can operate with. You seem somehow to imply there's some serious knowledge we do not purchase but I do not see it at all. What am I missing?


Edited by Chilbudios - 12-Dec-2007 at 17:30
Back to Top
Ponce de Leon View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Really Hot Stuff

Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2975
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ponce de Leon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 17:34
I think we should take solace in the fact that, in the end, we know nothing about anything.
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1116
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 17:59
If you aspire at truth, you should build nothing. Any "building" is wrong.

The logic cann't acces the truth, it only is speculating ideas.

I didn't sayed that the study of the nature is not serious but that explaining why something happening while ignoring the ultimate cause.

Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 19:42
Menumorut it doesn't make any sense. If any "building" is wrong, then so it was what you said here. So what are you saying? That we should not pay attention to you because all you say is crap? Or ... ?
Okay, you could reply that what I say is crap, but this is not actually the point. The point is that one holding a position like yours cannot prove his position. Thus he has no position, nothing to say.
 
You, earlier: "If you cann't explain the prime cause of the things, then all other explanations are not serious". The study of the nature does not and can not explain the first / prime cause. So, unless you have changed your mind meanwhile, you did say the study of the nature is not serious.


Edited by Chilbudios - 12-Dec-2007 at 19:42
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1116
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 20:33
What I have sayed was usualy against the "buildings". You talk about positions, I think you introduce something artificial and unnecesary.


The study of the nature is correct if is limiting to describe the observed laws.

Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 22:52

A position is built. I do not understand your objection, unless you had in mind some concrete buildings, brick buildings or some particular case on which I applied fallaciously a generalization. Since we earlier talked about "truths" I assumed you mean any type of building, and especially buildings of ideas, buildings which lead to conclusions which for some people are equivalent to truths.

I do not understand your criterion of defining the study of the nature. A theory like evolutionism is based on several laws. Are you saying there's some incorrect type of knowledge in the transition from a set of laws to a scientific theory? Or maybe you mean something else when you say "laws"?
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1116
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 23:03
Is true I too am using ideas, but they are actualy anti-idea ideas. So, the oposite of this kind of atitude is promoting ideas or making speculations or building systems of theories. I try to be objective.

In nature there are some laws that are invariably manifesting. These laws can have any cause. The science is making a mistake when it's says that their cause is the energy of the elementary particles of the atom. Because the connection between the suposed energy of these particles and the more macro phenomena is arbitrary.

Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 23:52

The scientific ideas actually have always anti-ideas, because one necessary criterion of science is falsifiability. I cannot help noticing how you keep excepting your own beliefs from the criteria you pontificate to validate human knowledge. You may try to be objective, but you end up in being hypocritical. 

And I see you weren't talking about laws, but about phenomena. Science makes mistakes, no doubt, but it has this mechanism called "scientific method" to correct mistakes or at least to make sure the mistakes are correctable. You on the other hand make mistakes and you have no chance to realize this in such a dogmatic approach.
When the arbitrary occurs in a scientific argument (theory) it is specified as such. When it doesn't, then the arbitrary works only at a really low level, let' s call it paradigmatic, but so far I haven't seen any succesful paradigm shift (well, you may still believe you live in a simulated world, but it's an argument which simply doesn't hold; maybe you have some other suggestions).
 
My conclusion is that the objections against science in this thread (and against evolutionism in particular) are rather misunderstandings of how things really work.


Edited by Chilbudios - 12-Dec-2007 at 23:53
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1116
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 00:28
Which are my ideas about you are talking? I sayed that we should not credit our perceptions. What is wrong with this?

What is the reason for crediting our sensations and ideas?


About arbitrary in science: the arbitrary refers to the idea that there is a cause-effect relation between the phenomena in nature. Is not. At a muppets theatre can be simulated that one puppet hits other one and that one falls, but is not true. The science cann't prove that there is such relation. The fact that the same law is manifested each time when the same sort of phenomenon occurs, doesn't mean the cause is an interaction etc.

Science, I mean scientists and their adepts, believe that it can explain what and why is happening in the material world. It discovered some rules which until now almost allways applied, but if tomorrow one of these laws or more will cease to apply?


Back to Top
Brian J Checco View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Eli Manning

Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 926
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brian J Checco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 01:38
Flying Spaghetti Monster? Anyone?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 29>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.