Re:To debunk some of the myths on this debate...
on
Growing New Cartilage
·
· Score: 1
Not sure if all of this went up the first time, apologies for any repetition:
>The evidence I have seen just doesn't make it a "slam dunk" theory (and it is a theory, isn't it?).>
Science isn't in the business of proving things for all time, wrapping them in boxes, and moving on. It is dynamic--not dogmatic like religion, etc. Conclusions can only be reached within the context of available data, and as the data changes (constantly) the appropriate conclusions change.
By the way, the word "theory," as used by scientists rather than their would-be discreditors, refers to a statement which is generalizable, and contains no reflection of degree of certainty.
>For instance, there is evidence supporting the claim that creatures are becoming more and more specialized. Over time, this is not a survival trait>
The use of niches was how evolution was discovered in the first place.
>It is a theory. Just like the Earth is flat, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that you can't go faster than sound, etc.>
Ah, so some self-styled scientists once believed that the earth was flat, and they turned out to be wrong, therefore all science is invalid. Airtight logic, that.
Re:To debunk some of the myths on this debate...
on
Growing New Cartilage
·
· Score: 1
>>The evidence I have seen just doesn't make it a "slam dunk" theory (and it is a theory, isn't it?).>For instance, there is evidence supporting the claim that creatures are becoming more and more specialized. Over time, this is not a survival trait>. It is a theory. Just like the Earth is flat, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that you can't go faster than sound, etc.> Theories can be disproved. Just because I don't agree with your theory doesn't make me "anti-science".
If I were to present a theory with no evidence, and no one in the scientific community agreed with my theory after careful examination, and you disagreed with it, you would indeed be very PRO-science. However, to argue that evolution is anything but an exhaustively documented, logically brilliant principle upon which all biology is based is to disagree with every reputable member of the scientific community and, more importantly, the objective data. It is to slap the face of reason and pervert the very concept of fact.
Re:To debunk some of the myths on this debate...
on
Growing New Cartilage
·
· Score: 1
>>I am simply stating that the Evolutionary theory is simply taken on faith just as Creation theory is. >Neither of us was there to witness the 'birth' of humanity, be it sudden creation or a gradual evolution out of an ape-like stage of development.> Evolution OR Creation/= science -- that's all I'm saying so quit flaming people for their beliefs.
The fact that someone "believes" something doesn't make it inviolate...even the two of us could find many examples throughout history or the present day that we would agree to be incorrect beliefs.
Re:To debunk some of the myths on this debate...
on
Growing New Cartilage
·
· Score: 1
>>Now, I style myself a pretty strict Biblical Creationist>although I may not believe in Evolution...I whole-heartedly endorse science
You don't get to "not believe" in parts of science (a phraseology which belies a total misunderstanding of science) and then claim to be pro-science. This statement is analogous to "I don't belive that my cat is white, but I sure do think that all cats are white!" It's an internal contradiction--the most basic form of logical error.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure if all of this went up the first time, apologies for any repetition:
>The evidence I have seen just doesn't make it a "slam dunk" theory (and it is a theory, isn't it?).>
Science isn't in the business of proving things for all time, wrapping them in boxes, and moving on. It is dynamic--not dogmatic like religion, etc. Conclusions can only be reached within the context of available data, and as the data changes (constantly) the appropriate conclusions change.
By the way, the word "theory," as used by scientists rather than their would-be discreditors, refers to a statement which is generalizable, and contains no reflection of degree of certainty.
>For instance, there is evidence supporting the claim that creatures are becoming more and more specialized. Over time, this is not a survival trait>
The use of niches was how evolution was discovered in the first place.
>It is a theory. Just like the Earth is flat, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that you can't go faster than sound, etc.>
Ah, so some self-styled scientists once believed that the earth was flat, and they turned out to be wrong, therefore all science is invalid. Airtight logic, that.
>>The evidence I have seen just doesn't make it a "slam dunk" theory (and it is a theory, isn't it?).>For instance, there is evidence supporting the claim that creatures are becoming more and more specialized. Over time, this is not a survival trait>. It is a theory. Just like the Earth is flat, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that you can't go faster than sound, etc.> Theories can be disproved. Just because I don't agree with your theory doesn't make me "anti-science".
If I were to present a theory with no evidence, and no one in the scientific community agreed with my theory after careful examination, and you disagreed with it, you would indeed be very PRO-science. However, to argue that evolution is anything but an exhaustively documented, logically brilliant principle upon which all biology is based is to disagree with every reputable member of the scientific community and, more importantly, the objective data. It is to slap the face of reason and pervert the very concept of fact.
>>I am simply stating that the Evolutionary theory is simply taken on faith just as Creation theory is. >Neither of us was there to witness the 'birth' of humanity, be it sudden creation or a gradual evolution out of an ape-like stage of development.> Evolution OR Creation /= science -- that's all I'm saying so quit flaming people for their beliefs.
The fact that someone "believes" something doesn't make it inviolate...even the two of us could find many examples throughout history or the present day that we would agree to be incorrect beliefs.
>>Now, I style myself a pretty strict Biblical Creationist>although I may not believe in Evolution...I whole-heartedly endorse science You don't get to "not believe" in parts of science (a phraseology which belies a total misunderstanding of science) and then claim to be pro-science. This statement is analogous to "I don't belive that my cat is white, but I sure do think that all cats are white!" It's an internal contradiction--the most basic form of logical error.