TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- how would someon that doesn't believe in evolution explain why children aren't...
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by jdat MisterOpus1 and others, I guess it's impossible to voice an opinion on this matter without single-handedly being classified as for or against the concept of evolution ( and subsequently a religious fanatic if you believe in procreation ).

Oh I wouldn't go there just yet. In fact, I wasn't about to go there at all. You haven't voiced such religious overtones to me pertaining to this topic, so I have no reason to bring it up to you in return. I do get the feeling, however, that you have a bit of a misunderstanding on evolutionary theory itself and the concepts and supporting research within. I offer my help on this matter if you wish.

quote:

By my comment "It's just a theory" I was not trying to disqualify any possibilities of it being valid or not but I was simply pointing out that there is still much research to be done on the subject before the scientific community, and the rest of the world can fully understand and guarantee the validity of the concept.

The validity of the concept is not in question by the scientific community for a very good reason - it has been shown to be quite valid with testing, retesting, predictability, and falsifiability. It is one of if not the most soundest of scientific discoveries because of its validity. If you have any specific questions pertaining to its validity, I'll try my best to walk through them with you.

quote:

Lastly I can't help but point out the ironical behavior of the biological evolutionary community being firm in stating their belief is a fact as a proof that religious groups views simply aren't ( facts ).

This is no dispute about religious concepts of historical natural phenomena not because it merely goes against the "belief" of evolution, but because those tenets of evolution have been proven beyond reasonable doubt so many countless times that there simply is no longer a question of it. Those religious notions, however, have been easily discounted and have shown no validity when further scrutinized with scientific methodology. One cannot hold a religious "belief" that has no valid evidence to support it in the same manner as a firmly based theory with literally hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed papers to support it.

But that is why the former is a "belief", while the latter is not. That's not to say that the "belief" is necessarily incorrect or that it did not occur. But it does say that in the natural world those beliefs simply do not have enough evidence to merit validity. They very well may have occurred with supernatural assistance, but by invoking the supernatural we are stepping outside of science itself which relies solely on natural phenomena. This is a simple distiniction that often gets overlooked.

quote:

Isn't science there to help and solve problems and conduct full research? Isn't it there to question, prove and dispell common misconceptions?

Absolutely. What misconceptions do you have?

quote:

The tools needed to be able to come to a full consensus on this aren't available yet ( such as showing the significance of the genes shared between human and animal species ).

Actually that significance of shared genes has been verified quite well. The beauty of evolutionary theory in historical perspective was that prior to genetics and molecular biology advancements in the 50's and 60's, the theory had a number of predictions that could not be demononstrated just yet. But thanks to genetics and our advancements of technology, examining the genes closer accelerated evolutionary theory and held all predictions as valid.

These three pages are a good primer for this discussion if interested:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html

quote:

Tomorrow and the day after might just tell us the truth Ps: I'm not against the idea of debating evolution ( altough I honestly don't care that much for it ) but on the matter of it being a theory I can't see how it can be named otherwise when you yourselves call it that

To which I'm happy to do so. You seemingly have a notion that calling something a "theory" somehow weakens the argument itself. In biological science a theory is really the strongest argument that holds validity with much evidence to support it. The same is true for astronomy (gravity is just a theory too, just like quantum), geology (techtonic plate shifting, rock dating), geography (pangaea anyone?), and so on. All of these "theories" are simply the best explanation of events occurring or have occurred based on the supporting evidence given. Evolution is no different, but again keep in mind that it is evidence-driven just like any other scientific theory. The same cannot be held true for any religious ideas in the historical perspective, at least in the natural world.

quote:

Originally posted by jdat MisterOpus1 and others, I guess it's impossible to voice an opinion on this matter without single-handedly being classified as for or against the concept of evolution ( and subsequently a religious fanatic if you believe in procreation ). By my comment "It's just a theory" I was not trying to disqualify any possibilities of it being valid or not but I was simply pointing out that there is still much research to be done on the subject before the scientific community, and the rest of the world can fully understand and guarantee the validity of the concept. Lastly I can't help but point out the ironical behavior of the biological evolutionary community being firm in stating their belief is a fact as a proof that religious groups views simply aren't ( facts ). Isn't science there to help and solve problems and conduct full research? Isn't it there to question, prove and dispell common misconceptions? The tools needed to be able to come to a full consensus on this aren't available yet ( such as showing the significance of the genes shared between human and animal species ). Tomorrow and the day after might just tell us the truth Ps: I'm not against the idea of debating evolution ( altough I honestly don't care that much for it ) but on the matter of it being a theory I can't see how it can be named otherwise when you yourselves call it that

I never said it was a "fact", nor did I say that you did.

I was simply saying that it is NOT as full of holes are you seem to think, and I was stating that you think this most likely because of misunderstanding and lack of substance.

Have you read Origin of the Species? No?

Start there.

Then remember that it's over 100 years old.

Take a look at where the original idea has gone from there til now.

Take a look at what we're doing with genetics. Take a look at the how and why.

There are no facts.

And there is no such thing as coincidence.


PS: I also think its amazing to look at the evolutionary adaptability of organisms not just over generations and millennia, but also within a single organism's lifetime.

You drink too much coffee or liquor? Your body will adapt, and fast. You got prescribed new medication? Start slow, get off it slow, and your body will adapt to it. Moved to a new location with different plants, altitude, and content in the air? No problem!

And don't get me started on how amazingly adaptive our cognitive psychology is. It is a most intricate self-programmed, self-propagating engine!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.