Anyone seriously interested in evaluating the evolution debate -- as opposed to merely attacking it from an a priori position of hostility -- should read these three books: 'Consilience' by Edward O. Wilson 'What Evolution Is' by Ernst Mayr 'Devil's Chaplain' by Richard Dawkins This is not an endorsement of evolution pro or con as much as a suggestion for those who value the pursuit of objective truth. Whether you favor evolution or not, if you enjoy 1) thinking about or 2) debating on the subject (and sadly 2 does not always assume 1), then it is worthwhile to hear and assess what the most eloquent and powerful defenders of the theory have to say.
So, what you mean is: you said it, but you didn't say it word for word as you have now restated it here, and so if I can't quote you exactly as you restate above, then I lose the bet. I won't take that bet. But, I'll demonstrate that what you said in a prior post is substantially the same as what you now deny having said: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...rialization+from+pure+potentiality#post934054 (scroll down to where you are quoted in red) Why not just admiit what you've already admitted: that you think that Darwinism is a lunatic belief system and leave it at that? As you've pointed out, there's no winning any argument here, so why bother trying to obfuscate your views with material falsifications?
I think part of the problem is this: Any controversial theory that aims to describe something amazing will, by definition, sound absurd in certain respects. If there were no absurdities, the theory would not be controversial. If no mind-stretching hypotheses were required, the phenomena being described would not qualify as amazing. So in some sense, when someone says that the theory of evolution is absurd or fantastical, a reasonable response could be "yes, to some degree it has to be. The complexity and diversity of life itself seems absurd and fantastical. This is our best shot at explaining it." Any explanation that exists, and especially an explanation for something as amazing as the richness and diversity of life, will have flaws in it and holes to poke at. There is no genuine position that cannot be attacked or questioned in some way. The only 100% sound position is the position that cannot be questioned at all by dint of its non-falsifiable nature. Which leads to a further problem, namely that many of the alternative theories for the origin of life are not actually theories at all. They are merely assertions. To say that God man made out of whole cloth is not a theory. It is an assertion. You can't do anything with an assertion. You can't test it or examine it or weight it. You just take it or leave it. Until you get some testable hypotheses to work with, all you have is the brute force of rhetoric and opinion. This is not to say that an assertion can't be true; it is possible to hit on a correct answer without having evidence as to why. Nor is it to say that a theory must be true; it is possible to weigh reams of testable hypotheses and still gets the sums wrong. But the difference between theory and asssertion only aggravates an already heated debate that is more rooted in emotion and personal philosophy than either side would care to admit.
I think you're missing the point, despite your extremely thoughtful analysis. I'm not arguing the substance of evolution, Darwinism or any particular Theism. I am arguing about what I view as extremely disingenuous argumentation, that benefits no one and annoys everyone. The originator of this thread is taking an extreme position, by stating, in effect, that the theory of evolution is lunacy, and his position is not supported by any evidence that he presents. The proffered report of a scientific investigation can be said to draw inferences that do not necessarily follow from the experimental data. But, this doesn't make the investigation unscientific, and it absolutely doesn't render the report lunatic. However, a person who advances the premise that a scientific finding is lunatic, because the conclusions drawn don't necessarily follow from the facts, is stretching out to reach for lunacy, because there is nothing lunatic about drawing a reasonable inference from scientific data. I don't suggest that Z is lunatic. I suggest that he intentionally posts an extreme view, that he knows is not supported by the facts, in order to annoy others into arguing with him. Then, when he can't convince his opponent, he resorts to ad hominem attacks in order to drive them away. Precisely why he does this, and routinely so, is unknown to me. But, he does it nevertheless -- and it is quite annoying.
So if you can disprove creationism that makes creationism scientific? The point I am making is that the only dispute that is going on between Darwinism and Creationism is how it all began. Your unwillingness to see that there is a possibility of a link between science and religion shows your unwillingness to look at all of the possibilities out there. A higher being with knowledge that is infinitely greater than ours could have created the universe in a way that we are unable to understand. This is a theory that is just as valid as the Big Bang. Scientists are unable to prove without a doubt that the Big Bang Theory is scientific fact. That is why it is called a theory in the first place. I wonder why scientists are unable to accept the possibility that there is something greater than ourselves out there that made it all happen. By the way, I like how you call it religious dogma when you can not absolutely disprove that God exists. The Big Bang theory then is just Darwinist dogma and deserves no more respect than Creationism.
Ah... so you are angry that Z10 is once again seeking to provoke with his unique brand of bullshit. This is like getting mad at someone from the Ministry of Silly Walks for flinging their legs about, no? The machinations of a madman typically have a kernel of truth to them... usually just enough to infuriate. It was that kernel to which I spoke, for the benefit of those who are open to reason. In regards to He of the Wildly Rotating Ankles, I wholly concur.
I think you will find that creationists would like to suggest there is a lot more than how it all began between them and Darwinism. For the simple reason that Darwin has nothing to say about how it all began. If that is their only dispute, creationists have no dispute. To be a scientific theory, something must be substantiated by more than just assertion or a blind guess . Big Bang Theory Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Darwin's Origin of the Species are widely accepted only because facts and discoveries validate, confirm and support them. Otherwise Big Bang and Einstein and Darwin would have been readily sent to the scrapheap by scientists along with other non scientific propositions like Cold Fusion, Astronomy and Liza Minnelli. There are no facts and discoveries to validate the possibility of a Higher Being so the notion never gets past a blind wild guess, and certainly does not merit the title of theory. As it is just as equally valid to guess there is no Higher Being, the guess there could be one, is left as an assertion without principles. The only available means ever known to offer substantial understanding , expanding knowledge, substantiation and corroboration of what is and might be actually going on, is and has ever been, the scientific method. There simply is nothing else available to do that.
Someone mentioned "objective truth". If there is such a thing, it's got to be the entirety of mass/energy "in" the universe. A subset, think humans, is not going to be able to experience this. We necessarily apply filters to all that potential experience, in accordance with our own natures. This is simply purposive. Knowing that, one can begin to investigate the purpose and assumptions behind competing worldviews. Imho, science and religion serve different purposes. When a loved one dies, we don't run to a scientist, we talk to a preacher. And when we want to understand biochemistry, we ask a scientist.
There simply is nothing else available to do that. Perhaps worded this way, what you have said might be true... "There simply is nothing else that I know of that is available to do that, and I am only interested in the approach of empiricism and relativistic logic. Certainly, and logically, we could agree that if something in fact does exist outside of the range of human senses and human intellect of "modern man" then there is likely a 100% chance that such a man will never go beyond his current self imposed limitations. The tools you have chosen to work with, i.e. senses and limited intellect will naturally yield only that which is within their purview. Just as if man had never thought to look beyond the point of view of feet on the ground looking at the sun "revolving" around the world, the concept of the opposite would never have been discovered. It is the mindset that you have put forth that I find the antithisis of genuine science, as your point of view begins with limitations, and will necessarily end with limitations. However, if that makes you happy...fine by me.