Evolution searching for a mechanism

[Abderian]

Originally Posted by PeshatBooks

Sadly, Abderian, you have read what you wanted to read, not what I have written. I did not say that evolutionary scientists were doubting evolution, I said that they had doubts about the mechanisms, and that this demonstrated that the theory is unproven. The standard scientific method is to start from observations, state an hypothesis, derive experiments to test the hypothesis and validate predictions. When has that ever been done for GTE? If the mechanisms are unknown, how can one perform scientific experiments? So many like to claim that the General Theory of Evolution is scientifically proven, but no-one can attest to any scientific experiments that demonstrate that proof.
I am open to believing that GTE is true, it is just that there is no scientific proof. SETI researchers like to believe that alien intelligence exists, but again, there is no scientific proof.
Belief in evolution is faith, because there is no scientific proof for it. If you disagree, offer that proof.

Yes, you've got it right about standard scientific method. Which is why starting from the premise that a book written a few thousand years ago is the litereal truth about the origin of life on this planet is not scientific method.

Peshat Books seeks to challenge secular issues such as evolution on their own merits as genuine scientific theories (or otherwise), to demystify Holy Scripture, and to invite others of a similar mind to join the conversation on alternate interpretations that contend with orthodox Christian beliefs.

Now please stop pretending that you aren't a Creationist who is simply trying to attack evolutionary theory because it contradicts your belief system.

[Abderian]

Is there no way to get this thread deleted? The OP is clearly has an agenda that is nothing whatsoever to do with writing science fiction. This forum is not a site for evangelists to spout their religious beliefs.

[RichardGarfinkle]

Originally Posted by Abderian

Is there no way to get this thread deleted? The OP is clearly has an agenda that is nothing whatsoever to do with writing science fiction. This forum is not a site for evangelists to spout their religious beliefs.

That is true, and it might be worth locking the thread. But deleting it removes valuable information for people coming later. Like who the OP is, the information you gleaned from the site, and what the arguments made for and against are.

This stuff keeps coming up. It's good to have the arguments and information available rather than having to rebuild everything from scratch.

[Alessandra Kelley]

Originally Posted by PeshatBooks

OK, quote where I have done that?
Why do people assume that just because they have doubts about evolution theory, they automatically advance creationism? In logic, that is called the logical fallacy of the false alternative. Perhaps you are not aware that Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the double helix, also expressed doubts about GTE and favoured panspermia, that life came from another planet. Why are people not able to debate the mechanisms of evolution without resorting to God and creationism?

The problem with that particular hypothesis is, how did life on the other planet get started? All it is doing is shifting the starting point conveniently away from Earth. But it never accounts for how life got started in the first place, wherever it may have been.

Originally Posted by Abderian

Is there no way to get this thread deleted? The OP is clearly has an agenda that is nothing whatsoever to do with writing science fiction. This forum is not a site for evangelists to spout their religious beliefs.

AW doesn't delete threads. There are some pretty revelatory old things to read around here.

[Shadow_Ferret]

I've never understood the argument that because there might be debate and differing theories on how the mechanism behind evolution works that that somehow invalidates that evolution is a Scientific fact.

[Friendly Frog]

Originally Posted by PeshatBooks

Isn't it interesting how many people immediately bring God and creationism into the argument even when it was not initially raised.

Probably because there is no scientific basis to reject evolution on. But religion keeps trying, so where you find people saying evolution doesn't exist or work or is a faith of its own, you will more often than not find religion behind it. The site that has the same name as your username appears to confirm it. To be honest, I was kind of curious when you would start promoting your own book.

What is interesting is that germ theory, despite being another scientific theory, never seem to attract as much people trying to disprove it as evolution does.

Also, panspermia does not say life originated on another planet, but that the building-blocks of life may have come from out of space which would include meteors, planetoids and other matter. (Meteors have been said to contain aminoacids, the building blocks of life, but not living organisms. Don't know whether that was eventually confirmed.) The panspermia only speaks about how life could have arrived on the planet, it says little or nothing about evolution.

[FalconMage]

I'm pretty convinced that this isn't an attempt at discussion, but a form of hit farming for his site. I haven't gone, and now refuse to do so. And with that, I'm done.

[BigWords]

Originally Posted by Abderian

Certainly, there are additional layers not understood by the original recipients, but this can never invalidate the simple truth, else God is not trustworthy.[/I]

(bolding mine.)

OT

As I understand religious teaching, we are made in God's (or the gods') image. Fine. Lets deal with that for just a second. Human beings have the capacity for falsehood, therefore - being in the image of the creator(s) - they, also, must have the capacity for falsehood. We already know that God(s) have a weird sense of humor, if they indeed exist, as we can look at the duck-billed platypus and have a good chortle, so God(s) must have the capacity for deception and falsehoods. God(s), as far as I am concerned, is/are most certainly untrustworthy.

/OT

[Alessandra Kelley]

Originally Posted by BigWords

(bolding mine.)

OT

As I understand religious teaching, we are made in God's (or the gods') image. Fine. Lets deal with that for just a second. Human beings have the capacity for falsehood, therefore - being in the image of the creator(s) - they, also, must have the capacity for falsehood. We already know that God(s) have a weird sense of humor, if they indeed exist, as we can look at the duck-billed platypus and have a good chortle, so God(s) must have the capacity for deception and falsehoods. God(s), as far as I am concerned, is/are most certainly untrustworthy.

/OT

First off, your quote is of Abderian quoting PeshatBooks, which Abderian unfortunately did in a way which was not obvious. But the quote is PB's.

I have a very religious Christian friend, whose sincerity and thoughtfulness I do not doubt, who has shown me by example about his god: That one can have faith in God, but that as a limited human one does not necessarily understand God. That the obvious meaning is not always true. That people should not stop thinking for themselves just because someone says they can trust God. That only a foolish person would declare that they understand God.

[BigWords]

The line bugged me, and I should have paid more attention to the attribution. The whole "complete trust" moment in any religious conversation - where the infallibility and complete benevolence are oft highlighted - really, really gets to me. I love the idea that we can't possibly know what goes on in a deity's thought process, and the assumption of qualities we cannot know (the trustworthy part, in this instance) is one of my trigger issues. There are a few religions which encourage the questioning of the motives of God(s), and those - for me, anyway - see to have a more logical process of belief than the big monotheistic religions.

And I seem to have derailed this thread enough for one day...

[AceTachyon]

Your turn, Peshat.

[AceTachyon]

Originally Posted by BigWords

And I seem to have derailed this thread enough for one day...

You could always talk about kilts, sir....

[RichardGarfinkle]

Originally Posted by Shadow_Ferret

I've never understood the argument that because there might be debate and differing theories on how the mechanism behind evolution works that that somehow invalidates that evolution is a Scientific fact.

I think this comes from the diametrically opposed views of doubt in belief and science. For people whose views are founded in belief, doubt and opposing views are signs of weakness. The true believer has no doubts.

In science the challenge of reasoned doubt backed up with sound theory and evidence refines the science being doubted and produces stronger and deeper understanding. Thus what is strength in science looks like weakness to belief.

Sadly, a lot of people, even those without strong religious convictions accept the idea that solidity of belief is strength of understanding. So it's hard to make clear why the rigor of challenge in science makes the theories stronger, and shows the accuracy of the theories that stand up to the challenge.

The other problem with this is that it takes understanding to know whether or not a challenge is meaningful. In most sciences that understanding takes a lot of time and effort to learn, and a lot of people haven't spent the time and effort, so they can't tell whether an argument actually is a real challenge or not.

Note: I used the word belief not faith since the most faithful person I know has no trouble with doubt, since he doesn't think his limited human understanding encompasses all.

[Mara]

I noticed that in his sea of quoted posts, he didn't address mine.

Jesus wasn't a fan of superstition, and he definitely wasn't a fan of dishonesty. Or of people who claimed him when convenient (such as on this guy's website) and denied him when it might make them look bad (such as in this conversation.) Oh, and I believe that people who cynically tried to make a buck and get fame off of Christianity were not especially held in high regard, either. See Simon the Sorceror.

I particularly love the post where this guy demands someone buy and read his book before they can argue with him. Seriously, how blatant can you get?

[Once!]

Surely the difference is this ...

Science looks at the evidence and advances a theory. Science doesn't say that this theory is the final word on the matter. It's just the best explanation that we can come up with to fit the evidence we have.

By contrast, religion says that we already have an explanation and it is the final word. Everything else must be wrong.

There is overwhelming evidence that the world wasn't created in six days, that woman was not created from Adam's rib and that the earth isn't flat. We can see evolution in action. Astronomy shows us that the stars are quite clearly moving outwards from a fixed point and time in space, which ... ahem ... kind of points to a big smoking gun called the big bang.

Okay, so science doesn't understand everything. We are still refining and improving our theories as more evidence comes to light. Isn't that what rational beings do? Does it mean that the basic theories were wrong? Of course it doesn't.

BTW, Dawkins annoyed the hell out of me because I found many of his arguments to be poorly reasoned. Not the best advert for atheism. He is far stronger when he demonstrates evolution than when he tries to disprove the existence of God. But he doesn't annoy me half as much as the anti-Dawkins industry with their almost total lack of logic and objectivity.

[Pthom]

Originally Posted by PeshatBooks

Isn't this a writers' forum, with promotion of one's work a valid activity?

This particular forum, "Science Fact," is only for discussing facts of science.

There is another forum for book promotion. It is here.

I am closing this thread, because it has ceased to be a discussion of facts, and has even ceased to be a discussion of scientific theory. Take arguments and personal attacks/defenses elsewhere, folks.