Printable View
How does one calculate such a thing? And, either way, you have shifted the focus; I asserted that evolution struggles with the math required to make it believable. You didn't address that.Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
The "evidence" is not conclusive - and it relies upon the tacit acceptance of numbers that are beyond reason, beyond belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
What about the eye, or even cilia?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
We've done this before, Dante.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
Cilia are incredibly simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
RedZeppelin,
I would have thought that the evidence relies upon a measurable rate of change in the construction of a species genetic makeup. Measure the average rate of change in genetic makeup of a species over x amount of generations, then work out the percentage difference in genes from any given species to the earliest life forms and calculate the total duration of time elapsed. If this vastly exceeds our dating of life on earth, using other independent techniques, then we can say that evolution theory requires a worrying amount of faith (although it will never require as much as creationism). So you say that you cannot calculate the odds of there being a god, but the chances of evolution occurring and being a driving force in the continuation of life on earth, can be calculated. That in itself speak volumes against creationism doesn't it?
You say that evolution requires 'the tacit acceptance of numbers beyond reason, beyond belief'. What are those then? What numbers do you find unbelievable, unreasonable? Life has been here a long time. Long enough for us to have evolved.
I will deal with the rest of your post later. For now - I said what I said because I'm not sure how you calculate the probability of a supernatural being. I do know that we can calculate things like the probability of evolution because the theory requires that we use evidence that is readily available here on earth (to an extent). Simply because I'm not sure how you calculate the odds of a supernatural being doesn't mean the odds are against it - it just means I'm not sure how to go about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
Evolution is just a theory!:yawnb: But, then, again, so is Creationism!!:flare: So it comes down to which thoery do you subscribe to. I prefer to think that there is more than just this life to look forward to.;)
Thanks for letting me spout off!!!!:angel:
It is possible to believe that God created the world, but the world has evolved. It isn't a True/False answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK3RD
In scientific terms, creationism is a hypothesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK3RD
The attempt by creationists to insist that both "theories" should stand side by side as equals is one of the more laughable aspects of the debate.
Creationists constantly state that evolution "is only theorised", it's not scientific fact.
To a degree, that's a valid point, but when the theory is backed by enormous amounts of undeniable scientific fact and becomes accepted science, it is a lot more than just another theory.
As Joe points out, creationism is not, scientifically-speaking, a theory's backside. It is at best a very weak hypothesis. Certainly, it can be classed quite correctly as a "theory" in English as the language has that ability. Just as I can hold a theory that the moon is made of cheese.
Creationism has not one fact which backs it up. I long for the day when a creationist will actually attempt to use a fact to suggest that there's any merit in the idea. Scientifically-speaking, it isn't even really a hypothesis, as hypotheses in science should have at least some chance of being proven correct. Unfortunately, creationism can't do that and the idea counts as no more than lunatic ranting.
The mathematical odds against evolution are astronomical. Regardless of the "facts" and "evidence" you keep trumpeting, the odds are against evolution. The formula at the base of your belief - lots of stuff + lots of time = life - is not tenable. There are too many weaknesses in the theory of evolution - holes that evolution cannot bridge and must be content to say "we think" "we suppose" "we're not totally sure" "it seems reasonable" et al.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'm sorry, cuppajoe, but that's wikipedia. Anyone trained and untrained can edit it to say what they please, making it unacceptable as a source. And in your edit, you say that it was originally classified as homo sapiens but DNA shows otherwise? Meaning that it's still classified as homo sapiens? or that it looks like homo neanderthalensis? I'll research it and get back to you.Quote:
Simply false. Neanderthals are classified as Homo neanderthalensis. Full taxonomy of Homo neaderthalensis here.
Edit: a Google revealed that the species was originally clasified Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, but DNA evidence shows otherwise. Sorry about that.
It's cited, I believe, and you can follow it up if you'd like.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave
The species was originally classified as a sub-species of homo sapiens, but it is now generally accepted that it could not or did not interbreed with other homo sapiens, and therefore qualifies as its own species.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave
Red, Ok I may not be following this correctly (mainly skimmed the last 2 pages) but I dont really understand your position here: you seem to be complaining that scientists dont examine the creation perspective, but also suggest that is untestable scientifically. If it is untestable scientifically why would scientists attempt to test it? Can you clarify this?
Which post are you referring to?Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Sorry,Just realised they are on a mixture of different threads (it all seems to merge together every once in a while) anyway I'll collate them here for easiness:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
&Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
As I said previously it is probably just me misunderstanding, but some clarification would be nice:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin