xBobTheAlienx

Wrong. Most scientists believe in evolution and would interperet evidence to support thier belief in it.

xBobTheAlienx

Oh by the way MrDarwin, I havent read that web page yet so i dont know what evidence you are talking about. But i can say that you would also interperet evidence to suit your beliefs.

hezekiah jones

You're not even aware of any evidence, so how in the world would you know what scientists do with it?

hezekiah jones

Has it occurred to you that the initial "belief" itself is based on the evidence?

xBobTheAlienx

I skimmed over the article that nat told me to read, and all of what i have seen has been change in behavior, mutations of an offspring, or cross-breeding. Looks to be some pretty flimsy evidence... Ill go read the article thouroughly and come back when im done laughing.

Mageth

Wrong. Most scientists believe in evolution and would interperet evidence to support thier belief in it.

Wrong. Most scientists accept evolution (descent with modification from a common ancestor, as opposed to evolutionary theories on the mechanisms of evolution) as a fact because the evidence so overwhelmingly supports it. No other model fits the evidence nearly as well. New evidence that is gathered continues to support evolution. The evolutionary theories are generally accepted by scientists as the best available to explain the mechanisms of evolution. These theories are themselves evolving as new evidence is introduced.

If someone proposes an alternative scientific model (and/or alternative theories) that better explain the evidence, science would accept the better model/theories. It's been 150 years, and no one yet has come up with a better scientific model or theories (although the evolutionary model and theories have been modified in response to new evidence).

Starboy

Greetings XbobTheAlienx,

I think I understand why you would find these so-called proofs amusing. If all I was presented with was just a bunch of facts that appeared to support a theory, I would not find that a very compelling argument either. Even if it was a very mighty pile of facts that would only make me partial to it, but certainly wouldn’t make me rely on it. What it would take to make me rely on the theory is if it had predictive power, the power to reveal to me knowledge that previously had been unknown. In other words, I will rely on it if it is useful. Now as I have said repeatedly in this thread, so often now that I am sure I have become a broken record, science is not about the truth, it is about what works. To a biologist, the theory of evolution is like a very useful tool that allows them to understand what they are observing. As long as this tool works, they will use it, when it stops working or there is a better tool they will cast it aside. Biologists do not use creation science as a tool because it doesn’t work. If it did work, we would not be having this discussion.

Adios

Starboy

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: gkochanowsky ]

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: gkochanowsky ]</p>

Mageth

What we have here is someone (Bob) who 1) doesn't understand evolution; and 2) doesn't understand science.

MrDarwin

My question (which I note you've avoided answering) has nothing to do with that web page. I'm not talking about existing evidence. I'm not talking about anybody's interpretations. I'm asking you what kind of evidence it would take for you to believe in evolution--whether that evidence now exists, or not. It's a simple question.

Duvenoy

(sigh).

“Before I read that, I must say that these evidences are observed by EVOLUTIONISTS, and are interperated by them. There is always going more than one way of interperating evidence. So im gonna read it but it is biased sooo.... “


I almost hate to see this chestnut dragged out yet again, but here ‘tis, anyway, 'cause it still holds true: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.
======================

Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.

Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

<a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2" target="_blank">http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2</a>

doov