Evolution vs. Creationism

 

 

translation: unless you play on my court exclusively, I don't want to play.

 

There is variety in the forms of life, both at one time, and across time.

 

That's the fact.

 

The question is why?

 

That's why I use the word "speciation." Speciation is a fact. Evolution is a somewhat poorly named theory.

 

 

 

The atoms aren't split to make electricity.  Unless you call adding and removing electrons "splitting" which it is not.  Also, Gravity itself is just a theory.  Yes we see the results of it, and there is a "best" explanation.  Likewise, we can't deny that we are here, but the reasons why are still just a theory.

 

 

MrProgFreak wrote: If you understood evolution, you wouldn't call it a "doctrine", and you wouldn't know that any "faith" or "belief" is required to accept it.

 

I will simply disagree with you here, and so will science.  See, I can be on the same page with science.  A lot of the time as a matter of fact.  Ever hear the phrase "Scientists believe...."?  I have a lot, textbooks, discovery channel, Nova...etc. etc.  So yes scientists use a lot of belief.

 

AmbianceMan wrote: However, I definitely saw it.

MrProgFreak wrote: Really? I should take your word for it?

 

 

Well, apparently that went right over your head because you agreed with me and reiterated my point and thought that you had me on that one I guess.  The point was that NO, you shouldn't take my word for it, you should search for it yourself.  The only problem is that you have to put on the other set of lenses first, which would be extremely difficult, but not impossible, for you to do right now

 

MrProgFreak wrote: There's no such thing as subjective evidence. Either it's evidence, or it is subjective.

 

That wasn't why I said that.  Let's say that I beat up a squirrel and steal its walnut.  I eat the walnut.  Nobody sees me, I crap it out in the woods.  Two years later would there be any objective evidence that I roughed up a squirrel?  Absolutely not (in 99% of the cases, and let's pretend this is one of the 99.99+%).

 

The point is, it happened.  I know it happened.  It isn't scientifically verifiable, but it happened.  Sure you can use this concerning, the big bang, or whatever, but we're talking about subjective evidence here, not objective.  Just because something is subjective and not scientifically verifiable doesn't mean that it can be automatically discounted as "never have happened".  This is basic stuff that I am also applying to my subjective evidence.  I can't prove it to you, nor will I try, which is why I used scientific arguments at the outset.  All I am saying is that you are completely discounting my subjective evidence as never having happened.  You cannot prove that I have no evidence and I can not prove to you that I do.  But my subjective evidence is stronger to me than any other because it's actual experience.  I don't expect it to convince you.

 

I guess my question is, are you going to assume that everything I say is bogus and not worth listening to simply because I disagree with you?  I am beginning to think so because I am using basic reasoning here yet you disagree with me still.

Every theory or hypotheses or whatever is a series of concepts that attempt to allow the human creature to understand how some aspect of the Universe works.

 

Evidence can be objective or subjective. You can choose to reject subjective evidence, and the most stringent criteria do so. But the more control you exert, you run the risk of losing external validity. (Generalizability)

 

You can choose to exclusively use empirical data to decide which concepts you believe or disbelieve. But it is not the only available or even the only valid criteria for making those choices.

 

And again, ridiculing other's choices is ethically questionable at best and evil at worst.