creationism or evolution

Originally posted by JanusRook Really? Because I'd like to know where it was proven? Which laboratory has duplicated the results of evolution?

Laboratory experimentation does not have to be the sole source of verifcation for science. Scientists cannot simulate the collision of galaxies or black holes in laboratory environments, but hardly anyone dismisses Newton's theory of gravity and modern Atrophysics on those grounds. Evolution is similar because of the time scale in which occurs it cannot be directly demonstrated in a lab and is based on indirect observational evidence.

What do I think? I think that neither evolution or creationism is right and that more money should be spent researching alternative theories.

Can you cite any credible articles published in peer-reviewed journals that support your assertions about evolution and use that as evidence to dispute its overall validity? I doubt that you will find any.

Also I find comparing evolution with creationism to be a deceptive tactic employed by creationists in other to give some credibility to their nonsensical theory. Creationism is not a scientific theory, as unlike evolution it is not verifiable. Every scientific theory should provide empirical and observational tests that can prove it wrong. Creationists provide no such tests, they merely assert their beliefs as a dogma. In this respect creationism has far more in common with religion than any resemblance of science. It is not surprising that the desperate attempts to rebrandish it into the "intelligence design" theory all ended miserably in utter failure.

A good review of the myths of the evolution vs creationism debate is

Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate. by Tim M. Berra Author(s) of Review: Michael Zimmerman The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Mar., 1991), pp. 77-78

found here
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0033-5770(199103)66%3A1%3C77%3AEATMOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

I will post the article here later if I get the chance .

For something to evoluate, it first have to exist.

For something to exist, it should be an explanation.

Cezar, I have my doubts our knowledge will ever go beyond Big Bang (basically the current paradigm holds that everything we can notice empyrically was created then, so unless there's some yet hidden "feature" of the universe, we can't see what was before that First Cause). The religious epistemology replaces Big Bang with a Beginning (a Creation, sometimes refered also as Beginning of Time). Actually one of the early proponents of Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest and the theory in its early years was met with much suspicion from the contemporary scholars, seeing in it a reminescence of the Christian doctrine.

If you cann't explain the prime cause of the things, then all other explanations are not serious. Is like you try to explain what is happening in a magic show without taking that it can be an illusion.

There are two answers to that:

Menumorut, what is truth? Tell me one true thing and why is it so, and we'll see how much sense is to talk about existence or first cause or anything at all in such a way.

On the other hand if you deny a priori the usefulness of knowledge, one cannot wonder why are you discussing this with us in the first place? Why do you argue on history topics? Why do you spend your intellect with such "non-serious" activities?


Edited by Chilbudios - 12-Dec-2007 at 13:37

And how can you estabilish an existence in the first place? Not through perceptions (i.e. images)? For medicine, biology, etc. you don't need perceptions, or in other words empyrical experiments? You'll see that going down the spiral, at one point you'll have to trust your senses, the empyrical. Otherwise nothing can build up at all. You can't even bake that bread I was talking about earlier.

Edited by Chilbudios - 12-Dec-2007 at 17:30

If you aspire at truth, you should build nothing. Any "building" is wrong.

The logic cann't acces the truth, it only is speculating ideas.

I didn't sayed that the study of the nature is not serious but that explaining why something happening while ignoring the ultimate cause.

What I have sayed was usualy against the "buildings". You talk about positions, I think you introduce something artificial and unnecesary.


The study of the nature is correct if is limiting to describe the observed laws.

Is true I too am using ideas, but they are actualy anti-idea ideas. So, the oposite of this kind of atitude is promoting ideas or making speculations or building systems of theories. I try to be objective.

In nature there are some laws that are invariably manifesting. These laws can have any cause. The science is making a mistake when it's says that their cause is the energy of the elementary particles of the atom. Because the connection between the suposed energy of these particles and the more macro phenomena is arbitrary.

Which are my ideas about you are talking? I sayed that we should not credit our perceptions. What is wrong with this?

What is the reason for crediting our sensations and ideas?


About arbitrary in science: the arbitrary refers to the idea that there is a cause-effect relation between the phenomena in nature. Is not. At a muppets theatre can be simulated that one puppet hits other one and that one falls, but is not true. The science cann't prove that there is such relation. The fact that the same law is manifested each time when the same sort of phenomenon occurs, doesn't mean the cause is an interaction etc.

Science, I mean scientists and their adepts, believe that it can explain what and why is happening in the material world. It discovered some rules which until now almost allways applied, but if tomorrow one of these laws or more will cease to apply?