tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1509760839117869165.post9031002697447164083..comments2024-02-24T01:48:48.809-08:00Comments on Pork Brains with Milk Gravy: Evolution, Christianity and factsBen Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17807488850925842222noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1509760839117869165.post-49034373594863274552012-07-12T11:09:16.021-07:002012-07-12T11:09:16.021-07:00I always find it funny to see how a particular dis...I always find it funny to see how a particular discipline assumes that the homegrown criteria it has defined on its own behalf to justify itself as being "true" can consequently use those same criteria on other perceptions of the world in order to falsify those other perceptions. It's no different than the catholic church saying that Judas' gospel was a lie, simply because it's not consistent with the gospels that the catholic church had chosen to be "true". In the end however, they're both perceptions.<br /><br />If I say "Red is the only colour. Everything else is just a hue or a shade of light. I am red, therefore I am a colour" does that universally establish that you being blue are anything else but a colour? If science wants to establish that creationism cannot be true it must first learn that it is proving its own factuality by measures it has established by itself. In this sense, even science itself is a theory. Remember Plato's cave. Your (western civilization's) concepts of scientific confirmation and falsification are things you created, based on what you saw while looking out of the tunnel. Before Einstein, science didn't realize how relative everything is.... or is it? Before Keynes, economists thought economy was simple, and many still do. <br /><br />Three decades ago some "science" guy told me that dogs don't think. Maybe his definition of "thinking" was too much based on what he does with his cortex, but he is only one example of one species of all of Creation. Who the h* does he think he is determining whether or not an animal he doesn't know how to communicate with can or can't think? If he had said "It has not been proven that dogs can think, so we assume that they don't" I wouldn't have had a problem. Definitively concluding falsification because science lacks the ability to conclusively confirm or falsify is arrogance, if you ask me.<br /><br />Signed:<br />Some nerdy guest who does believe that Darwin's theory is a good theory, but if promoted to the "truth" it gets turned into yet another religion... caveat emptor!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1509760839117869165.post-43987035316170074262012-04-12T04:02:23.540-07:002012-04-12T04:02:23.540-07:00You silly old bat of cource eveolution is true, I ...You silly old bat of cource eveolution is true, I give a stuff what anyone thinks, darwins theorem is very well backed up it's just a matter of faith and the power the church has to enforce its views. So you can all bugger off and believe itAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1509760839117869165.post-82968058566963577072011-11-17T11:09:51.326-08:002011-11-17T11:09:51.326-08:00I disagree that it "must" meet your firs...I disagree that it "must" meet your first three statements. But as I am not a scientist by trade, I could be wrong. I can only go with the information scientists have provided me over the years.<br /><br />1) Perhaps we are not sufficiently advanced to show creationism is falsifiable. At one time man thought everything in the universe was a mixture of earth, air, fire and water. At one time, the atom was considered indivisible.<br /><br />2) If it has to be consistent with pre-existing theory, this presupposes the existence of something prior. You can't go any further back than the beginning. (yeah, confusing I know but it's been a bloody long day).<br /><br />3) Can't think of anything on this one. Conceded for the moment.<br /><br />4) I do not purport that creationism is an absolute certainty. I call it a theory.<br /><br />5) From my perspective, Occam's Razor can't shave it any finer.<br /><br />6) Conceded.Ben Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17807488850925842222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1509760839117869165.post-25758631019452893562011-11-17T10:46:20.709-08:002011-11-17T10:46:20.709-08:00I recommend Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, ...I recommend <i>Why Evolution is True</i> by Jerry Coyne, or <i>The Greatest Show on Earth</i> by Richard Dawkins. The amount of evidence supporting evolution is staggering. But more importantly, there's more to a scientific theory than you're putting forward. For a theory to be scientific, it must meet the following criteria:<br /><br />It is falsifiable.<br />It is consistent (although not necessarily in exact agreement) with pre-existing theory.<br />It is supported by multiple foundations of evidence.<br /><br />It should also preferably be at least some of the following:<br /><br />It is tentative and correctable, rather than asserting absolute certainty.<br />It is parsimonious, via Occam's razor.<br />It is predictive, in that the explanation can be used to determine future outcomes.<br /><br />The theory of evolution meets all of these criteria, and is thus definitely scientific and indeed a very strong theory. So, tell me, which of these criteria does creationism meet? Because as far as I can tell, the answer is "none of them."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04131829210262377771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1509760839117869165.post-27461593250858044132011-11-03T14:18:46.531-07:002011-11-03T14:18:46.531-07:00http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Com...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Common_fallaciesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1509760839117869165.post-73072004533082101332011-10-21T13:09:26.843-07:002011-10-21T13:09:26.843-07:00I would not call Darwin's work On The Origin o...I would not call Darwin's work On The Origin of Species a silly old book.Ben Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17807488850925842222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1509760839117869165.post-87623476511099885942011-10-21T13:06:54.750-07:002011-10-21T13:06:54.750-07:00Mountains of scientific evidence, which you choose...Mountains of scientific evidence, which you choose to ignore > Silly old book.Wasderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16541527714546828388noreply@blogger.com