Oh hey, dmz, I forgot to ask: Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?
Cheers
Scott
Funny you ask that. You know-- I was walking down the street one day, and I thought casually to myself, "Is there any possible evidence that could convince..." You know the rest.
I don't know about you guys but I honestly want to know if there is any evidence that will convince dmz of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory?
Perhaps he won't be able to tell us what this evidence is but he could define for us the conditions under which he might be prevailed upon to accept the theory of evolution. So dmz, if you are convincible, what sort of evidence would you need?
That's a good question, and one of the reasons I'm not in favor of closing this thread. The other reason is deeply personal. You see, one day when I was young, my father pulled me aside and said "Son, I have something very important to tell you. This is one of those things that every man needs to hear and understand." He looked nervous. he kept shuffling his feet and kicking at the dirt, and even though he was several feet taller and me, and even though he was looking down, he still didn't look me in the eye. It was clear that what he was about to say weighed heavily on him and that he wanted to make sure I understood the seriousness of what he was about to say. He paused, knelt down, looked me dead in the eye and said "Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?"
You guys are complicating the issue. Personally, I'd like to ask dmz if there is any evidence at all that could convince him of the truth of evolution.
There has to be an accepted incidence of information-adding mutations.
This goes back to the point about applying a teleological viewpoint to evolution. Evolution shouldn't be viewed as progressing towards end products (perhaps some set of optimal organisms) and placing more parts of the jigsaw, but as a process that wanders the genespace, finding (maybe) better points.
Anyway, "Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of creationism as a scientific theory? If so what?"
I think this is very, very telling. The admistrator himself. How many of you tattled?
Actually, I have not received a single message about this thread. I've been reading it since the day it was started and I was really interested in some of the early discussion. Yes, even admins "lurk" in threads without participating. In fact, I asked the other admins and mods if they saw any merit in keeping this thread open. Zero support was offered in this thread's favor.
The thread "evolved" into a discussion of what it takes to prove evolution over creationism. Frankly, though, it's become frustrating seeing you complete ignore and dodge the most simple, straightforward question being posed to you a dozen times now. It is central to where the discussion has moved. Yet, even in your reply to me, you completely avoid answering it, instead hiding behind the smoke and mirrors by claiming, "it should be obvious."
You failed answering the question for the last time. You obviously either have no case or you refuse to make it. My patience with this thread is at an end.
Comments
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Oh hey, dmz, I forgot to ask: Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?
Cheers
Scott
Funny you ask that. You know-- I was walking down the street one day, and I thought casually to myself, "Is there any possible evidence that could convince..." You know the rest.
Perhaps he won't be able to tell us what this evidence is but he could define for us the conditions under which he might be prevailed upon to accept the theory of evolution. So dmz, if you are convincible, what sort of evidence would you need?
That's a good question, and one of the reasons I'm not in favor of closing this thread. The other reason is deeply personal. You see, one day when I was young, my father pulled me aside and said "Son, I have something very important to tell you. This is one of those things that every man needs to hear and understand." He looked nervous. he kept shuffling his feet and kicking at the dirt, and even though he was several feet taller and me, and even though he was looking down, he still didn't look me in the eye. It was clear that what he was about to say weighed heavily on him and that he wanted to make sure I understood the seriousness of what he was about to say. He paused, knelt down, looked me dead in the eye and said "Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?"
Is there any possible evidence that would convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory?
Oh, and if there is, what would that evidence be?
If you can't answer this simple yes or no question, you have no business engaging in this topic of debate.
If there is, I'd hope he'd share it with us.
There has to be an accepted incidence of information-adding mutations.
This goes back to the point about applying a teleological viewpoint to evolution. Evolution shouldn't be viewed as progressing towards end products (perhaps some set of optimal organisms) and placing more parts of the jigsaw, but as a process that wanders the genespace, finding (maybe) better points.
Anyway, "Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of creationism as a scientific theory? If so what?"
Originally posted by dmz
I think this is very, very telling. The admistrator himself. How many of you tattled?
Actually, I have not received a single message about this thread. I've been reading it since the day it was started and I was really interested in some of the early discussion. Yes, even admins "lurk" in threads without participating. In fact, I asked the other admins and mods if they saw any merit in keeping this thread open. Zero support was offered in this thread's favor.
The thread "evolved" into a discussion of what it takes to prove evolution over creationism. Frankly, though, it's become frustrating seeing you complete ignore and dodge the most simple, straightforward question being posed to you a dozen times now. It is central to where the discussion has moved. Yet, even in your reply to me, you completely avoid answering it, instead hiding behind the smoke and mirrors by claiming, "it should be obvious."
You failed answering the question for the last time. You obviously either have no case or you refuse to make it. My patience with this thread is at an end.