SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 05-28-12, 07:40 AM

I go with the evolution theory because it is the most convincing, ergonomic, elegant and simple explanation on the matter that we have gotten so far, well tested, and supported by plenty and plenty of evidence. Occam's razor - and it cuts relatively effortless here. Also, it's explanatory potential is immense. It'S one of the most fundemantal theories science has ever come up with. A mind-booster.

If these reasons qualify for having a "biased" attitude, or a relgious spirit, then I cannot help it and words do not mean anything anymore, it seems.

Also, alternative ideas given especially from the field of creationists and religions, by academic standards have been shown false and flawed so fundamentally and so often that I do not waste time arguing with them anymore. If somebody takes the tales by the Brothers Grimm for reality, then this is not a case for scientific debate, but for a therapist, sorry. And creationist museums were man is depicted beside or riding on dinosaurs "hand in hand" and a sign under the scene saying the world has been created 6000 years ago, then this is an illustration of the intellectual maximum credible accident.

There were other scientific attempts to explain the origin of man and species. The aquatic ape theory, for example, or the attempt to use neoteny to explain certain details where the classic savannah theory was weak. But all these theories failed to stand the test for general validity, may have sounded elegant, yes - but by far did not offer the general valdity the Darwinian model offers, and also offer not the immense explanatory potential. That'S why Darwin, and not Sir Allistair Hardy or somebody else, became the dominant paradigm in the field of evolution theories. It is common scientific procedure.

When somebody comes up with a model that has stronger explanatory potential, and his claims are shown in critical analysis to stand such tests and examinations, when it makes better predictions or allows a simplier, more elegant explanation - then Darwin will be left behind where his theory has shown to have been surpassed. But I do not expect to see that very soon. Or ever in the forseeable future - Darwins model is very very strong in argument and evidence.

05-28-12, 07:40 AM	#12
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,657 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	I go with the evolution theory because it is the most convincing, ergonomic, elegant and simple explanation on the matter that we have gotten so far, well tested, and supported by plenty and plenty of evidence. Occam's razor - and it cuts relatively effortless here. Also, it's explanatory potential is immense. It'S one of the most fundemantal theories science has ever come up with. A mind-booster. If these reasons qualify for having a "biased" attitude, or a relgious spirit, then I cannot help it and words do not mean anything anymore, it seems. Also, alternative ideas given especially from the field of creationists and religions, by academic standards have been shown false and flawed so fundamentally and so often that I do not waste time arguing with them anymore. If somebody takes the tales by the Brothers Grimm for reality, then this is not a case for scientific debate, but for a therapist, sorry. And creationist museums were man is depicted beside or riding on dinosaurs "hand in hand" and a sign under the scene saying the world has been created 6000 years ago, then this is an illustration of the intellectual maximum credible accident. There were other scientific attempts to explain the origin of man and species. The aquatic ape theory, for example, or the attempt to use neoteny to explain certain details where the classic savannah theory was weak. But all these theories failed to stand the test for general validity, may have sounded elegant, yes - but by far did not offer the general valdity the Darwinian model offers, and also offer not the immense explanatory potential. That'S why Darwin, and not Sir Allistair Hardy or somebody else, became the dominant paradigm in the field of evolution theories. It is common scientific procedure. When somebody comes up with a model that has stronger explanatory potential, and his claims are shown in critical analysis to stand such tests and examinations, when it makes better predictions or allows a simplier, more elegant explanation - then Darwin will be left behind where his theory has shown to have been surpassed. But I do not expect to see that very soon. Or ever in the forseeable future - Darwins model is very very strong in argument and evidence. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.