Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>  From reading this thread and others before this, I know that you have a 
>> rather different idea of what evolution theory comprises than what is 
>> common in my surroundings.
> 
>   That's curious, given that I have made absolutely no claims about the
> evolution theory. 
No you have, you said for instance that: 'You don't have to accept the 
entire evolution theory as true in order to accept the similarities 
between the hearts and take advantage of that'. Which is incompatible 
with my definition of evolution. Simply because it implicitly assumes 
that there is an 'entire' version of it and hence a probably less entire 
one. So my question remains: what do you think the evolution theory is 
about?

I also note that you did not answer any question on how you can apply 
any knowledge derived from mice to humans without a common ancestor. You 
don't have to, but I am still curious.

>(The only claim I have made even remotely related to
> that is the generic claim that it's perfectly valid to doubt a theory,
> any theory, even if you can't offer any plausible alternative. Note,
> however, that I'm not saying *I* doubt some theory here. I'm just saying
> that it's *valid* to doubt a theory.)
> 
>   People tend to read too much between the lines.
> 
>>>   Similar physiology between animals and humans doesn't prove evolution.
>>> It only proves that there's similar physiology between animals and humans.
>>> (*Evidence* is different from *proof*.)
>>>
>> The physiology is so mind boggling similar that the only explanation is 
>> a common descent.
> 
>   "I can't think of any other explanation" is no proof. Really strong
> evidence yes, but no proof.
> 
>> You can not *disprove* that at some point in time both 
>> species were independently created. But why would the creator copy 
>> everything from one design to another, including all the bugs, patches 
>> and obsolete code?
> 
>   Now you are talking philosophically. Philosophical arguments are no
> proof of anything.
> 
>> Again, there is no way to disprove such a lack of 
>> creativity, but why would you replace a perfectly acceptable explanation 
>> by a rabbit out of a hat?
> 
>   The simplest explanation is not always the correct explanation.
> Simplicity is no proof.
> 

To all these I can only say that I though I made it clear that I know 
that rabbits are always an alternative for an explanation. What your 
arguments boils down to is that because you cannot refute a claim that 
the world was created yesterday at 13:26 including all memories of 
earlier events, you cannot prove anything that happened before that time.
You may also want to reread from 'Goedel, Escher, Bach' the 'Birthday 
Cantatatata' between Achilles and the tortoise about proof systems and 
the meta proof system that you need to confirm the proof system and the 
meta-meta proof system ...

Anyway, I choose to live in a rabbit free world (the philosophical ones 
I mean, I don't mind the physical ones).

Post a reply to this message