| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> |In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> |
> |>Let me restate my position this way:
> |
> |>The theory of evolution states that these organisms developed of their own
> |>accord, by means of spontaneous, large-scale genetic mutations in a
> |>completely random fashion. Those organisms which had the most beneficial
> |>mutations survived and gave rise to new organisms.
> |
> | I would amend that by pointing out that mutations are *NOT* completely
> |random, which implies that any single mutation is as likely as any other.
> |Mutations arise as a result of environmental factors altering the organism's
> |DNA structure as well as from errors in DNA replication.
> | To assert that evolution is completely random is to buy into the
> |hopelessly misguided analogy of the tornado-and-the-747.
> |
> |>The theory of creation states that these organisms were created by God and
> |>installed on Earth as described in Genesis I.
> |
> | This would be a good time to point out the two competing notions of theory:
> |
> | Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory:
> |
> |A scientific theory is empirical, falsifiable and possesses predictive
> |power, e.g., the wave theory of light, the theory of evolution, and the Big
> |Bang theory. Scientific theories are essentially concerned with discovering
> |the mechanisms by which Nature functions.
> |
> |>Scientific theories attempt to understand the world of observation and sense
> |>experience. They attempt to explain how the natural world works. A scientific
> |>theory must have some logical consequences we can test against Nature by
> |>making predictions based on the theory.
> |
> | Creationist theory is a conceptual theory:
> |
> |>A conceptual theory is non-scientific and non-empirical. Some conceptual
> |>theories are explanatory, e.g., metaphysical theories such as creationism,
> |>materialism or dualism. Like all conceptual theories, creationism,
> |>materialism and dualism cannot be empirically tested. They are not
> |>falsifiable nor do they have any predictive value.
> |
> |these cites come from from the Skeptic's Dictionary at
> |http://www.skepdic.com/theories.html
> |which is, by the way, an absolutely excellent website, and I cannot
> |recommend it strongly enough for anyone who aspires to any level of critical
> |thought.
> |
> |So what we've got here is a conflict between types of theory, which are not
> |equal in style or intent. I have no problem with your assertion that
> |Creationism is a theory (just as I don't mind my coworker espousing his
> |theory about why the Pirates lost (again) last night), but I flatly reject
> |the idea that it is an empirical scientific theory with predictive value.
> |
> | Dave!
Dave!:
Here we come to the great defeater of your argument: The existence of Baseball
is final and convincing proof that a Loving and Good God does in fact exist. I
defy you to postulate any theoretical universe in which Baseball, in all its
Infinite Glory, could arise given the vagaries or time, chance, and the pennant
race.
james, who's still bitter that his 'Stros dropped 2 out of 3 to St. Louis in the
most important series of the year.
fut set to .fun
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: The Origins Debate
|
| (...) I'm not a particular fan of baseball, but even I am amazed that the Pirates have seemed somehow to lose more games this year than everyone else in the league combined. What especially steams me is that Pittsburgh in its infinite, (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | Re: The Origins Debate
|
| (...) While the existence of Baseball may be an unarguable proof of God, I feel that I must point out that unfortantely, the Dodgers are an unarguable proof of the existence of the Devil (some might argue that the Yankees are actually the proof of (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | Re: The Origins Debate
|
| (...) No, it is proof that the universe is in fact random, if not actually cruel and malevolent. Why else would such an ultimately boring game fascinate so many? (including me) (...) And if you REALLY want proof of no justice, consider the Tigers. (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Origins Debate
|
| |In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes: | |>Let me restate my position this way: | |>The theory of evolution states that these organisms developed of their own |>accord, by means of spontaneous, large-scale genetic mutations in a (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
98 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
