 | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Many were upset that those vouchers were used to attend religious schools, allegedly at the state's expense. -John (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) People can't have it both ways--they want the vouchers 'cause then they can send their kid to whatever school they think is best for their kid and at the same time say "oh you can't send *your* voucher (and therefore your kid) to *that* school (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) SC (...) positions (...) I go back and forth on what I think the base requirements for a school to use vouchers should be. I'm opposed to schools teaching e.g. strict creationism instead of reality, but I'm not sure I'd even support (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <snip> (...) Well, this statement kinda shows where you stand on the matter. Saying that Creationism *isn't* reality endorses that something else is. Unless you're an avid reader of Hitch (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Then let's restate it this way: Of the explanations currently on the table for how we arrived where we are today, evolution provides more complete, explanatory answers and makes more accurate, testable predictions than Creationism, and (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) But actually, I was trying to indicate a specific thing when I wrote "strict creationism." I meant the belief that you describe above as dumb. The notion that God set up a bunch of physical laws several billion years ago, knowing (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) I don't think that most Christians (including me) believe that the Earth and Solar Sytem was created in 6 days (rotations of the Earth). Since there was no Earth to set the time, that wouldn't even make sense. I think that most (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) We have the law of gravity, which has yet to be disproven--when I let go of a hammer it will fall. We see that today. We can test that today. How do we prove 'evolution', which happened millions and/or billions of yeara ago? There have been (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Curt Tigges writes: First of all, "Scientific Creationism" is an oxymoron, so let's dispense with that term and stick with Creationism. (...) Actually, it's a *theory,* just as the theory of gravitation, the theory of (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I thought it was somewhere in the UK. (...) Our wisdom teeth are primarily for mashing grains and tough fiberous roots. (...) Chaos accounts for the existence of cells of spontaneous order in a chaotic system. If you add heat to a pan of water (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Just like military intelligence or whatever... There are scientists who are Christian, and they came up with a theory and they called it Scientific Creationism, in which they try to merge the Biblical stories of creatin with scientific (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Please don't misunderstand me--I reject "Scientific Creationism" as a term because there is nothing at all scientific about it. It makes no claims that can be tested, it calls for no experiments that can be repeated, it uses no evidence that (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) What's the difference between "pure Creationism" and "Scientific Creationism?" Both are based on anti-logic, and both are necessarily rooted in theistic dogma. If you want to produce a totally non- sectarian vision of spontaneous generation ex (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) I agree, and hope that Dave(!) will reconsider. Since it is a name of a belief/theory, and the name is reasonably illustrative of what the theorists are thinking about, I think the name is fit. (...) That's completely wrong. Plenty of (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) The same could be said about evolution. You can't prove macroeveolution in a lab, it makes no claims that can be tested, it uses no evidence that cannot be used for the S.C. theory (the type I believe in anyway). (...) This is totally (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) "Oxymoron" may have been a cruel overstatement, but I stand by my assertion that there is nothing scientific about Creationism. However, in another post, I recognized the error of my absolutist stance and acknowledge that it's fair to call (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Oh, I agree. But were I a Christian, I would still see the overwhelming evidence, believe in evolution as the most likely explanation of the origin of species, and search for a way to justify my religious belief with my scientific observation. (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes: <snip> (...) Pure Creationists believes that the Earth really was created in exactly 6 days, and ignore any scientific eveidence to the contrary. S.C.s (at least me, tell me if i'm wrong (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes: <snip> Most of the time in these debates, I feel like the 5 year old trying to understand his older brother and his buddies talking about the stuff they learned in grade 8--sometimes is (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Evolution makes many claims that can be tested. One deals with the order in which fossil records are deposited in strata, and in this respect is has proven correct again and again. Another is in the types of transitional fossils that will (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) You are wrong, and I will correct you. According to scientists (including non-Creationist), the definitions are these: Microevolution: The theory that natural selection, over time, take an organism and transform it into a more specialized (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Precisely. And all said, we will never know. The theories of Evolution and "Creationism" (I'd call it a belief, not a theory, but whatever) are 2 sides of the same coin. *Neither* are proveable, and the debate is similar to the "existence of (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: <snip> (...) That's it! I voiced the same opinion as both Scott and John in under 2 days!!! Now I just have to say something that goes with what Dave! says and I will cease to exist!! Dave (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Pathemata Mathemata
|
|
BTW, for those that were too stubborn/ignorant/lazy to look it up, typing "pathemata mathemata" into the Location bar of Communicator gave the following match in less than 1 second: (URL) of: pathemata mathemata (Greek) pathemata mathemata (Greek): (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pathemata Mathemata
|
|
(...) Personally, I tired after looking up "mote";-) Did you search my French line, or were *you* too lazy? :-) -John (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pathemata Mathemata
|
|
I ran it through Babelfish, but it didn't make much sense - "plays its fact". A basic search did not bring up a good translation within 30sec or so, so yes, I got lazy (see my other thread about people making it too easy on the rest of us). It was (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pathemata Mathemata
|
|
(...) Not that it matters-- I was just tweaking you:-) The point was the humor of Rooney quoting French as he's about to (as far as he knows) bust Ferris. BTW, he himself translates for us: "The game is up". -John (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pathemata Mathemata
|
|
(...) I believe there was a typo in the original sentence: "les jeux son faits" should translate to "the game is set" or "the bets are made". Frequent in Casinos, IIRC, when the roulette is spinned. Pedro (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pathemata Mathemata
|
|
(...) I got (...) lol First, I don't know much French (though my kids speak it fluently)-- I was guessing at the spelling. The translation is Rooney's himself-- that it refers to gambling just adds to its humor:-) Thanks for the info, Pedro! -John (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pathemata Mathemata
|
|
(...) Your choice of having your children taught french is very wise, IMHO. As a starter for romace languages it is very good *because it is hard*, and it comes quite handy at times. From french, italian, catalonian and (to a lesser degree) spanish (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) It's not "my theory," and in fact it's very logical--and where it's not, it is open to challenge and change. That's the strength of science--that it's willing to admit that it does not have all the answers, yet. Remember that before (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) If I may pose a question: Evolution is basically the theory that stuff comes from stuff that came before it. If you take stuff all the way back to the Big Bang (or whatever universe starting event you wish), where logically did *that* stuff (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) but that's not about evolution anymore - it's the origins question, I believe. I think it's ok to say I don't know what happened then, but to me, the most logical thing that was before the big bang, was another universe... basicly, we have a (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) The general understanding of the universe isn't evolution, though. It's cosmology. Evolution has to do with life from the point of the planet's formation--you can, in fact, divorce them; if you talk about cosmology you're moving (as Dan points (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Hmm. I see your point, but am still a little fuzzy as to the distinction. Evolution, AFAIK, attempts to trace life back to proteins in a sea of goop, but then again, I think it would be fair to ask from where the goop came, and so on. -John (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) I think my own explanation is that your question forces conditions that weren't. Like me asking you if you stopped killing babies or some nonsense like that, since you never *were* killing babies in the first place. Essentially, there *is* no (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) I can accept the matter and energy thing, but wouldn't that suppose that life and non-life are merely facets of the same thing, which would suggest that evolution and cosmology are intertwined? (...) Yes. It is a paradox, and thus illogical (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Evolution is concerned with the origins of life not the universe. Those are unrelated fields of science, only associated by the fact that they are scientific pursuits. Theories and conceptions of the origin and nature of the Universe have (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Evolution isn't trying to explain the universe. You seem to be stumbling over that. (...) Now *THIS* I can agree with (the reaction, not the notion). It's an impression I've had for a long time in .debate, although I don't think anyone's (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) I disagree. Evolution does not speak to the origins of life on a particular planet. It merely posits a mechanism by which life on that planet, once underway (by whatever way it came into being, which Evolution is mute on), can fill all (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
I don't have a problem with someone believing in a Greater Being... What I DO have a problem with is the following: IF such a Greater Being exists, why is he/she/it such a bastard? I don't take with the Watchmaker theory, it basically doesn't jive. (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) I'd sure say so. One root problem being (I think) that science has an awful definition of what it means to be alive. Evolution wants to separate itself from cosmology because it doesn't really have anything to say about the Big Bang or the (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) does existential second guessing paranoia work in other areas of your life? yes we can all pretend that we're in the matrix but I'd sooner make decisions based on commonly agreed upon fact of our time, unless proven otherwise. Who has time to (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Oh, it helps-- but only insofar as whether or not I want to argue with people. It helps my sense of wanting to be "right" by saying "hey, they can believe what they want". In other words, by believing in such a theory, I'm less inclined to (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) it's a nice universal way of summarizing. as long as it's not taken to a kilgore trout level it's interesting speculation. although I am an adament supporter of evolution, it is on a level of faith. I havn't looked through the microscopes or (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) my bad and duly noted. I did say in that post 'The intial spark of life is debatable too' which I really should have clarified at the beginning as well. Your explanation as to how evolution does not get involved into that murky area is great, (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) That's basically the conclusion that I came to. When someone asks "well then where did the universe and all this stuff come from?", I reply "Can you phrase that question without invoking within it concepts of spacetime itself?" (i.e. cause & (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) I don't have a problem if someone believes in a higher power, wants to attend a church, etc. This is America and you have that personal right. I DO have a problem when lawmakers in Ohio try to push their religious views into public school (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) I'm one of those people, so I'll offer something of an explanation. It's not that we (allow me to presume to speak for others who share my view on this) think an anti-evolutionist is a lesser *person,* but it is almost invariably the case that (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) I think this is the attitude that James B. was referring to. Let me ask you, what's not "valid" about Creationism? I don't think 'science' can or will be able to disprove it-- although I don't doubt that it will find mounds more evidence to (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Only in part. I was partly refering to the trend to dismiss faith-based arguments, but I was more speaking to the further dismissal of anyone bringing forward faith-based arguments. John (Neal)'s borne the recent brunt of this, but he's by no (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Isn't accusing someone of using "falacious logic" an insult to their person? IE assuming they're a lesser one? I think the assumption you're making is that "I would *never* come to that conclusion, but you would, and that conclusion is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Well, you're making several different points here, so let's take them one by one; First off, John R's not saying Creationism isn't "valid;" he's saying that it's not a "valid scientific theory," and he's 100% correct. Creationism is not (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Very well thought out and written, Dave! A few of my thoughts and ideas (that I can guarantee won't be as thought out nor in any sense a coherent order)... I find that there are fellow Christians out there who *have* to hit others over the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Well, don't condemn me for the assumptions *you're* making. Here's a restatement: A: Rational reasoning is based on experience and observation of verifiable evidence B: Intuitive reasoning is based on feelings and impressions independent of (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Disagree-- but you won't like the answer. (...) Sure it is. It's just that *IF* most Creationists were presented with conflicting data, they'd choose to ignore or dismiss it. Just like you ignore or dismiss the Bible as evidence against (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Mabye this seems cold but I feel that this has to do with continuity of the species. Maternal instinct is found in many species to varying degree, as is monogamous relationships. Monogany helps assures fidelity, security and assures the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: Well, super. After I climb all the way up onto my high horse someone comes along with a polite and articulate post (and he's Canadian, of all things!) Some great points follow: (...) "Missing link" (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: <snippety snip> (...) I'm OK with that view! (does that come as a shock to anyone???) Reason is our evolutionary advantage. If you can't or won't reason, you're repudiating your humanity. I'm an (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Actually, no it's not. At least, not Christian Creationism, which is really what we're talking about. The presence of an omnipotent being by definition eliminates all falsifiability or empirical verification--two necessary criteria for a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) "Micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are creationist terms, not terms used by scientists. That should tell you something right away. Further, in evolution, what you would call "macro-evolution" is nothing more than "micro-evolution" over a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) What? Of course the Big Bang theory makes predictions. Virtually any model makes predictions. You then see if observable data matches the predictions - in the case of the Big Bang, are galaxies (or more properly galactic groupings) moving away (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) I dunno if I'd go so far as to distinguish these two methods of reasoning as much as you'd like to... Could you give me an utterly basic example of each? (...) Ah-- so here's the clutch. Your argument is that your reasoning is superior to (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) BTW, it's bugging me that people haven't detailed the fish yet, just because I used to follow the info on it closely. It was just in the last decade or so that they've caught LIVE ones for scientists. For the longest time, they were just (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) I think you reversed the prediction with the evidence. The evidence was (IIRC) that galaxies are all moving away from each other, and the *conclusion* was that the Big Bang happened. There is no "Therefore, BECAUSE the Big Bang happened, X". (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Once again, the difference is jumping species. Whether it's 2 years or 2 thousand years, or 2 million years, a fish is still a fish. Sure, it adapted over the course of those millions of years to climate changes, grew a new fin to help it (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Rational: After repeated trials eliminating as many external variables as possible, it is apparent that penicillin has a positive medicinal effect on the disease tuberculosis Intuitive: I slept with the window open, and my tuberculosis (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) But I could say the same about the existence of an infinite Being. <snipping here> (...) This is because science is using a loaded bat (to continue the metaphor). The presuppositions of science are that if you can't test it, observe it, (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Well, that's not the part that's falsifiable. And, I agree-- if we take the absolutemost non-literal translation of the Bible and say 1 day = 8.6 billion years or what-have-you, then yes, you're right, it may *not* be falsifiable. Certainly (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Seriously? Where'd you get that stat? Chris (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) False. Evolution describes the changes to fit the environment (simplifying greatly). If the Ceolacanth evolved to the point *where it succeeded in its' environment*, it doesn't necessarily have to change any more to fit Evolutionary Theory. (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Okay, but it's still not scientific. My claim that I just came back from the men's room is falsifiable, but that's not really scientific, either. (...) The flood story? the GLOBAL flood story? Not hardly. And anecdotal examples of failures of (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) In fact, the coelecanth *has* undergone further change. Genus Latimera is unknown in the fossil record; it is *a* coelecanth, but there are many, many types. A few of the changes that have happened to the coelecanth since the end of the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) <...> (...) <...> (...) Dave, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what evolutionary theory is. I would encourage you to step back from the evolution:creation debate, and try and look at the theory of evolution from within a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Let me play off this idea for a minute... The problem with faith-based assertions in a category like debate is that it tends to operate as a trump card of a kind. Faith-based assertions are not logical -- they skip over such a concern and go (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Once again, the difference between species isn't something magical, or even obvious. It's (usually) merely a matter of reproductive capacity. There are many, many examples of two species that are so similar that only recently have scientists (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) Well, there are only three organisms that routinely recognize individual identity through graphic representations and the notion of self as tested with a mirror. Dolphins aren't one of them. We are. Obviously there is yet much to (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Really? Now, I'd call them both rational (==logical?) decisions, there's just less support for the 2nd as opposed to the 1st. IE I'd be "less sure" of the 2nd assumption than the 1st. Which is really how I feel about Creationism. It's not that (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Now this is refreshing--'The theory of Evolution' and saying that it has nothing to do with the plausibility of God. For the record, I believe the world to be millions of years old. I believe the universe to be even older. I believe that there (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) To clear up after reading my post and realizing that I didn't complete this thought--I was thanking James for his well worded response. It was shown to me thusly (trashing God) in parts of this debate and I appreciate his efforts to clear it (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) <goad> Well, it's because the other 33% are Hindus and Jews, and the rest aren't really humans. </goad> The figure is closer to 30-35%, by the way. (URL) best LFB (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) I cited one aspect of the Big Bang, that's all. You usually have some kind of evidence, contruct a model, and then see if you can find new evidence to confirm or deny the theory. I spoke from the standpoint of the model, not the actual linear (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Yep, thank you for clarifying that for the audience. I suppose I could have emphasized the term "scientific" rather than "valid", but it seems perfectly clear to me the way I originally wrote it. I don't oppose the teaching of creationism, I (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
When anthropologists encountered stone age tribes in Africa they exposed them to many objects of the industrial world including pictures. They didn't perceive them as a representative image, let alone the object they were depicting. To expose a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) But no one said that about evolution. I don't even thing that anyone asserted that about science. I happen to not believe in any kind god-stuff, but that has nothing to do with the topic. Even if I did, it would still be clear that evolution (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Chris (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Well, people have been saying that all along!!!! What took you so long? Science in general has nothing to say about faith based beliefs other than "they are outside the purview of science". You can't use science to prove or disprove them. But (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Ya know, I think that's the most succinctly phrased understatement I've heard in a long time. thanks James (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) I call "bullhockey." Citation, please. This just screams residual imperial mentality and the racist anthropology of the pre-WWI era--and the fact that you use it to make a point about nonhumans is extremely problematic. best LFB (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) (probably should clarify--I'm not calling you racist, but calling the example one that's generated by racist hierarchy and totally useless in the context.) -LFB (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) rather than 1/3 which is I think what I heard the stat as... sorry 'bout that one... DaveE (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Well, the point on this one was that I think Dave! insinuated that in order for a theory to be 'scientific', one requirement was that the theory must be able to make predictions. And I disagreed with that assertion. That's where this one was (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) thanks for clarifying to me that I'm not a racist there, I was wondering about that for awhile now, nice for you to set me straight. As far as it being a useless point out of context, I was replying to a statement that dolphins could not see (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Because "tribes in the stone age" is a severe value judgement. It implies that they exist along a continuum that has us at the "good" end and them at the "primitive" or less developed end. That's the core of development theory. And it's (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) That may be true, but I wonder: When evolution is taught in schools, is it preceded by the topic "origin of the universe"? That seems logical to me, and I'd be willing to bet that Big Bang garners all of the press (to the exclusion of (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Careful, your (non classical) liberal education is causing you to use loaded words... that they happen not to be correct is an added bonus for those keeping score at home. (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) I'm OK with that so far as it goes... Tribes in the stone age ARE less developed. And I am perfectly OK characterising my life (and my society) as "better" than theirs. We have LEGO(r). They don't. QED. Next! ++Lar (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) I had no idea that Stone Age was an unpc term. I must update my civilization terminolgy lexicon. Mabye metallurgically challenged? Not preferring alloys? Archae/anthro 'gists have been the worst ambassadors and tomb raiders since recorded (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) A creator is not a theory. It fails the falsifyability test. You seem not to understand this... (...) The evidence indicates support for the Big Bang (I think that's a misnomer in modern terminology, but OK...) and as Dave! is relating quite (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Of course a fish is still a fish. I mean, what else would it be? If you are trying to state (but not quite saying it) that a fish can never evolve into another species, that's easy to answer: yes it can. I think you are really trying to say it (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) I don't think what makes a theory scientific is as hard and fast as some would like to indicate. Does it have to "helpful" to be scientific? Why would it have to? (...) Basically, Creationist Theories don't fit the known evidence. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Would you say that it is possible to talk about events prior to the big bang without referring to religion? -John (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) The big problem with it has little to do with the "emotional distress" it supposedly places on people (I said nothing about this, so I'm not sure where you got it from). It has to do with the fallacious logic that the creation of this linear (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) It is not possible to meaningfully talk about events prior to the big bang (1) at this time. Period. With or without religion. (except in the negative sense of saying that we can't talk about them as we have no frame of reference and no way to (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) There are actual groups of people for lack of a better term, we'll call a tribe, who having no technology beyond stone tool making and limited agriculture fall into a social development known as the Stone Age. These cultures have been having (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) There are actual groups of people for lack of a better term, we'll call a tribe, who having no technology beyond stone tool making and limited agriculture fall into a social development known as the Stone Age. These cultures have been having (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Where did you read that this was an indictment of your intentions regarding cultures? I was making a general point about the problems with the terminology *that is used in the field*, and you're accusing me of something totally out of left (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Also, fish aren't fish. There is no class, subclass, order, family, genus, or species known as "fish." What we know colloquially as fish are in fact four (maybe five now) classes of vertebrates that happen to all share certain features that (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) I too wonder about this. I've heard that bandied about for years, but haven't seen any real accounts of it. I would like to read an account of this occurance. Chris (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Absolutely. If the universe is cyclic, then simply everything collapsed back into as small of a point as possible until the big bang was triggered. An interesting question would be if the physical laws of the universe change from one (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) I know this ever-so-rarely ever happens, but I think I'm going to switch gears and join your team on this one, based on something that struck me after writing this post: (URL) that the Biblical Creation story *does* have evidence to support (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) In an arena of two competing theories, the one that is able to make testable predictions is stronger than and therefore preferable to the one that is not so able. If the theory does not make testable predictions, you can't really perform (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) *CRASH*!!! Nobody expects the Taxonomic Scale Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and anal retentiveness.....oo...ooo....two chief weapons are surprise, anal retentiveness, and a ruthless devotion to splitting scales....three! (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Know Thy Python (was: Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism)
|
|
(...) If, for no other reason, you have to respect a man who knows his Python.... <okay, I just cracked *myself* up with that one!> -John (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Am I *that* transparent? :-) So regarding events prior to the Big Bang, all we have are opinions which may or may not be based upon religion. To say that a Creator started it all or to say that it all just happened are equally neutral. Would (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Question is, is it still "scientific"? I'd still want to say yes. (...) Alright, fine. Switch the example then (we can play this game for a while yet to come). Suppose we *don't* know the chemical makeup of Halley's Comet, because it gets (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) A "fairer" assessment would be that, regarding issues which we cannot verify even in principle, science makes no statement. Similarly, some people (myself included) might say that, since we have no basis for making a determination, it is (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) No, not actually. Scenario 1: a creator and the kernel of the universe (2 elements) Scenario 2: the kernel of the universe itself (1 element) All things being otherwise equal, I would tend to choose the scenario with the fewest assertions. The (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) I'd say you're accurate-- both statements are (AFIAK) equally valid. Which is precicely why "science" says neither of them, but instead says "I dunno, I won't commit to either option" DaveE (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Are you asking if post hoc reasoning is scientific? No--it's actually one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience, like palmistry or astrology or Creationism. (...) For the umpteenth time in this debate you have presented the falacy known as "the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) No, scenario 1 has 1 element: the Creator. The Creator is alone until the creator creates something from literary nothing. The creator and the kernal are the same thing-- the beginning point. -John (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) I think the issue here was my interpretation of your specific problem with Creationism wherein you said: (...) The issue I was attempting to discuss here (if you trace back) is with the 2nd item in your list: "does not make any predictions (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Again, I've been basing my argument on the notion of the Xtian interpretation of Genesis re: infinite Creator. All bets are off once an infinite entity steps into the equation, so my objection stands. This is also, by the way, why studies into (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) I'll still argue that Biblical Creationism is falsifiable-- it's just that CreationISTS tend to either bend with the evidence, or refuse it. If, for example, we were able to "prove" that humans preceeded the Earth, out goes Biblical (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) See my previous point that falsifiable theories that are proven false have no explanatory scientific value. This is the case with biblical creation. The "day-lengths" thing--to which you correctly refer as disproven--was by the way a classic (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Apparently without a 2nd thought, sadly :( It still rather catches me by suprise that the 1st instinct isn't "Oh! We might be wrong!" but is instead "Oh! We must have misinterpreted!". The justification, BTW, is just that: 'Our former (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Yaay, another Larritarian! I expect a love offering from you, acolyte. Took you long enough though. (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
