Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jul 2002 16:29:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4320 times
|
| |
|
|
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.
> The hypothesis of evolution (yes, it is still a hypothesis, according to the
> scientific method)
Actually, it's a *theory,* just as the theory of gravitation, the theory
of relativity, the theory of sexual reproduction, and the theory of
continental drift.
> is full of holes and does not make much sense.
In fact, given the current state of understanding, it is the only theory
that makes real sense, and all of modern biology is based upon it.
> While minor evolution--i forget the official term--development within a
> species' genetic code, for example, dogs, has been proved to be possible,
> major evolution into an entirely different species has not been proven to be
> possible.
There really isn't much distinction between so-called "microevolution" and
so-called "macroevolution, other than the time frame, and even that's not
all that significant.
Not even gravity has been "proven" in the absolute way that Creationists
demand evolution to be "proven, but for very strong evidence (which is all
we can ask of any theory, really), see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
By the way, it would be worth your while to examine as much of the
TalkOrigins site as possible, if you're really interested in reading about
the subject.
> I agree, although more has been revealed than you think.
Oh, that. Personal revelation is worthless in furthering overall
knowledge, since by its essential nature revelation of this sort cannot be
confirmed or tested. Further, if the question is "does the Revealer exist,"
then I can't accept your personal testimony (or anyone else's, except the
Revealer's) as proof of that existence.
> (1) This is explained by LDS scholar Eric Skousen, in his book Earth in the
> Beginning.
Well, Skousen is a chemical physicist, so his expertise does not
necessarily relate to cosmology. That's not an attempt to dismiss him out
of turn--if his theories are good, they're good regardless of the author's
qualifications. But I certainly won't accept his word simply because he
said so (any more than I would accept Gould's or Einstein's or Dawkins' or
Hawking's simply because one of them said so.)
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
