Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jul 2002 20:30:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4567 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Curt Tigges writes:
> 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).
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 likely be found, and in this, too, it has been proven
correct repeatedly. In addition, evolution can be falsified; that is, one
can conceive of a circumstance in which evolution could be shown to be
false, such as finding a fossilized human skull in the same strata as
Devonian organisms.
As to macroevolution in the lab, see my point a little farther down.
> Any "evidence" that supports evolution could be used to prove S.C.
Give me an example of something that could disprove Creationism.
If two theories explain the origin of species with equal precision, but
one requires the addition of a supernatural (or divine, or spectral, or
what-have-you) agency, then it's simply unnecessary to require the addition
of such an agency without additional evidence of that agency's existence.
> > I should also clarify, in the interest of honesty, that Creationism is
> > indeed a theory, but it's not a scientific one, whereas evolution and
> > gravity are.
>
> Explain to me how what I said is not scientific.
You didn't, but I said Creationism isn't. That's why I was giving
examples of scientific theories for comparison.
> Read Earth in the Beginning. (FYI, Eric Skousen is not a chemical engineer,
> he has a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering science. He works in the fields of
> fluid dynamics, energy systems, and space physics).
Whoops! My mistake. I pulled the wrong name from a pro-Creationist site.
I withdraw that specific objection, but in any case his particular degree
gives him no expertise in cosmology.
Read "Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins. Read "Origin of Species" by Darwin.
Read "A Brief History of Time" by Hawking. Amazon doesn't seem to list
anything by Skousen, but from what you've described it sounds like he's
running along lines similar to those of Hugo Ross or Gerald Schroeder, but
I'd need to see more of his work to be sure.
> > Evolution has been empirically demonstrated in the
> > laboratory.
>
> Again, microevolution. Macroevolution is diffenrent.
Again, no it's not. The only thing different is the degree and (usually)
the timeframe.
And in all honesty, once scientists demonstrate so-called macroevolution
in the lab, Creationists will say "yeah, but that only worked because an
intelligent being initiated it, so you prove our point."
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
