Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:58:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5399 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> I'm not a person who will say unequivocably that Evolution (macro) is
> outright wrong. I am not a scientist, I don't study this stuff for years
> and I do not know it to be true or false. My dabblings into it show that
> there is micro evolution and I have seen it via text books and it makes
> sense that this is so, to adapt to changes in the environment and the niches
> in which the species survives. I have heard that there have been 'macro
> evolution' fossils found, but on closer inspection, and with time (as with
> the case of the caught fish off the coast of Madagascar, supposedly extinct
> for millions of years) have been proven false or erronous or still in
> dispute. The research into DNA is inconclusive to prove macro evolution,
> even tho the DNA molecules are approx. 90 percent match between us and apes.
> I mean, why not--we have bones, skin, hair, eyes, etc... Instead of looking
> for what is similar between the species, look at what's different about them.
"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 very long time. This reveals the pernicious habit
of Creationists: to cover their flaws, they attempt to corrupt another
science, in this case, Geology ("the earth is only 6000 years old...oh
wait...mere historians can prove otherwise.....ummmmm, let's fudge that out
to six to ten thousand years old").
The Ceolacanth currently existing doesn't disprove evolution in any way.
Why would you say that?
Chimps are something like a 98% DNA match to humans. Other mammals ("bones,
skin, hair, eyes, etc.") do not reach that level. It is consistent with
evolutionary theory. If a dolphin was a 98% match, and a chimp 90%, that
would not be consistent and either there would be a problem with the path we
thought evolution took, or the concept of evolution itself (but not
necessarily the latter).
>
> I have a faith that the universe has a purpose, a destination, and nothing
> has a purpose unless there is a rational, intelligent mind behind it.
> Naturally, due to entropy (as talked about earlier) things tend towards
> disorder and chaos--to derive complex and structured systems takes a
> rational push. We are here for a reason. What that reason is, who knows?
> Should we endeavour to try and figure it out? Absolutely. Should we get
> our knickers in a knot if someone is drawing a different conclusion from the
> same inputs? Prob'ly not.
>
> We have the ability to reason. That ability, imho, is given to us by our
> Maker. My personal stance is not to put Reason above any other part of my
> life--'I think, therefore I am' maybe a good starting point, but it is not
> the end all of all of creation.
Opinions are fine, just don't make the mistake of calling them science.
>
> I hate quoting movies (no, not really) but Star Trek had 2 things to say
> about the pursuit of knowledge 'n such...
>
> The first movie, where a giant 'supercomputer' (won't go into details about
> whatever...) reached the limit of information--it had gathered all physical
> data thru the known galaxy and thought 'is this it? is there no more?' It
> takes a leap of logic, a leap of faith, to find that physical data, that the
> world that can be measured thru the 5 senses, is not even close to being all
> that there is. This is where my leap of faith comes in--I fundamentally
> believe that there is something outside the scope of the 5 senses, and that
> it isn't like 'all darkness, nothing, and/or insignificant'.
Star Trek was about philosphy, not science. I don't think you want to quote
it in any way in regards to science.
>
> We build newer and more powerful telescopes to probe farther out into the
> universe, and are now seeing original energies from the 'Big Bang'. We make
> microscopes that 'see' atoms now, and we have the ability to move them
> around and place them where we want them. I love science, I love rational
> thought processes, I love that we have the ability to do these things. But
> seeing super far things, or super small things, only improves our sense of
> sight, just as radio 'betters' our sense of hearing. There is nothing
> outside the 5 senses that Science can even remotely find out about, and it
> is arrogant to say, 'if there is something outside what we can touch, taste,
> smell, hear, and see, it's not as important as what science teaches us.'
We have to reduce information to something that our senses can comprehend,
true, but I cannot sense magnetism. Oh, I can see it's effects given the
proper equipment, but I don't sense it directly. Same for radio waves. So
science does find out things that are outside our five senses. It isn't
just a case of super-vision, or super-hearing. Science doesn't say what you
claim it says. You are using an emotional argument, not a scientific one.
>
> This is my issue.
>
> Spock said it in ST6-"Logic (rational thought, whatever) is the *beginning*
> of wisdom, not the end of it".
Wisdom strays into the realm of philosophy, not science. We do not always
use science wisely, but the science itself is there independent of wisdom.
>
> There was another quotation attributed to a 'real' person in history (can't
> remember who)--"a little knowledge inclineth a man's belief to athiesm, the
> continuing pursuit of knowledge inclineth a mans mind to spirituality"
I've no doubt that there's is an aphorism that states the opposite. Too
many cooks spoil the broth, many hands make light work.
>
> Like the fish swimming, wondering "Where's the water--I can't see it!"
What? The fish can't feel it?
>
> Just because something cannot be measured, quantified, and placed
> in a proper place in the periodic table, does that negate the importance of it?
No, just don't confuse it with science. Don't try to teach it as science.
>
> Compassion is something I think about alot--No where in the Darwinist world
> does compassion find a place. Survival of the fittest negates compassion.
> And yet we have it. Not only do we have it, but we seem to be getting more
> of it as humankind evolves--if evolution is the defacto standard.
If compassion helps to have your offspring survive to the point where they
can reproduce, then yes, it does have a place.
>
> Love--again does not fit into evolution. Sure some can live without it but
> they're missing something.
I rather imagine that love helped us get where we are, so I don't see how
that is inconsistent with evolution.
>
> I know that some evolutionists say that the emotions of fear, trepidation
> and such came from a healthy understanding of the ramifications of getting
> eaten by a sabre tooth tiger years ago, and we still have the basic sense of
> survival in us (hence most phobias like the fear of heights 'n such). Sure
> I can accept that hypothesis, but that in no way explains the overall sense
> of self, sense of consiousness, sense of being that we humans have. If
> evolution is the defacto standard, why not other species? The mouse may be
> smart and run thru a maze, the spider may be a great architect when it makes
> a web, and dolphins have the ability for communication and they even *play*
> :) , but are they conscious? Do they have a soul? I dunno. Again, just
> because we can't measure it with our instruments does not mean that it isn't
> there or that it isn't important.
Perhaps other species do have that but don't have a mode of expression that
is conducive to us to figure it out. Personally, I think my dog qualifies.
My bird is about as smart as a two year old human - does a two year old
qualify? Even my stupid cats (not that I think cats are stupid, just the
pair I currently have are monumentally stupid even by cat standards) have a
sense of self.
> Living without God is like living without anything--it can't happen.
This is an opinion. It's an interesting philosophy. But I will note that
it doesn't have a darn thing to do with science, much less evolution.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
