 | | 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
|
|
(...) 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 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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 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 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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 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 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 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)
|
