Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:25:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5316 times
|
| |
|
|
David Koudys wrote:
> > The Ceolacanth currently existing doesn't disprove evolution in any way.
> > Why would you say that?
>
>
> 'cause the very word 'evolution' infers change. Things don't change, which
> is contrary to the very concept of evolution. If we were to take the base
> principles of evolution, that things must change, or adapt, as the world
> changes--but wait--here's a fish that was supposedly extinct for millions of
> years swimming around. 'But', the evolutionists say, 'mayhaps some fishes
> stayed the same and others underwnent the change'. Well, that contradicts
> the evolutionary process, 'cause if change happens because it *has* to
> happen, and one thing didn't change, then none of the others would have had
> to change, either.
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. Just because its' environment MAY have shrunk over time to a very small
area, so that they are only found in small geographic pockets, does not mean it MUST
further change or cease to exist.
The Ceolacanth existing today does not prove or disprove Evolutionary Theory. IF
its' environment had been absolutely and completely wiped out and it still existed,
it would be a dent in ET, but since we don't know WHAT its' original environment is
like, we can't state with finality that it IS or IS NOT in its' evolutionary
environment.
> > Opinions are fine, just don't make the mistake of calling them science.
>
> And don't make the mistake of saying that evolution is science. Science is
> based on what can be shown today--evolution happened a long time ago.
You make it sound like it happened and then just stopped. You obviously have no true
understanding of Evolutionary Theory if you think this.
> > > 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.
>
>
> And don't try to teach evolution as science.
I still think you have no concept of what science is, but I'll let others try to
explain it (yet again and AGAIN) more clearly.
> > > 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.
>
> It is my opinion, true. Just as it is my opinion that evolution has less to
> do with science as it does in forcing a theory of why God doesn't exist on
> the public masses.
Yet again proving you don't seem to grasp the idea of science.
Evolutionary Theory can still fit within religion. It simply describes the
adaptation of species. What, exactly, in that, denies religion or God?
--
| Tom Stangl, Sun ONE Internet Technical Support, Sun Microsystems
| iPlanet Support - http://www.sun.com/service/support/software/iplanet/index.html
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
| ONLINE SUPPORT CENTER
| http://www.sun.com/service/online
| Submit, check and update cases. Access Sunsolve, Download
| patches, View Sun System Manuals, Order Spare Parts and more
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
