Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Jul 2002 05:04:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5365 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> 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 swim, but it's still a fish. What tells me something
> right away is the substansive dismissal of any theory that doesn't fit the
> required wordview. 'I believe that there is no god so I'm going to
> interpret what I see today this way to prove there's no god.' Sure, the
> reverse is true 'Oh there *is* a god and here's why we can say that...'
> Whatever. I'm not a "Scientific Creationist", nor am I a scientist. I'm a
> guy who gets paid to fix computers all day.
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 can't evolve into another Genus, or Family, or
Order, or on up the taxonomic scale (in point of fact, we have bred things
that can no longer mate and produce viable offspring with the original
species but can have viable offspring with themselves, forming a new
species). Anyway, we are talking about millions and millions of years.
Keep making small changes millenia after millenia after millenia after
millenia and you end up with something similiar but at the same time quite
different (say Chimps and Humans).
As to the rest, evolution does not address God in any way, shape or form, so
you'll have to be more specific about your complaints. Darwin's major area
of study in college was theology, by the way.
>
> > "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").
>
> Chloresterol is good for you--oh wait, it isn't--oh wait it is, but only
> certain types. Science fudges many many things.
No. Science changes its mind about things as new evidence presents itself.
Darwin's theories are hardly the state of evolutionary thought.
Creationists never admit that they could be wrong. They just made up new
numbers out of the blue (site me why the firm date was changed and how the
new numbers (which never admit possible wrong with the 6000 year figure)
were arrived at).
> Smoking was considered
> healthy at one time, so was heroin. Getting away from the biological
> science, up until 1967 it was a scientifically held principle that the inert
> elements (y'know, the ones at the end of the periodic table) could not,
> under *any* circumstance, partake in a chemical reaction. That was the held
> belief until an inquisitive student in some university showed that, well,
> eys they could react. 1967. The year I was born. Don't go telling me
> about fudging. Yes science is an evolutionary process, and the more we
> learn the more we can 'fix' the underlying ideas of how and why things are
> the way they are. But don't go knocking the 'Christian Scientists' for
> something that 'regular' scientists have been doing for years.
Give me the specifics as to why, then. You are confusing changing due to
new information with dodging the bullet.
>
> >
> > 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.
If something is successful, it doesn't have to change. Sharks have been
around for 100 million years, longer than Tyrannasaurus Rex. There is no
contradiction. You are seizing upon a half-understood concept and
extrapolating a specious conclusion from it. This is typical of the
Creationist attempts to denigrate evolution.
> But the distinctness of the species, how they are different and there's no
> 'fuzziness' between the species, is just too specific to be the product of
> randomness. If evolution, in its purest sense, is the adaptability of
> creatures to the niches they are in, then there whould be 'gray' creatures,
> caught between niches, for niches are not cut and dry--niches gradually
> change from zone to zone.
Some niches do change gradually, some don't. Humans were not originally
distinct, but kept evolving. That's why we look at the fossil record. Gray
areas would be other species under the same genus. Homo Sapien may well
have wiped out its rival gray area (Homo Neandethal). African Gray parrots
change gradually from light to dark, larger to smaller as you move across
Africa (had to work in that gray color <g>).
> > 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.
Wrong. Find a scientist that agrees with that definition. Find a
scientific source that agrees with that definition. Science makes
extroplations based on information that it can uncover, even from events
that happened long ago.
>
Trek was about philosphy, not science. I don't think you want to quote
> > it in any way in regards to science.
>
> I'll quote Shakespeare or Douglas Adams if there is relevance or if they
> summed up a thought more succinctly than I could have. In the case of Star
> Trek, the point was 'don't put all your eggs into one basket' and it seems
> as if rationalists put all their eggs into the rational basket--that there's
> nothing outside the basket that has any relation or importance to what's inside.
I'm sorry, but what you just said really is meaningless. It is neither here
nor there as to whether evolution happens, and is simply an emotional argument.
> You don't think there will come a time when we develop something that can
> help us view the true magnetic field (instead of just iron filings on a
> piece of paper). My point here, obviously missed, is that we can measure
> and quantify stuff in the quantifiable universe.
No, that wasn't your point, you were claiming if our five senses can't
record it, science discounts it. I demonstrated otherwise, and you seem
intent on ignoring the point.
> We use more and more
> powerful and accurate measuring instruments, and we use mechanisms to
> manipulate matter on bigger and smaller scales, from the future asteroid
> mining, to moving atoms around, but all that stuff is the logical extension
> of our senses. To say that the universe is limited to what we measure with
> the 5 senses (with or without the mechanisms of humankind) is
> reductionistic. To perceive something outside the physical realm takes
> faith. Elevation of Science (rational thought) to the exclusion of all else
> is making Science a god. Not only a god but the only god, and that is why
> some scientists get so vehemently opposed to anything else that may question
> their scientific endeavours. When your god is threatened is when these
> discussions come out. Yes, the same can be said of thiests, but right back
> at ya.
Not at all. Evolution does not discuss God, does not deny God, makes no
comment on God or religion.
If something that can not be measured or observed beyond the senses or any
mechanism that exists or ever will exist, it simply exits the realm of
science. The problem exists when Creationists try to claim their
non-science is science. Leave it in philosophy.
> It is a scientific arguement--the pursuit to observe, measure, quantify.
> That science is 'above' the rest is where the issue is. Science is on the
> same plane as all other aspects of life. To say it's better is elevating it
> to godness.
More of the same. Seems more like an inferiority complex, in any case.
> > 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.
>
> Science is independent of wisdom as Spirituality is independant of a divine
> being. Without the latter, what's the use of the former?
Who said it was useful? The point is, science still "is", regardless.
> > 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.
>
> Two aphorisms that I love but neither relate to this discussion that I see,
> contrary to mine, which even has the elements of the scientific pursuit
> first pushing one away from God, and continued pursuit bringing one back to
> God, unless I missed the relation of the quotations to the discussion at hand.
The point is that you can always find a counter-aphorism, so what use are
they? In this case, especially since your own comments coming up contradict
the aphorism you quote.
> The quotation was meant as more of a parable--Does a fish 'know' it's in
> water--does it consider the water in its dealings in everyday life? If
> someone were to point out the water to the fish, would it even realize that
> the water's there? As in--if God is everywhere, do we consider that in our
> dealings in life?
The fish can sense water (touch). You just talked about (presumably) God
not being able to be perceived by any means. You analogy doesn't hold water
(oooooo, sorry, couldn't resist) by your own logic.
> And don't try to teach evolution as science. Science, either biology,
> chemistry, and physics in high school, doesn't have to have *either* theory
> taught at all for the children to succeed in these classes.
Physics is not evolution. Chemistry is not evolution. Good luck getting a
degree in biology without understanding evolution. I suppose next that one
doesn't need to understand the sun doesn't revolve around the earth to
understand physics. Newton would dispute that, I suspect.
> My
> understanding of a weight falling 9.8 m/s^2 doesn't need either theory.
> Saying that 2H2 + O2 = H20 + energy certainly doesn't need it, and the
> concept of photosynthesis certainly doesn't need either. High school is no
> place for either of these theories to be taught.
Why? It certainly helps if you learn the basics before you get to the
advanced stuff, but science is science.
>
> When you're off at university, and you're quite settled into your own little
> worldview and you're comfortable there, and you have the option of taking a
> Creationist or an Evolutionist course, then by all means, go ahead.
But you aphorism indicates that you won't take the latter (but it does
happen), so it would seem that you provided the proof that it isn't accurate.
> No it doesnt for it goes againt the very nature of the survival of the
> fittest. Compassion is opposite that idea.
> Again, love is what it is--pretty much undefinable--but evolution would have
> the 'alpha' people fighting over who gets to procreate--nothing to do with
> love at all.
Let's do this the long way, then. Subject A that we will call David, madly
procreates with any passing female that he can. Those females gives birth
and promptly abandon their babies (compassion doesn't help the females
survive, after all). Result: David's offspring did not have viable
offspring. David is an evolutionary dead end (unless David's offspring are
competent at birth, much the way a hare is, but I'm talking humans here, so
you're outta luck).
Subject B that we will call Bruce, stays with his female, lovingly and
compassionately raises his offspring, protects them, teaches them, and they
grow, have children of their own, that grow up, etc. Bruce's development of
love and compassion turned out to be an evolutionary advantage. Thar ya go!
> It's the spirit, it's the 'je ne sais quoi', it's the things that can't be
> scientifically measured that are just as important as science.
Who said they aren't? Just don't call philosophy science, that's all.
>
> > > 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.
It is a demonstrably wrong opinion, but you are welcome to it (but pardon me
if I don't respect it). I'm sure you are going to be beseiged by people
pointing out that evolution does not even address God (taking long peek in
another window, yup), as I already have.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
