Subject:
|
Re: Mormon bashing again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:50:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
819 times
|
| |
|
|
Bill Farkas wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
> >
> > I've read most of the supposedly "scientific" Creationist literature,
> > and nowhere is the necessary connection between belief in a director
> > or architect ("theistic evolution") and the Christian god. Creationism
> > is emphatically *not* science, first of all because dressing up dogma
> > in scientific terminology does not make it scientific, and second of
> > all because Creation Science (or "Creation Research" or "Theory of
> > Spontaneous Origins" or whatever Hank Morris et al are calling it
> > this week) operates on the basis of anti-logic. The latter means
> > that Creationism depends on disproving evolution to prove itself true.
>
> I disagree, creationism can stand quite aptly on it's own two feet. It doesn't
> get it's validation from disproving evolution. There is quite a lot of
> geological and biological evidence to support the bible.
Like?
> The fossil record is
> not as the evolutionist would like it, for example.
Anti-logic. Evolution and biblical Special Creation aren't the only two choices.
And evolution does not "like" or "dislike" the fossil record (although we all can
dream of having every creature that ever lived preserved somehow, but then it would
be pretty crowded! ;) ). Palaeontologists simply look at what is, posit hypotheses
that are then tested against what else is known, and then draw tentative
conclusions.
> Not to mention that there
> is no evidence of intermediary life forms necessary to support the THEORY -
> only clearly delineated specific and vastly different species that reproduce
> "after their kind" just like the primitive bible states.
Anti-logic. Again, your position is depending on what evolutionary theory lacks.
Incidentally, the "intermediary life-forms" argument is an old chestnut in the
Creationist trove--it dates from before the discovery of Archaeopteryx, from before
the discovery of late synapsid reptiles (the intermediaries between reptiles and
mammals--palaeontologists *still* can't decide what they were) and from before the
theory of punctuated equilibrium.
> Evolution is desperately lacking proof.
Anti-logic! Even if true, this does not support Special Creation. Now here's a
mindbender: If there were no Bible, what would you think? If you cannot imagine
the scenario, or if you cannot consider this possibility, then your true source is
not science but religion. I don't have a problem with that if you want to believe
it, but I find it interesting that creationists want to pretend that it *is*
scientific somehow, and develop amazing contrivances to do so (look up "Water
Canopy Theory" for the Flood, and "Apparent Age Theory" for the fossil record, for
just two examples).
> Did you know that the bible states that the earth is
> round - long before the days of Cristobol Colon (Christopher Columbus)? I know,
> a very basic issue, yet millenia ahead of it's time.
The ancient Greeks and Egyptians knew it was round too--long before the Old
Testament was canonified. Do you have a verse citation for the biblical
declaration of a round Earth? I ask this because there's a 10,000-member Flat
Earth Society in the United States who sincerely believe that the Earth is flat,
and that Magellan and Apollo were deceptions (the latter staged in Hollywood on a
set they claim to have located!), et cetera, based on a literal reading of
Genesis. You would surely find that to be as ludicrous and unsupported by evidence
as I find Creation Science, but their response to you would be not unlike yours to
me.
> Listen, I cannot spar on
> your level, having nothing more than a high school education. I can't drop
> names and theories like you have.
Unfortunately, if you intend to advance Creationism as scientific and on par with
evolutionary theory in known evidence and explanatory power, it becomes necessary
to know what's being said out there. It's not "name dropping" or "theoretical
hoo-hah," it's a science-premised discussion that Creationists have entered
upon--scientists don't poach on the grounds of religion, because science has
nothing to say about morality or ethics. Interestingly, the Creation Science
movement is itself "evolving," and it has abandoned some appendages and developed
others--it's really very interesting. And, of course, evolutionary theory has
itself evolved beyond the target that Creation Science makes of it.
> But, one thing I know, and that is that God
> is more than a concept of superstitious men to manipulate the behavior of
> others. Of course Christianity is a matter of faith, therein lies the virtue.
> Where is the virtue in acting upon only that which you can prove with your
> senses. None of the great achievements of history would have been realized had
> people only believed in what they could prove. Uggghh, Dogma! (I intensely
> dislike that word! I'm not trying to be authoritative or arbitrary at all.)
It's an ugly word, I'll admit. But again, counterfactuals and anti-logic do not
prove the point--and falling back on faith isn't science. (And no, evolution
doesn't depend on faith--anyone can go look at the evidence, evidence much more
certain than any of the circumstantial evidence used to support the Old Testament.
What's more, we can change our position, something that true faith in the religious
sense doesn't allow.)
> > No other option is seen as possible other than those two--the cyclical
> > world of certain Asian religions, for example, isn't even considered,
> > nor the theory I just came up with now that a giant pink bunny made
> > us all five minutes ago with our memories intact and apparent age.
>
> When are you holding services, all hail the giant pink bunny. Wait, I think I
> see his reflection in that window!
The point was that disproving evolution does not prove Special Creation.
Christianity does not necessarily equal Special Creation. I'm not warming any
carrots in the stove. :) (Actually, big coincidence, they had a giant pink
stuffed bunny on display down at the Shop-Rite yesterday. But the "meaning of
Easter" is a .debate for a different day.)
> > One point of Bill's original post was true: Darwin's theory was wrong.
> > But it was wrong in precisely the same way that Newton's theories are
> > wrong--they were only adequate to describe what was then known. Only
> > the generalities of descent with modification are still present in
> > today's evolutionary theory. Interesting side notes: Darwin in fact
> > started as a Creationist, and evolution was first posited over a century
> > before he wrote! If Creationism is so scientific and correct, how
> > did evolution ever get a foothold?
>
> With all the fabricated and mistaken evidence they initially offered, your
> guess is as good as mine.
Since we're mentioning fabrication, I should probably point out that the Creation
Research Society continues to use for anti-logic evidence that is out of date, and
that they *know* is out of date or just plain wrong--including the supposed "human
and dinosaur together" Fred Flinstone footprints at Glen Rose, TX that were proven
to be a hoax in the 1930s; the moon-dust influx numbers posited in 1956, before any
man-made object had even orbited the planet; or their repeated charges leveled at
the German museum that holds Archaeopteryx that the feather impressions on this
incredible transition fossil were a fabrication--to its credit, the fossil has been
subjected to every test conceiveable, including electron microscope scanning, and
has been found to be genuine according to atomic physics--conclusive evidence that
was examined by experts outside palaeontology and found to support the fossil as
genuine.
If early evolutionary theory used fabrications (Piltdown Man being the most famous)
or mistakes, those have long since been corrected, and continue to be corrected to
undo the vanity and showmanship aspects of 19th-century palaeontology (see, for
example, Gregory Paul's _Predatory Dinosaurs of the World_). This is something
Special Creation cannot, by its very nature, do--because it is based on religious
faith and is not scientific. Creation Science's advocates continue to fabricate
"evidence" and make exceedingly basic mistakes in chemistry and physics designed to
confuse the lay reader (such as the supposed Second Law of Thermodynamics conundrum
which you mention below and the meaningless wordplay that is used to supposedly
debunk natural selection).
> > As to the books mentioned above, give me citations (Author, Title,
> > Publisher, Year) and I'll give you reactions. You see, most scientists
> > ignore Creationism, figuring like the rest of the world that it would
> > simply go away in the face of overwhelming evidence.
>
> Yet there IS no evidence of the actual evolution itself, only theory.
Gravity--a "process" in the same manner as evolution--is only a theory. Yet we
trust that gravity will work, and when it is seen not to behave as predicted, we
change the theory (as Einstein did at first, and as it continues to change with
quantium mechanics and efforts towards a Unified Field Theory). Evolution does the
same thing. I've heard advocates of Creation Science whinge about this on the
debate floor, stating that it shows how "dishonest" and "spineless" evolution is,
but they never stop to consider that by its very nature as a scientific theory,
evolution is motile. Every scientific theory is; they're evidence-driven.
By the way, I'll be looking for a post of those citations, whenever you have them
handy.
> There is
> no proof. Far from overwhelming - it's non-existant. It has never been
> demonstrated. It simply could not have been random, the entire ball of wax is
> too complex to be random. Nature yields nothing orderly. A tree never grows
> into a complex arrangement of parts becoming something useful or meaningful.
> Nature yields chaos. Evolution flies directly in the face of every law of
> science and you know it.
Not in the slightest. And it's not random--basic knowledge of chemistry should
tell you that organic molecules are highly self-ordering. Now, I never, ever said
it was entirely random--but rather that if there is an Architect, then that
Architect has chosen evolution as the method of construction, and the laws of
physics and chemistry are set up in such a way as to allow it. However, you're
still relying on anti-logic: what evolution is not, what it cannot explain to your
satisfaction (even though by your own admission you have a very limited knowledge
of evolutionary theory), and why it is insufficient morally. You have not given
one shred of evidence that says Special Creation is *true* without going to
Genesis. Palaeontologists, on the other hand, can easily dispense with Darwin (and
most do--have you ever read _The Origin of Species_ or _The Descent of Man_?
Boring as watching grass grow...oh, yes, I forgot; by Creation's standards, that
should be impossible too...true chaos should reign).
Now, you see, nature does yield order--a tree does grow with order, as determined
by its genetics; grass does grow; water can flow uphill; and complex systems can
grow from simple ones; all if you *add energy* to the system. Second Law (that
entropy/chaos are always increasing) only holds true for systems that are losing
energy. Oh, if you can't figure out where the "energy" necessary for order to
exist comes from, just sit on a hillock at about 5:00am facing east, and in about
an hour or two the answer should "dawn" on you....
> Evolution cannot, cannot, cannot account for all of
> the gazillions of mutations necessary to produce such vastly different and
> complex life forms known to have existed. We KNOW that the majority of
> mutations are negative or debilitating, yet where are all the fossils of this
> inconceivably huge amount of negative mutations necessary to produce the
> relatively small number of positive ones that comprise all known life.
"Positive" and "Negative" really don't exist in the natural world. They either
enhance survival, or they don't. What is currently posited is called "punctuated
equilibrium"--a situation where the ecosystem is in relative stability, with
species and genii enjoying a long lifespan (in a geological sense). Something then
happens, an ecosystem suddenly changes--catastrophism--and that's when mutation
starts to matter. If there's no pressure on the environment, behaviour doesn't
change, and if behaviour doesn't change, then 99.9+% of mutations will indeed not
enhance survival at all--or, at least, not sufficiently to ensure their
propagation; likewise, 99.9+% of mutations will also not *decrease* the survival
rate, because they'll be selected against. For example, the oceans haven't changed
that much--and look at sharks. Almost the same today as in the first examples
known from over 300 million years ago, with only minor refinements to the
streamlining and control surfaces (we can't speak so much to the soft parts, of
course). No environmental pressure.
> It doesn't exist. There is an incredible amount of fossil evidence required to
> cover the intermediary life forms and the negative mutations as well. This
> evidence should be many times larger than that representing present life.
Not necessarily--are you aware of how difficult it is for a fossil to form? It
takes a catastrophe of some kind, that buries creatures rapidly, before they can
decompose--and then those remains must somehow survive geological upheaval and be
found close to the surface by humans. Those are awful long odds, yet we still have
a remarkably good record for the evolutionarily stable stretches. The current
estimate is that one of every half billion or so organisms that died was a
candidate for fossilization. That means that you might, in 300 million years, have
only 12 sets of human remains from 100BC to 2050AD, and of that 60, you might be
lucky to locate one in any condition. Of course, that varies depending on the
location, the type of animal, the circumstances of death, and the animal's
behaviour (like the mass Iguanodon kill, where 23 were all fossilized because of an
apparent landslide--herd animals, they were caught together.)
> Yet
> not even one single solitary piece of it exists. Who is relying more on faith
> or fairytales - you or me?
For origins? The faith is all yours. Unlike your stance, I can change mine to fit
the evidence as seen, and all of the evidence--circumstantial by its nature, since
humans have only been on Earth for a blink of the geologic eye--supports evolution
in some form. K-Ar dating? Evolution. Microevolutionary adaptation? Evolution.
The fossil record? Evolution. Catastrophism and species radiation? Evolution.
Even allowing your "odds of mutation happening" objection into the picture, I can
simply tack and say "Theistic evolution," or Architect-driven evolution. Without
relying on a literal reading of Genesis--dogma, for lack of a better word--Creation
Science has absolutely zero evidence that cannot also support evolution, theistic
or otherwise.
> > The two aren't incompatible
> > unless you demand a literalist reading of Genesis and a strict
> > adherence to Revelations eschatology--which is unscientific.
>
> A bumble bee flying is unscientific - yet it's true. Cliche and tiresome, I
> know, but still fact.
It's not unscientific at all. Boeing 747s can't fly either, without sufficient
thrust. Same with a bumblebee. Think about this the next time you're taxiing on
the runway in your 747. ;)
> > Besides, amino acids are self-ordering--
> > primitive self-replicating chains of the sort you cite taking "240
> > million years" to develop can in fact be made in a matter of hours
> > under mildly controlled conditions with wide variances--wide enough
> > to be plausable for a primordial environment.
>
> I was speaking of the amount of time required for the far less common positive
> mutation becoming universal to the life form having mutated, such as fins
> becoming feet (which would require a bazillion mutations in itself).
Not necessarily. Rhipdistian fishes had transitional limbs--yet they are ignored
by Creation Science. And, if evolution is so wrong, how can you gauge "common" or
"less common" mutations, or how many "standard mutation units" would be required to
generate a terrestrial limb? The general time scale given for the rise of
amphibians is 35 million years--and by the end of that time, they still looked an
awful lot like their predecessors...
> As far as
> "mildly controlled conditions" - isn't that the entire point - there was no
> mild control - in fact the environment was extremely harsh and not the least
> bit conducive to the formation of life. We know life cannot exist without the
> ozone - otherwise why is everyone freaking out about holes in the ozone and the
> effects of ultra violet rays.
Life can exist without ozone. We're just worried about skin cancer. And besides,
the first life forms were blue-green algae, and existed in the shallow
seas--already protected from UV.
> > > History
> > > has proven that powerful people with little or no morals WILL dominate the
> > > weak.
> >
> > It has also proven that the righteous and morally upright (as
> > self-defined, naturally) will also dominate the weaker, in the
> > name of "civilising" them. It's still going on today in huge
> > parts of the world, and it's the reason why much of Africa is
> > such a tremendous mess (not to mention parts of Asia and Latin
> > America). The belief in moral rectitude unfortunately brings
> > with it enormous blinders.
>
> I wouldn't call those valid representations of what the bible teaches. They are
> clearly illegitimate contortions designed for personal gain.
Ah, but these were all people *convinced* of their Biblical rectitude! It even
happens today. Many did not work for personal gain--well, besides personal
spiritual gain--yet still set about destroying local systems.
> > > Morality must originate outside of ourselves -
> > > there can be no other source - otherwise everything is a house of cards • easily
> > > toppled.
> >
> > Why can't it exist in the simple tenet, "Do unto others, as you
> > would have done unto you?" Do we need the fear of eternal punish-
> > ment to keep us in line? I'd like to believe a more altruistic
> > and doctrinally neutral alternative is possible.
>
> I don't do right out of fear, I do it because it's right. "Do unto others"
> without a higher authority collapses when you consider the Hitlers and Husseins
You realise, of course, that by newsgroup tradition, you've just lost the .debate
by saying the "H" word? (The first one, not the second?) ;)
> of the world. Evil always exists among us, yet how does science account for it.
> If there is no source of good, then where is the source of human evil. Every
> conception of man has consistently been co-opted by evil men. Evil is in fact
> an absence of good, just as dark is an absence of light. All evil can be
> attributed to a lack of the all elusive Love. No child who has been truly and
> sufficiently loved, nurtured and given a sense of significance will become a
> Hitler or Hussein. When we lack real love we seek to fill the void with other
> things.
Science has just about zero to say about morality and ethics, so this point is not
really .debateable--nor would a scientist try, at least on experimental grounds.
After all, even researchers can be religious, have ideas on ethics and morality, et
cetera--and again, many are devout Christians from across the spectrum of faith.
> > Death in most like-animal combat is accidental.
>
> Not in the cases listed above.
Animals fighting over territory? The goal is not to kill--it is to drive the
challenger away. For breeding purposes? Again, not to kill, but to get the rival
to concede defeat. If you watch like animals sparring, take careful note of what
happens when one backs away--there might be a bit more hissing, spitting, and
batting at the air, but the winner generally does not pursue the defeated to "kill"
them. Outright killing is counterproductive in all but the most solitary animals,
because that fellow creature is still important to the overall group.
> > When you start
> > making analogies between animals and the horror of Columbine, though,
> > things break down--since when do animals kill themselves after
> > killing others of their kind?
>
> The analogy was not intended to be taken that far.
Ah, but it must be in order to be valid--if you're going to name a specific case as
proof of principle, then that case comes with all of its baggage.
> The best to you, too. I enjoy the presentation of rational ideas. People on
> Lugnet tend to be far more civil than other groups - must be "the Bond of the
> Brick."
Eh, who knows. :) Back to work for me. Play well!
best
Lindsay
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) lacks. (...) before (...) and (...) the (...) And they have in fact found intermediary forms that predate Archaeopteryx recently in China (or was it Mongolia, sorry, I forget). A more definite mix of dinosaur and bird. There are plenty of (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) I disagree, creationism can stand quite aptly on it's own two feet. It doesn't get it's validation from disproving evolution. There is quite a lot of geological and biological evidence to support the bible. The fossil record is not as the (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 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
|
|
|
|
