Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:39:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1232 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> We keep branching off into areas that could each entail lengthy
> discussion on their own. I'll try to provide only brief answers
> to your main points in the hopes of us staying focused.
> (snip snip)
>
> Previously, Steve wrote:
> > > Again - premise - Not only do you assume that morals develop over time,
> > > but more importantly, you base everything on evolution - the foundation
> > > of sand I was referring to. The theory of evolution is absurd, so
> > > consequently any hypothesis you base upon it will also be untrue.
>
> and then Jennifer wrote:
> > There frequently seems to be confusion between Evolution and the Theory of
> > Evolution. Evolution, that is, the apparently directed or emergent change of
> > species over time, without "Theory of" prefixed to it, is in a fact a process
> > that has been demonstrated and is demonstrable. The evidence is all around
> > you; this is why antibiotic resistant "superbugs" come into being, for
> > example.
>
> which David added to:
>
> > VERY important distinction, and one that I touched on a little, I think,
> > but not very much... And on that note-- Steve, could you be a little
> > (a lot, really) more specific on which you meant, and what aspects you
> > disagree with?
>
> As Jennifer says - evolution, in the sense of change and development, is
> quite apparent - and I would concur. The absurd part is when Darwin or
> whomever claims that one species evolved into another, (a lizard grows
> wings and becomes a bird, a cat becomes a dog becomes a horse, or
> whatever the precise nonsense is) that all living things "just happened"
> by chance, that the earth and everything else "evolved" into the amazing
> universe we inhabit somehow without God having created it.
There is so much that is wrong in this statement I hardly know where to start.
Perhaps I should say that if people feel "creationism vs evolution" is ground
ploughed to desert, I'll leave my contribution at this one post. To focus the
debate I'm putting to one side the cosmology of how the universe and earth were
formed in order to concentrate on evolutionary biology, my area of expertise.
Noone knows the mechanism by which life "happened" to come about, and it's quite
possible that we will never know because its origins have been so obscured by
the proliferation of living organisms over the past few billion years. It seems
likely that unliving structures (such as oily bubbles, or clay) provided a
stable environment in which a self replicating molecule could thrive. From there
it's a short step to bacteria, and from bacteria it's an even shorter step to
protozoa, fungi, animals and plants.
It's an indictment of his education system that Steve understands the theory of
evolution so poorly (unless his description was content-free rhetoric). A
dinosaur did not wake up one morning and find that its eggs had hatched birds,
and cats, dogs and horses have a relatively distant common ancestor. If anyone
doesn't actually know how genetic variation, adaptation and natural selection
operate to produce new species I will be happy to explain.
There is a wealth of scientific evidence that supports the current theory of
evolution. I'd be interested to see Steve's demonstration of how it is "rotten
to the core".
On a personal note, I find the evolutionary process amazing, and a reason to
believe in God. To my mind, denying the glories of the universe because they
contradict a childish interpretation of Genesis is a sacrilege greater than any
levelled at the ultra-rationalists.
--DaveL
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes: <snip> (...) Me too. Let's see if it can be done without "junk science". I have my doubts. (...) This isn't a viewpoint I agree with, but it's one that is a lot more to my liking than strict creationism. (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) <snip> (...) I was being brief, generalizing and sarcastic - I'll be more specific. (...) I challenge you to show me ANY scientific evidence supporting the current theory. It would probably be best to start by attempting to answer any of the (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| We keep branching off into areas that could each entail lengthy discussion on their own. I'll try to provide only brief answers to your main points in the hopes of us staying focused. (...) Certainly scientific evidence is preferable to testimonial (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
