Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:14:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1137 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> The more we learn about biology, the more absurd Darwinism appears.
> It is under attack by both Christians and non-Christians. Below are
> a few fundamental points against Darwinism that none of its supporters
> has yet been able to successfully refute...
The specifics of evolutionary theory are under constant attack, as is
appropriate for any branch of science. However, evolution itself is
universally accepted among the serious scientific community; it's simply the
details that are in dispute.
> - The fossil record does not support evolution.
You're likely referring to the so-called absence of so-called "transition
fossils" that would supposedly link arbitrarily chosen stages of evolution.
First of all, if I provide you with a link between, say, reptiles and birds,
you'll ask for a link between reptiles and link1, and then for a link between
link1 and link2, and so on ad infinitum. To use an analogy, if I know my
grandfather, but neither he nor I know anything about my father, do you suggest
I have no lineage with my grandfather? Of course not; the absence of a link
does not necessary imply the absence of a chain (a term I use cautiously; see
below.)
Having said that, I must ask you what would qualify as a transition
fossil? That is, one that you'd accept as a link between any two species.
> - "Survival of the fittest" is a tautology. (How do we know that
> the fittest species survived? Because they survived.)
This is like saying because a sieve sifts things, isn't a sieve. Besides
which, "survival of the fittest" isn't the entire theory start to finish; it's
a neat encapsulation of the ideas. Further, that which survives isn't
necessarily an organism or species; it's a trait. You're refuting a summation
of the theory as though it's the entire theory.
> - Evolution is not "falsifiable." A theory that cannot be proved wrong
> is not a theory.
Clearly it is falsifiable, as DaveL has explained in his post.
> Although it is a "Swiss -cheese" theory, it's taught in our schools as
> "fact" (I guess it evolved from a theory to a fact?) "Writers of
> textbooks commonly used in high schools have resorted to outright
> falsehoods to obscure the crisis in Darwinism." Some examples:
>
> - The "life-in-a-test-tube" experiment ignores that the earth's early
> atmosphere would theoretically have contained gases that were not
> hydrogen-rich but volcanic.
You're probably referring to the experiments in which supposedly primordial
gasses and liquids were subjected to heat and electricity (was that Stanley
Miller? It's been awhile). If so, then you should probably be told that this
theory:
a: never purported to create life, but rather to see if complex
chemical compounds could be synthesized from more elementary
materials (and in this it was entirely successful)
b: is not taught as "how to create life 101" but rather as part
of the history of the scientific quest to find the source of
life on Earth. In every science class (in which it was
discussed) in three school districts and two universities,
this is stated very plainly.
> - The similar embryos depicted to "prove" common ancestry were
> faked over a century ago, a fact known to Darwinist for decades.
Yeah, yeah. So was Piltdown man, as everyone knows. However, you're
attacking the proverbial straw man, since one falsehood does not invalidate the
entire theory of evolution, any more than a single correct example (if such
could exist) of creationism would validate that theory.
> - The "Tree of Life" depicted to prove common ancestry has been
> disproved by molecular biology.
Is this the same tree of life whose branches you're asking us to fill with
the fossil record? That is, in your point above you fault the incomplete
fossil record, yet here
> - The photographs of peppered moths used to "prove" natural
> selection were faked.
See the bit about Piltdown Man above.
We (collectively) can cite evidence in support of evolution all day long and
refute the counter arguments until we're blue in the collective face. I'll cut
to the chase, though, and ask if you can provide even a shred of evidence to
support creationism. Are you willing to subject your own theory to the same
kind of scrutiny you're applying to evolution?
Your fundamental error in this exchange is the underlying assumption that by
"disproving" evolution (which you haven't), you're somehow "proving"
creationism (which you can't). You thereby create false dilemma, or the
either/or falacy, claiming in effect that the "truth" must be one of only two
choices, when in fact that's not the case. Even if evolution were false, that
has nothing with the correctness of creationism. Who's to say that some third
theory isn't the correct one?
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (23 years ago, 15-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
|
|
|
|
