Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:26:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1442 times
|
| |
|
|
Evolution is not observable.
And to state it again - I'm not attempting to convince you of Creationism here
- just that evolution is impossible. You've tried to loop creationism and
spirituality back into things - sorry if it appears that that is what I'm
doing. In fact - for now, I'm only showing the impossibility of evolution.
I've stated it before - I've started a new thread on the subject:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8797
-Jon
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> > (It's Friday, so I have time to do this :-))
>
> I don't really, so apologies for the brevity of this reply.
> >
> > Evolution is not a force - it's:
> > a) a theory,
>
> As Jen Clarke pointed out, there is a theory and there is the phenomenon.
> The theory could be improved, refined, replaced or debunked, the phenomenon
> remains real (cf gravity).
>
> > b) [involving] random chance
>
> No, no a thousand times no!!!! Evolution is not random!!! A bacteria (much
> less a tiger) didn't wake up one day and say "sheesh, I'm a bacteria, where
> did I come from with this amazing biochemical mechanism, I know I'll
> reproduce and populate this whole planet". An entity's current conditions
> limit its potential future states. There is chance (perhaps) in which of
> those states is achieved, but where similar entities are in some form of
> competition those that are most successful at survival (in terms of
> reproduction), will "win" (have the most descendants). If some entity gets
> even a miniscule "edge" on its competitors (like an organic chemical that
> helps stabilise its boundary with the outside world), it/its descendants
> have a survival advantage.
>
> You can call this a random process if you like, and some parts of it are,
> but that doesn't change the fact that Creationists are sad reactionaries who
> don't like to admit that the Bible is a human interpretation of our place in
> the natural, supernatural and historical world, not the infallible Word. The
> whole argument is a telling comment on how adverse some people are to
> anything that challenges their worldview, and how destructive people can be
> when they can't admit they are wrong. This isn't Libertarianism vs
> Socialism, it's observable truth vs fairy-tales.
>
> --DaveL
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) See Larry's post here: (URL) source you quote on abiogenesis doesn't discuss evolution as a force in living things, presumably since it is irrefutable, and eminently observable. He focuses on the least observable, most speculative and most (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) I don't really, so apologies for the brevity of this reply. (...) As Jen Clarke pointed out, there is a theory and there is the phenomenon. The theory could be improved, refined, replaced or debunked, the phenomenon remains real (cf gravity). (...) (23 years ago, 20-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
|
|
|
|
