Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:58:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1519 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> > Perhaps it would be helpful to break apart the different things that are
> > ascribed to the term "evolution."
> >
> > Common usage of the word "evolution" is the idea that living things in our
> > world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes
> > starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over
> > approximately 20 billion years.
> >
> > A more precise understanding of the above statement divides the "atoms to
> > people" transition into four realms:
> >
> > 1.Cosmology is the branch of astronomy which deals with the origin and
> > formation of the general structure of the universe.
> > 2.Abiogenesis refers to first life - the production of living organisms
> > from inanimate matter.
> > 3.Micro-evolution or speciation refers to populational and species
> > change
> > through time. There are many published examples of speciation, if by the
> > development of a new "species" we mean the development of a new population
> > of
> > individuals which will not breed with the original population to produce
> > fertile offspring. Micro-evolution is a scientific fact which no one,
> > including creationists, dispute.
>
> > 4.Macro-evolution or general evolution refers the progression to more
> > complex forms of life. The mechanisms of macro-evolution, including whether
> > or
> > not micro-evolution over a long enough time leads to macro-evolution, can be
> > regarded as a "research topic".
> >
> > Larry has focused on 3.
> > My new thread is focused on 2. (and to a lesser degree 1.)
>
> > I hope this helps to focus the debate such that tangents can be avoided.
>
> I think this is a useful division. BUT, I don't think that the "theory of
> evolution" has anything whatever to say about points 1 and 2. Certainly
> cosmology is rather far afield from speciation without any doubt.
>
> The Miller experiments try to show that some of the theories about how 2 may
> have happened are not unreasonable, although they are far short of showing
> (and never claimed to try to show) "spontaneous generation" so to speak.
> They just show that chemicals can transform and increase in complexity.
> That's all.
>
> The creationism I am acquainted with in my sparrings with school boards
> insists that 3 doesn't happen and that because it doesn't, that proves that
> 1 and 2 didn't either. Total lack of understanding of cause and effect.
>
> I don't think SRC accepts 3 as true by any stretch. You're saying you do,
> though?
Yes - I haven't looked too far, but can't find anyone who doesn't.
> What is your position on 4? The fossil record supports the coming and going
> of species. (although since it is merely data, it does nothing to explain
> how it works, that's up to us). Without 4 you are either saying the fossil
> record is a false record laid down by a creator for whatever reason, or that
> creation was not a one time event, but rather that the creator created
> species, then removed them and created additional ones, over and over,
> millions of times over hundreds of millions of years.
>
> While theologically satisfying, this doesn't help us explain or predict
> anything. It's not really anything more than a restatement of "the fossil
> record shows species coming and going but we're not sure how it happened"
> into "the fossil record shows species coming and going, caused by a
> mysterious force beyond our power to comprehend"
>
> Or is there another possibility? I think the "the fossil record doesn't show
> the coming and going of species" is pretty thoroughly discredited.
Actually I think that the fossile record shows no support for evolution at all
and I rather surprised that you would hang your hat on such a discredited bit
of evidence. About the only people who still use it are the mass media who
still think that the unwitting public will believe any thing they say.
If you would like to detail your support for the fossil record, please do so,
or, I can alternatively discredit it.
But, I would suggest that it's appropriate to start a new post/thread to
better detail the issues.
-Jon
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Since it's pretty commonly accepted by most real scientists (not just the mass media, disdain for which I happen to share with you, but I digress), I'll let *you* discredit that fossils represent the remains of animals, that there are various (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) This is not true, there are creationists that dispute it. SRC for example. (...) I don't think these mechanisms are at all similar, really. (although since the argument is made that we are actually colonies of cooperating organisms who happen (...) (23 years ago, 21-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
|
|
|
|
