Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:01:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1583 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> > 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.
>
> I missed this point the first time.
>
> I dispute that this extraordinarily broad definition is "common usage".
> Common usage covers only points 3 and 4, below. It would be helpful if
> creationists were clear about what they feel is in dispute.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> I'd challenge you to find many people outside your circle that consider
> cosmology part of evolution or vice versa.
>
> I for one will not dispute that science has not yet provided a satisfactory
> explanation/causation for the origin of the universe. And I suspect it never
> will, as the origin of a system is necessarily outside that system.
>
> I don't consider the question as particularly important, though. It is
> unlikely that explaining the origin of a system will be a useful predictor
> of much within the system. So I don't find this particular "failing" as any
> sort of a damning of the scientific method.
>
> > > > 2.Abiogenesis refers to first life - the production of living organisms
> > > > from inanimate matter.
>
> I for one will not dispute that science has not yet provided a satisfactory
> explanation/causation for the origin of life within the universe. However,
> here I hold out a great deal more hope. I suspect that someday a
> satisfactory theory that explains it and makes useful predictions will be
> put forth. Preliminary work has been good but suggests that it will be
> dauntingly complex (not undoable, just hard).
>
> Here, I consider the question much more important. Answering this question
> will help us understand how crowded our neighborhood is, and as we run into
> limits to growth in this solar system, that is terribly important. We may
> have to plan for the likelyhood that we may not be able to claim much
> unclaimed extrasolar real estate.
Now, I'm a bit confused - you've replied to my post without quoting any of
my new material - what are you referring to ??
Is this "question" you're referring to in the above paragraph the question of
abiogenesis (my 2.) or what???
>
> > > > 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".
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) I missed this point the first time. I dispute that this extraordinarily broad definition is "common usage". Common usage covers only points 3 and 4, below. It would be helpful if creationists were clear about what they feel is in dispute. (...) (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
|
|
|
|
