Subject:
|
Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 03:18:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
710 times
|
| |
|
|
Ok Tim, you are surely trolling me here, but I'll reply anyway, magnanimous
individual that I am ;-)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
>
> What?????????? Your big bang theory must not be the same as any other
> big bang theory. AS far as I know the big bang theory teaches EXACTLY
> that time, space, and matter where brought into existence from nothing.
It is correct to say that Big Bang theories do tend to mention that time,
space and matter come from nothing (or more strictly speaking from a
singularity beyond which we cannot observe); however none of this has
anything to do with Darwinian Evolution.
Which is precisely what I said before; my point stands. Darwinian Evolution
and Big Bang theories have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
> Ahem....that's why the subject header specifies MACRO Evolution. To set
> the record straight, I fully believe and realise that MICRO evolution
> happens every day.
Dr Dino states that:
"Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:"
"2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine
planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic
evolution.)"
Again, "Cosmic Evolution" has nothing to do with Darwinian Evolution, be it
Macro or Micro. Dr Dino is implying that it does, his justification being
that the names designated to both processes have the word "Evolution"
somewhere in them. This reasoning is obviously flawed, as evolution is a
multi purpose word that can be applied to entirely different processes.
> > Wrong. No-one claims evolution is responsible for creating life from non-life.
> > Evolution is cited as the process that happens once life is established.
>
> Wrong. Many people claim exactly that.
No-one in my school textbooks did... I seem to recall that life is a
prerequisite for evolution. It is implicit that evolution without life is
impossible. I do recall reading about primordial soups and the like, again,
none of which have anything to do with Darwinian evolution, micro or macro.
I would however be interested to read the writings of anyone who claims that
Darwinian Evolution is responsible for the invocation of life.
> If what you say is true, then how did life become established in the
> first place?
I have no idea. Fortunately I don't have to in this case, since the
invocation of life is an entirely seperate process to Darwinian Evolution.
(point 5)
> His point (at least in some sense from
> what I gather) is that (FOR THIS PARTICULAR POINT) it doesn't matter
> whether you think it happened at the snap of the fingers or ove massive
> amounts of time. Large quantities of time is Evolution's way of
> explaining why we can't observe life forms diversifying into different
> forms and why there is no historical record of it.
Well that is as may be - however, he doesn't offer any cash for proving the
above, which is interesting. He does offer cash for proving something
unlikely to be proven in his lifetime which coincidentally has nothing to do
with evolution.
Again, need I say more?
> Read again what he is providing cash for:
>
> If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I
> suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence
> against the general theory of evolution. This might include the
> following:
He suggests that I, assuming that I am a (rich) defender of Darwinian
evolution, offer up a large sum of money to anyone who can prove to me that:
"1. The earth is not billions of years old"
Fair enough, up to a point... what if the Earth were one year short of a
billion years old though? Is that enough time for evolution?
But I am being pernickity.
Suppose I take this as intended and someone proves beyond question that the
Earth is, say, 6000 years old. That does indeed clobber the notion of
Evolution as taught in schools as well as the contents of my purse. I think
I'm pretty safe here though, but wait, there's more...
"2. No animal has ever been observed changing into any
fundamentally different kind of animal."
Again, fair enough, but difficult to either prove or disprove. It could be
argued that this has been observed through fossils, for example, but then
since no-one has actually seen an animal metamorphise into anything else in
front of their eyes (Nah! I saw it in Thriller!) this could also apply for
this point. It is really too vague to be of any use either way, however.
Again, my money is safe.
"3. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising
from nonliving matter."
Aha! Now this is the hustle! Obviously this has not been demonstrated to
date - and it has nothing to do with evolution. So I immediately lose my
bet, and the debate about evolution is exactly as it was before.
The interesting thing is that Dr. Dino loses his bet if someone proves
something that is unlikely to be proven in his lifetime [1] and has nothing
to do with Darwinian evolution, whereas I lose my bet if something (also
having nothing to do with Evolution) which has no proof to date has no
proof. In other words, he has a certain win, and I have a certain lose.
As far as Dr Dino is concerned it is heads he wins, tails I lose! I never
said the man was daft did I? :-)
Jennifer Clark
[1] His bet is pretty hokey anyway; I thought it was a different "point 3"
in my other post, but essentially one has to prove that evolution is
responsible for the creation of the universe. Since neither Darwinian
Evolution nor anything else can be observed before "t0" (the creation of the
universe) due to the aforementioned singularity, it is *impossible* (for
anyone in our universe) to prove what he requests. Dr Dino has perhaps the
safest bet in the galaxy.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
78 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
