Subject:
|
Re: I've said enough...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 05:58:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
195 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> ...And now that you've all read that subject line you've probably said
> to yourself "aha! - He's been trapped and knows it and is going to make
> an excuse so he doesn't have to admit he's wrong".....and you're
> entitled to think that if you wish, and if I were in your position I
> would probably think the same thing.
>
> But I'll tell you the truth: I've done nothing for the past week but
> wake up, go to work, then come home and envelope myself in this debate.
Ditto to this and all that followed. I've been chomping at the bit all week,
just dying to jump in, but didn't for much the same reasons.
At this point I would like to share a few observations, but only because I'm
preparing to take my monthly free flight home courtesy of the Big Blue
Deathstar (AT&T) and won't be tempted to get entangled again until Tuesday.
So this will, until then, be a single post response.
First off, I don't think anyone is saying that adaptations do not occur.
And, as has been noted, since there is no evidence of one species becoming
another, I think it is a mistake to say that adaptation equals evolution.
Also, the fact that adaptations occur *after* life has been initiated says
nothing of how that life was, in fact, initiated. Evolution does not (and
IMO cannot) explain how life was initiated. A living system must do at least
three things: process energy, store information and replicate. Are
evolutionists actually willing to say that such highly complex functions
arose by accident? Not to mention that of the 80 different types of amino
acids, only 20 are present in living organisms. So, precisely the right ones
must link together in precisely the right sequence just to form ONE protein
molecule. (Oh, and where did these aminos come from anyway? And what caused
them to keep trying to link together in different sequences after the first
million or so attempts didn't work?) Granted, none of this is impossible
*if* you apply intelligence to it - but evolution doesn't. Then there's the
fact that amino acids react better with other molecules than they do with
other aminos - which means the that other more abundant molecules would get
in the way. Then there's peptide bonds to link the aminos together. Now, all
of this must occur approximately 200 times producing protiens with different
functions just to make a single living cell - oh yeah, all by accident!!
The current popular theory is that clay (because molecules don't like to
react in water!) had enough complexity to encourage prebiotic chemicals to
assemble together. While clay is crystalline in nature, it can only provide
very low-grade sequencing information and would be very repetitive, like a
book filled with the same word - meaningless. Orderly, yet it doesn't
contain much information. Remember that DNA is the equivalent of an entire
encyclopedia!
Evolution also cannot explain where matter came from and what made it go
"bang!" in the first place. Not a minor, insignificant point. This is, IMO,
foundational - therefore, evolution has none.
I also reject the argument that science is defined by its adherence to
naturalism, such a dogmatic standard potentially conflicts with the
principle that science should be a "no holds barred" search for truth.
Unless we have "a priori" knowledge that naturalism is true, then we cannot
rule out the possibility that supernatural action may have affected the
history of life, and that evidence of that action may exist. Supernatural
phenomena do not contradict science, by definition they are simply "outside"
science. The complexity of human beings (thought, emotion, etc.) proves at
least the existence of such metaphysical occurrences alongside the physical.
Here's something to consider: If you took a group of conservative Protestant
ministers and a group of scientists, which group would contain the most
open-minded researchers? Honestly, who do you think would do the most
empirical research before reaching a conclusion, and be the least likely to
cling to that conclusion in the face of contrary evidence?
To most people, the question hardly seems worth asking. After all, science
deals with objective facts, while religion is largely a matter of dogma and
belief. But when psychologists Michael Mahoney and Bob DeMonbreun conducted
a study on that very question, they made a fascinating discovery.
In their study, Mahoney and DeMonbreun compared three different groups on a
brief "research" task. One group consisted of 15 conservative Protestant
pastors. The other two groups consisted of 15 psychologists and 15 physical
scientists, respectively. All the psychologists and physical scientists held
Ph.D.s and worked full-time as academic researchers.
The task was to discover a simple mathematical rule. Participants were told
that the number-sequence "2, 4, 6" fit this rule, and were asked to discover
the rule by coming up with other sequences and testing them: i.e. asking if
the sequence worked. If they thought they had discovered the rule, they
could state their hypothesis and see if it was correct.
Interestingly, the study found that the ministers behaved more like
scientists than the others did: they generated more tests and fewer
hypotheses, waited longer before announcing their first hypothesis, and
returned to failed hypotheses far less frequently than either the
psychologists or physical scientists. To top it all off, more ministers
discovered the rule than physical scientists.
...And before anyone says, "Oh yeah, prove it! Cite! Cite! Cite!" Go look
for yourself, if you really want to know.
Anyhoo, son los dos centavos mios (my two cents).
Bill (who has much more to say but no time to say it)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: I've said enough...
|
| I'm going to jump right in here and say, that every thing you just said is the only thing that has made sence in this whole debate. and I whole hartedly agree with every word of it. my two cents worth. Gary Bill Farkas <wolfe65@msn.com> wrote in (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: I've said enough...
|
| (...) Evolution. All "macro-evolution" is is a great accumulation of changes over a great deal of time. That's it! The process isn't any different. Since you acknowledge the process happens, all that needs to be established is geologic time (and (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | I've said enough...
|
| ...And now that you've all read that subject line you've probably said to yourself "aha! - He's been trapped and knows it and is going to make an excuse so he doesn't have to admit he's wrong".....and you're entitled to think that if you wish, and (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
10 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
|
|
|
|
