Subject:
|
Re: I've said enough...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:53:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
207 times
|
| |
|
|
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 message
>
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: I've said enough...
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
