Subject:
|
Re: I've said enough...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:57:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
197 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> 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.
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 I've mentioned sea-floor spreading as a fairly easy way
of establishing that the earth is a very old place on that evidence alone).
> 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.
See my post to Tim that runs through human evolution - plenty of evidence.
Also, by the definition of species, yes there is - we've made new species.
> Also, the fact that adaptations occur *after* life has been initiated says
> nothing of how that life was, in fact, initiated.
That is correct. Darwin didn't have a clue about Big Bang theory.
> Evolution does not (and
> IMO cannot) explain how life was initiated.
It doesn't attempt to.
> 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?
I think this passes into the realm of microbiology and chemistry, but yes.
Perhaps not as accidental as it may appear to Creationists, and it does not
exclude that it wasn't accidental at all, it just seems likely from our
current vantage point (not necessarily God's vantage point: Omniscient).
> 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?)
What else did they have to do? Yeah, I know that seems like a smart-alecky
reply, but think about it. They had nothing but time, and lots of it.
Elements like to combine in certain patterns, and those patterns replicate
naturally. Perhaps God designed it that way knowing where it would lead,
certainly He could have.
> 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!!
But note you haven't disproved it, just expressed great skepticism.
> 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
Doesn't attempt to, as explained over and over and over in countless posts.
> and what made it go
> "bang!" in the first place. Not a minor, insignificant point. This is, IMO,
> foundational - therefore, evolution has none.
Endlessly recyclying Big Bangs. Too much compressed into one infinite
point. Or maybe this was the only Big Bang - which is currently beyond our
physics to examine beyond. Doesn't mean that there isn't a God. Doesn't
mean that there is. Doesn't mean we may not discover the answer some day.
> 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?
This is a rhetorical question, right? :-)
> 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?
Substitute any fundementalist religion (Christian or non-Christian). I
think you'll be able to see better why the answer you are implying is wrong.
>
> 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.
The number of individuals is too small to draw any great conclusions. And
why take more energy to complain about citing the source rather than just go
ahead and cite it? I'd have to see the tests and procedures to pass any
kind of judgment one way or the other.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: I've said enough...
|
| (...) This is an important point, and worth elaborating. While anti-evolutionist are fond of saying that there hasn't been enough time for viable amino sequences to form, given the huge range of possible chemical combinations, they're overlooking (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
