|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 10/27/2001 : 11:38:44 [Permalink]
|
Darwin, if you choose to understand anything, understand this: None here, I dare say few in the sciences, if any, have a personal, vested interest in the truth or falsity of any particular theory of descent or development. Those who study biology and origins simply deal with explanations of brute facts. Those explanations that account for the most brute facts, and make the fewest and least extraordinary assumptions are preferred. I can no more believe in evolution than I can believe in gravity. A theory is either factually accurate or it is not. If another theory arises that better accounts for brute facts and makes fewer extraordinary assumptions, then we should adopt that theory posthaste. I bet you would find that statement true of any intellectually honest, science-minded fellow. And speaking of intellectual honesty, I suppose you should no longer choose to walk with your feet firmly on the ground, since a theory of universal gravitation is still in dispute.
This signature does not exist. |
 |
|
|
ZaphodBeeblebrox
Skeptic Friend
USA
117 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2001 : 07:14:54 [Permalink]
|
Speaking of Darwin, his Great-Great-Grandson is talking about his book on the Scopes Monkey Trial.
It's on C-Span 2, and the show is pretty good.
He's Very Self-Deprecating, but he definitely has his Ancestor's Sense of Humour!
If you Ignore Your Rights, they WILL, go away. |
|
|
|
fleshmortification
New Member
USA
7 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 15:45:51 [Permalink]
|
Hi, my name is Flesh and I am a fundamental protestant Christian Creationist. I feel that I have examined evidence from both sides and have come to a logical conclusion that evolution is still just a theory and therefore cannot be a fact. Does anyone disagree? HOWEVER, I am fascinated by evidence from both sides. I am open to any substantial proof for evolution, besides the tired cliches we've been arguing for the last, who knows how long. Also, assuming that the majority of you are Evolutionists, I'd like to ask what your opinion is of Theists or those who believe God used the evolution process to display His handiwork. Danke....
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he wasn't real |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 19:25:07 [Permalink]
|
Hi, my name is Flesh and I am a fundamental protestant Christian Creationist.
Well, no beating around the bush here. I read that as saying "Hi, I'm Flesh and my mind is made up."
Hello Flesh, I'm Dr. Slater and I've come to some conclusions also.
I feel that I have examined evidence from both sides and have come to a logical conclusion that evolution is still just a theory and therefore cannot be a fact. Does anyone disagree?
With what? That you've examined the evidence from both sides? I'd have to disagree, if you had cracked even one college freshman textbook on biology you would know what a Scientific Theory was. You would know that being a theory does not preclude something being a fact. My guess is that you have never read anything but creationist rubbish.
HOWEVER, I am fascinated by evidence from both sides.
Both sides are offering evidence now? That would be fascinating! What evidence has been put forward to prove that any gods exist?
I am open to any substantial proof for evolution, besides the tired
cliches we've been arguing for the last, who knows how long.
Fine, take a stroll through any Museum of Natural History.
This months National Geographic has a fine article on the evolution of whales-the very topic this thread is about.
An Adult Ed night school course in biology at your local high school could also straighten you right out.
Also, assuming that the majority of you are Evolutionists,
None of us is an Evolutionist. That's a job description, you know, not a religion.
I'd like to ask what your opinion is of Theists or those who believe God used the evolution process to display His handiwork.
That would be almost all of them in this country. The Roman Catholics and all the main line Protestant denominations have no trouble with 21-century science at all. Only a small, bizarre, Protestant sect of anti-intellectual, mouth breathers seeks to bring back the dark ages.
You realize, of course, that Genesis gives almost the same explanation of evolution that Stephen Jay Gould does?
The "Good Book" says that the sons of Noah went to the four -corners of the Earth and that all the races of the world came solely from these brothers.
Just like Gould says.
The descendants of these brothers lived in isolation in Europe, Africa, Asia and the "Holy Land." Minor differences in these brothers were passed down only to the descendants in a given area, like say Africa. Over the generations the different peoples--who are "all brothers"--took on recognizable racial characteristics.
So if you take a Melanesian from the Fiji Islands whose hair is like sheep's wool, brown eyes shot with blood and whose skin is so dark it really is black, using the bible you can trace him back to Noah.
If you took a Swede with hair so blonde it looked white, bright blue eyes and skin so lacking in coloration that you can seen the veins beneath it, using the bible you can trace him back to Father Noah also.
Two people-from the same family-who couldn't look more different from one another. The sole reason for the difference is that they spent so many generations separated from one another.
That's evolution. That's all there is to it-no magic involved.
Unless you are some kind of a racist who claims that races other than his own were created by daemons--then if you are going to believe Genesis you have to accept evolution as a fact.
Or reject the holy word of god; your choice.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Dog_Ed
Skeptic Friend
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 19:30:40 [Permalink]
|
Howdy, fleshmortification, welcome to the SFN board. For myself, if theists want to believe that the Christian God (or Brahma, or whomever) was the ultimate mover or the prime cause, that's fine with me. But I intensely dislike the work of those fundamentalists who try to twist scientific findings to fit one or another of their holy books. There's an obvious clash of values:
Scientists assume that theories are always subject to disproof. Some fundamentalist theists assume that their religious texts are never subject to disproof.
Not to say there are not fundamentalist Christian scientists who are also excellent scientists. The idea of exploring God's work in the Universe through science seems not at all uncommon. Check the statements of Professor Geoff Stedman, at http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/~physges/Orthodox.htm for an example.
Well, nice to have you aboard.
"Even Einstein put his foot in it sometimes"
Edited by - Dog_Ed on 11/03/2001 19:32:30
Edited by - Dog_Ed on 11/03/2001 19:33:01 |
|
|
|
fleshmortification
New Member
USA
7 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 20:48:57 [Permalink]
|
Dog EdThanks for the link, I'll look at now. But first...
Slater I guess I'm suppose to be intimidated by your expertise and confidence in what you "know" to be a fact. You're attempt to insult my intelligence does not change the fact that evolution is a THEORY. That was my point. The reason that I even bothered posting here is that I am in fact interested in WHY someone would think that we came from a primate. Besides the fact that it is slightly, well, insulting, it just doesn't add up scientifically or logically. Yes, [gasp], I have read Darwins writing (as well as other "
evolutionists writings) and I think it's pretty clear that he too admitted it is a theory. Y'know as in something that has never been observed. That's something even this mouth breather understands.
Secondly, I think all the claims of evolution can be easily shattered. Call me naive, but it's pretty clear to me they do not stand. And roll your eyes, but yes, I am one of those right-wing fundamentalists who believe in the infallibility of Scripture.
My statement about examing evidence comes from looking at both the "scietific" claims of men like Darwin verses the evidence presented by Creationists like Morris, Gish and Hovind. Isn't that how one comes to a conclusion, examining both sides? And in the same way that I gather information by listening to the teachings of these men, is not that how you received 90% of your education?
I'm sure that Stepen Jay Gould and I would also agree that the sky is blue, but that certainly doesn't mean that we agree on much else.
I would love to go through all reasons why evolution just doesn't work, as if you haven't heard them all. But I would be more than happy to have that discussion with you or anyone on this forum. What I don't appreciate though is the condescending presupposistion that creationists are idiots. I respect the knowledge of the men and women of science, though I don't agree with your beliefs, I don't talk about you like your some kind of degenerate freaks who are going straight to hell. Instead, I'd rather engage in a intelligent non-hostile conversation. Who knows, we might just learn something from each other!
Well, I guess I'd better leave some things to say next time as I'm sure I've drawn quite a bit of fire now.....
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he wasn't real |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 21:02:04 [Permalink]
|
Evolution is not a belief system as is religion. That's the first thing that must be straight. Evolution is observable through the scientific method, just not in the larger more complex animals. That's how we get those nice large strawberries in the store when *in the wild* they are very small and sweet. It's also how the med fly *adapts* and survives all of the pesticides that are dumped on them.
To believe in the infallibility of scripture, first you must prove it infallible. A nice place to start would be to prove the existence of gawd.
The difference between Darwin and Gish, Dr Dino (who by the is not a doctor - I live within minutes of the *school* from which he purchased his diploma - there are no students there to my knowledge), etc, et al is that Darwin looked for the problems with his theory and attempted to correct them, the other is an authoritarian statement based upon a conglomeration of 66 stories or so. Also, which particular theory of creation do you follow - Genesis 1 or 2?
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 23:41:42 [Permalink]
|
 Welcome aboard Flesh,nice to have some company.Here's a quote from C.S. Lewis'The Funeral of a Great Myth,concerning the major problem non-theistic macro-evolutionist have with the origin of our reasoning process from blind,impersonal,chance:What makes it impossible that it[naturalistic macro evo] should be true is not so much the lack of evidence for this or that scene in the drama or the fatal self-contradiction which runs right through it.The Myth cannot even get going without accepting ...rational inferences are valid:for every science claims to be a series of inferences from observed facts....Unless you start by believing that reality in remotest space and remotest time RIGIDLY OBEYS THE LAWS OF LOGIC,you can have no ground for believing in any astronomy...,biology,[ect...].To reach the positions held by the real scientist-which are taken over by the Myth-you must-in fact,treat reason as an absolute.But at the same time the Myth asks me to BELIEVE THAT REASON IS SIMPLY THE UNFORESEEN UNINTENDED BY PRODUCT OF A MINDLESS AT ONE STAGE OF ITS ENDLESS AND AIMLESS BECOMING.The content of the Myth thus knocks from under me the only ground on which I could believe the Myth to be true.IF MY OWN MIND IS A PRODUCT OF THE IRRATIONAL -IF WHAT SEEM MY CLEAREST REASONINGS ARE ONLY THE IN WHICH A CREATURE CONDITIONED AS I AM IS BOUND TO FEEL-HOW SHALL I TRUST MY MIND WHEN IT TELLS ME ABOUT EVOLUTION?
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 00:21:35 [Permalink]
|
I suggest that anyone that comes in here with that tired old "It's only a theory" line learns, as slater has said, what any freshman college student learns a theory means in the scientific context. When a scientist says something is a "theory" it means that there is a large amount of evidence to fit the model. This "theory" is now over a hundred years old and nothing has ever been produced that threatens this "theory." The only people that don't agree refuse to accept the evidence either because they are too ignorant to understand or else they are too afraid of the implications and what that does to their own belief systems. When anyone comes in here saying they have looked at the evidence I always scratch my head. Quite a bit of it is highly technical and beyond the understanding of a layperson. This doesn't mean that most people can't learn about it if they so desire, but a casual reading of some pamplets is hardly enough to make anyone expert enough to think they can dismiss such a significant scientific concept. To think you are is unbelievably pretentious.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 02:09:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You're attempt to insult my intelligence does not change the fact that evolution is a THEORY.
Ho hum, I guess it's about time I posted this yet again, for about the hundredth time on different boards;
"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is
something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
[Isaac Asimov]
A theory CAN be fact as well. I have a theory that creationists can never learn anything other than what their bible tells them. That is also a fact.
Free speech; excercise it or SHUT UP! |
|
|
|
fleshmortification
New Member
USA
7 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 09:38:26 [Permalink]
|
Allow me to define theory as the rest of us understand it to mean:
the*o*ry (noun), plural -ries
[Late Latin theoria, from Greek theoria, from theorein]
First appeared 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <~ of equations>
From the Merrim Webster Dictionary
I'll be back after some more indocrination at the local church house...
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he wasn't real |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 11:44:14 [Permalink]
|
Evolution is a fact. Anyone who denies this is utterly irrational and/or dishonest and ridiculous.
Natural selection (the proposed process of evolution) is a theory (but about as close to being a fact as an idea can get).
And we might as well mention this now, to get it out of the way:
Evolution is not the same as abiogenesis. So don't start talking about how you think it's silly to think life arose from mud (or whatever) in the middle of a discussion about transitional fossils and whatnot.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 12:57:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'll be back after some more indocrination at the local church house...
Well, you got that part right.
Free speech; excercise it or SHUT UP! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 13:40:25 [Permalink]
|
Flesh: Slater I guess I'm suppose to be intimidated by your expertise and confidence in what you "know" to be a fact.
That would not be an inappropriate response.
You're attempt to insult my intelligence does not change the fact that evolution is a THEORY.
There is no need for me to insult your intelligence as you are doing a fine job all by yourself.
THEORY
From Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary Unabridged: that branch of an art or science consisting in a knowledge of it's principles and methods rather than in its practice; pure, as opposed to applied, science.
From Webster's New World Pocket Dictionary: explanation based on scientific study and reasoning.
What do you think the word means? A guess, a conjecture?
That can be a meaning of the word, when it is not applied to science. It is like saying "HA, Dr Slater, I found you out! You could not have 'packed your trunk' because you could never fit all your suits up an elephants nose."
Your statement on theories is as ridiculous as that.
That was my point. The reason that I even bothered posting here is that I am in fact interested in WHY someone would think that we came from a primate.
The absolutely best reason to believe that human beings are descended from primates is that WE ARE PRIMATES.
Besides the fact that it is slightly, well, insulting, it just doesn't add up scientifically or logically.
To whom do you find it insulting, the other primates, or us? How do you think that it doesn't add up? What type of animal would you rather be? Or do you think that we aren't animals? That would leave vegetables and minerals for you to choose from.
Yes, [gasp], I have read Darwins writing (as well as other " evolutionists writings) and I think it's pretty clear that he too admitted it is a theory.
Have you read Darwin's writing or excerpts of it supplied in Creationist tracts? Since we have already established that you didn't actually know what a theory is.
Have you read anything scientists have written in, say, the last twenty years, or do you confine yourself to the nineteenth century?
Y'know as in something that has never been observed. That's something even this mouth breather understands.
Now take a deep breath and understand this. Chuck Darwin lived well over 100 years ago. Since his time many, many, people have studied the process of evolution. We know a great deal more about it's workings today than Darwin did in the 1800's. This is science-not scripture. It is added to and built on as new things are learned. That's how it works.
Darwin never heard of DNA.
Evolution not only has been observed, it is being observed on a regular basis. It has been observed on sizeable creatures (finches, rhinoceros and seals to name a few).
It is even being predicted with a good degree of accuracy. That is how you are able to get a flu shot before this year's (evolved) version of the flu bug even exists.
Secondly, I think all the claims of evolution can be easily shattered. Call me naive, but it's pretty clear to me they do not stand.
What's pretty clear is that you have no idea about what is going on in science. Evolution is a fact. No one has shattered it. No one has even come close.
Creationist detractors are a joke in the scientific community. Their writings are aimed solely at their congregations-not scientists- for the sole purpose of fleecing them out of their hard-earned cash.
And roll your eyes, but yes, I am one of those right-wing fundamentalists who believe in the infallibility of Scripture.
Are you then saying that you are a "flat-Earther"? Bible says it's flat. Says the sky is a solid dome too, with little doors in it for the rain to come out.
Or are you one of those who believe in the infallibility of scripture, BUT get to decide for themselves just which parts are "metaphors" and which parts are facts? That's a very convenient position that puts you in charge of what god means and doesn't. If you get to pick and choose infallibility is a snap.
Now, that chatty snake, was he a metaphor or a fact?
And you aren't going to touch that bit I wrote about Noah's sons and evolution, are you?
But, if you plan to bring scripture down from it's lofty position and match it against lowly science then you will have to play by the lowly rules of science. Tell us what experiment that we can independently perform that will prove the existence of god.
My statement about examing evidence comes from looking at both the "scietific" claims of men like Darwin verses the evidence presented by Creationists like Morris, Gish and Hovind. Isn't that how one comes to a conclusion, examining both sides? And in the same way that I gather information by listening to the teachings of these men, is not that how you received 90% of your education?
What? Did I leave the N out of scientific? Do you care about such minor things--because I've moved your text into a word document, to make it easier for me to reply, and your own text is rife with red underlines and green.
No, my education was received through studying the work of experts in their fields. I was never given the spew of charlatans and told that it was to be given equal credence with one of the greatest minds that has ever lived.
What I don't appreciate though is the condescending presupposistion that creationists are idiots.
I did not mean to come across as being condescending.
Condescension gives the creationist position much too much credence.
I meant to come across as being utterly contemptuous of creationists. You cannot put forward a proposition that is so detrimental to the well being and dignity of mankind and expect acceptance.
I respect the knowledge of the men and women of science, though I don't agree with your beliefs, I don't talk about you like your some kind of degenerate freaks who are going straight to hell.
I have no respect for creationists at all. They are a medieval "cancer" in modern culture.
Instead, I'd rather engage in a intelligent non-hostile conversation.
And you're idea of "non-hostile" is to start off with baseless accusations and not even present your own side?
Who knows, we might just learn something from each other!
Fine, now you have learned what a scientific theory is. What do you have to teach us?
darwin alogos
Here's a quote from C.S. Lewis 'The Funeral of a Great Myth, concerning the major problem non-theistic macro-evolutionist have with the origin of our reasoning process from blind, impersonal, chance:
First there is no such thing as Macro-evolution. This is a creationist term used because there is no getting around the fact of what they call Micro-evolution, which is evolution plain and simple. The reason creationists insist on a Macro-evolution is that they are working on the fantasy that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. For evolution to exist in this fantasy world you would need really big changes, really fast.
Scientists don't claim this at all. They know that they have "all the time in the world"-literally-billions of years. No rush, set your own pace. Micro-evolution piled on to micro-evolution equals macro. The "macro" is the columniation of events, not an event in itself.
There is such a thing as Macro-mutation. We have all seen the two-headed calves and frogs with their eyes on the insides of their mouths. But for these macro-mutations to have an effect on evolution the genes of these mutants would have to be passed on. Generally macro-mutants do not get the chance to pass on their genes as they usually die or cannot find mates. And that is why this is not a process of "blind, impersonal, chance." It is the ex |
|
|
|
fleshmortification
New Member
USA
7 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 15:45:38 [Permalink]
|
Kudos to you Dr. Slater for being such a concise and splendid debater and spellchecker. Perhaps when I am your age, I too will be as enlightened and have this much free time. You must be retired. Also, thanks for the grading my homework, I'll remember my spelling and grammar if I ever write a thesis for your class. By the way:
One of my prize positions is a copy of a work by [Darwin's] grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, on the subject of Evolution.
What is this, yoga? Touché, good doctor. Details, details…
[Creationist detractors] writings are aimed solely at their congregations-not scientists- for the sole purpose of fleecing them out of their hard-earned cash.
I've never paid a penny for any lecture or literature I've received from any of these men or organizations. In fact ICR is kind enough to send me a free newsletter every month! Greedy bastards!
I have no respect for creationists at all. They are a medieval "cancer" in modern culture.
If we have no credibility why are we such a threat-enough to be compared to cancer?!!
Now, that chatty snake, was he a metaphor or a fact?
Fact. I hope you never have the privilege of finding out.
The "Good Book" says that the sons of Noah went to the four -corners of the Earth and that all the races of the world came solely from these brothers.
Just like Gould says.
The descendants of these brothers lived in isolation in Europe, Africa, Asia and the "Holy Land." Minor differences in these brothers were passed down only to the descendants in a given area, like say Africa. Over the generations the different peoples--who are "all brothers"--took on recognizable racial characteristics.
So if you take a Melanesian from the Fiji Islands whose hair is like sheep's wool, brown eyes shot with blood and whose skin is so dark it really is black, using the bible you can trace him back to Noah.
If you took a Swede with hair so blonde it looked white, bright blue eyes and skin so lacking in coloration that you can seen the veins beneath it, using the bible you can trace him back to Father Noah also.
Two people-from the same family-who couldn't look more different from one another. The sole reason for the difference is that they spent so many generations separated from one another.
No argument here. Call it what you like. Still doesn't prove I came from an ape.
Unless you are some kind of a racist who claims that races other than his own were created by daemons--then if you are going to believe Genesis you have to accept evolution as a fact.
Not a racist either. When I spend the summer in Cancun, I got a pretty good tan, my feet were like leather and I now have a pretty high tolerance to the Habenero pepper. Is this evolution Dr Slater?
Anywoo, staying on the subject:
The theory of Organic Evolution is invalid-because it has never been observed! I'll give you 26 reasons, starting with this one:
1) Spontaneous generation has never been observed! Life only comes from (drumroll, please) LIFE! Ever hear of the law of biogenesis? Of course you have. Sad to say evolution conflicts with this law.
More later, I'm sure someone has something to say about this and I'm bored….
PS Slater, I would be more than happy to read anything you would like to present by your selection of literature as long as it doesn't bore me to death. I believe in K.I.S.S. Is that scientific? (Probably not.) After all, I'd say the majority of society are not science nerds, que no? And by the bye, how many of Phillip Johnson's book have you read?
P.P.S. Is this the science I'm supposed to take seriously? Or a different kind?
http://aolsvc.digitalcity.com/losangeles/family/event.adp?eid=571460
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he wasn't real |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
