Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-22-2017 12:35 PM
394 online now:
14174dm, caffeine, Chiroptera, DrJones*, Faith, jar, JonF, Larni, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (11 members, 383 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,854 Year: 16,460/21,208 Month: 2,349/3,593 Week: 462/882 Day: 83/97 Hour: 6/19

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
7891011
12
Author Topic:   A Logical account of creation
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 166 of 169 (548583)
02-28-2010 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by traste
02-27-2010 10:27 PM


Re: Scientific laws
one of Darwin's great protagonist Thomas Huxley( also known as Darwin's bulldog) once said that he accepted evolution because of his philosophical faith.

You don't think anyone in here has heard of Huxley before, or the account of him being Darwin's Bulldog?

You need to look at it in context. You are viewing it in terms of evolution having been created as a means of repudiating religion, rather than simply being an inference based on certain observations.

Charles Darwin himself didn't much see the comparison either.

"Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities." -- Charles Darwin

Some people have used evolution as a means of proving to religionists that there is no need of a Creator. That doesn't automatically indict all evolutionists as having a master plan to overthrow the shackles of religion.

It's a pointless endeavor, for any allusion you make for evolution being a belief you invariably indict yourself for going against because of your belief.

Let's be honest here. Evolutionists gain nothing from evolution, but religion as we know it is directly threatened by it, which is why they fight tooth and nail to subvert it.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by traste, posted 02-27-2010 10:27 PM traste has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6628
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 167 of 169 (548901)
03-02-2010 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by traste
02-27-2010 2:32 AM


Re: Scientific laws
As you see Darwin observed the difficulties of the evolution of the eye, what we need is a document to show that the eye undergone gradual changes( by means of Darwinian mechanism) but as we see no such document exist, if it really exist then we can observed a partially formed eye. Like for example an eye with out a retina, an eye eye with out a cortex.

Darwin did recognize the problem, AND THEN HE SOLVED IT. Using Articulata as an example he demonstrated that there are transitional stages by which a photosensitive patch can slowly progress to a functional eye.

Here is the problem of this reasoning. "The monophyly of the Articulata (= Annelida + Panarthropoda), proposed by Wgele et al. (1999), is contradicted by all molecular data that support either Ecdysozoa (including Panarthropoda), or Lophotrochozoa (including Annelida), or usually both."

The reasoning is that there exists multiple KNOWN transitional stages through which an eye can evolve.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by traste, posted 02-27-2010 2:32 AM traste has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6628
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 168 of 169 (548902)
03-02-2010 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by traste
02-27-2010 10:27 PM


Re: Scientific laws
[Evolution] is [a belief system]. In fact one of Darwin's great protagonist Thomas Huxley( also known as Darwin's bulldog) once said that he accepted evolution because of his philosophical faith.

Why do creationists continue with this canard? Projection?

Evolution is an APPLIED science. Biologists accept the theory because it is useful in their research and the theory makes accurate predictions. You might as well claim gravity is a belief system held by astronomers in order to deny the actions of gravity fairies.

Im pretty sure that scientist like Behe and Kenyon are not among of your" refutable source."

Since they have not presented original research in the peer reviewed literature which tests their ideas no, they are not a reputable source.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by traste, posted 02-27-2010 10:27 PM traste has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6628
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 169 of 169 (548904)
03-02-2010 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by traste
02-27-2010 11:23 PM


Re: Scientific laws
The fact that there is wide disagreement among elite scientific figures, can be considered that they dont have yet the satisfactory explanation of how life began.

As an analogy, do we need to know where the first germ came from in order to know that germs cause infectious disease? For the same reason, we don't need to know where the first life came from in order to know how life changes over time.

Are there still debate, question , argue, that gravity cause objects to fall downward?

There are still huge debates as to the cause of gravity, the actual theory of gravity. Both quantum mechanics and relativity give us different pictures of what gravity is. However, arguments over the THEORY of gravity does not mean that scientists are arguing over the FACT of gravity. As Stephen Jay Gould put it, "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome". The fact that life has changed over time and that life shares common ancestry, the fact of evolution, is not disputed by scientists. What is disputed are the finer points of how that change came about, the theory of evolution. Quoting Gould again, "And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered".

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by traste, posted 02-27-2010 11:23 PM traste has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
7891011
12
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017