Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is False; now what?
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 41 (138056)
08-30-2004 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Robert Byers
08-27-2004 2:10 PM


Creationism is a result of the Bible and so that authority makes our case.
What authority?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Robert Byers, posted 08-27-2004 2:10 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 17 of 41 (138057)
08-30-2004 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Jack
08-26-2004 5:52 AM


Don't matter
what evolution does or does not do. Nothing will change creationism, you cannot add to it or take away from it, it is simply fact to some and fiction to others, and so it shall remain.
There is no proof for or against God, there never will be. The creationist operates by faith and is so required to do.
When this is understood, all arguments will cease between the factions. Then evolutionists will argue among themselves, which is a good thing and will lead them to bigger and better evolutionary stuff. They have my blessings.

"Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit!"
2 Cor. 7:1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Jack, posted 08-26-2004 5:52 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Loudmouth, posted 08-30-2004 6:32 PM PecosGeorge has not replied
 Message 29 by DBlevins, posted 08-31-2004 11:21 AM PecosGeorge has replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 18 of 41 (138058)
08-30-2004 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by portmaster1000
08-27-2004 9:55 AM


Re: We've been there before
Creationism and science are highly compatible. They do not cancel each other out. The planet was a gift to be explored for its mysteries, they are meant to be understood and used for the benefit of all. That C and S are not compatible to some, is also as natural as is the difference between night and day, up and down, on sea or on land. The creationist especially should not be troubled by that. It is as it is meant to be.
I'm a creationist. I embrace science in all its pros and cons. It is as it is meant to be.

"Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit!"
2 Cor. 7:1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by portmaster1000, posted 08-27-2004 9:55 AM portmaster1000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by DBlevins, posted 08-31-2004 11:26 AM PecosGeorge has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 41 (138060)
08-30-2004 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
08-30-2004 10:13 AM


Re: it's a matter of protocol
And eventually they will get tired of answering you, and will stop. Then you can claim victory. (I have seen this happen.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 10:13 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 11:42 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 20 of 41 (138086)
08-30-2004 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Chiroptera
08-30-2004 10:53 AM


Re: it's a matter of protocol
except they usually do the pre-emtive strike thingy and declare victory whiles stating that your posts are not worth replying to. this is protocol #83 though, so it takes a while to get there with most of them. I think redwolf (aka Ted Holden) was one of the fastest to go there with me, but then he probably has a lot of experience in that action.
others dissapear with no answer (protocol #59) but that is no victory.
heh.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Chiroptera, posted 08-30-2004 10:53 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by coffee_addict, posted 08-30-2004 5:46 PM RAZD has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 21 of 41 (138209)
08-30-2004 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
08-30-2004 11:42 AM


Re: it's a matter of protocol
Hahaha. May I ask where you got the protocols or did you get them from observation?

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 11:42 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 6:45 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 41 (138218)
08-30-2004 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Mammuthus
08-30-2004 4:08 AM


Just playing Devil's Advocate here . . .
quote:
However, evolution as both changes in allele frequency over time and common descent rely on the same hereditary mechanism as the fact that you are the genetic descendant of your parents.
But what if mutations resulting in the alleles within heredity were not truly random with respect to fitness? What if alleles were not governed by their fitness in the current environment but instead are pre-adative in that they are favored more by the current environment then they should be (eg feathered wings on whales for an extreme example).
quote:
One would have to postulate a non-genetic mechanism for the similarity of each and every species that does not rely on the passing of DNA from parent to offspring i.e. that species branch by a non hereditary means and that for whatever reason, the DNA changes subsequent appear to reflect common descent.
The genetic mechanism for dispersal of genetic content to the next generation could remain intact while the selection and producting of new genetic alleles could be under the control of non-evolutinary mechanisms. There would still be the appearance of common ancestory in the DNA of different species through currently observed hereditary mechanisms.
Of course, one would first need to measure these non-evolutionary selective mechanisms and the mechanism for non-random mutations before such a theory could be proposed to fill the role if neo-Darwinian evolution were overturned.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-30-2004 05:27 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Mammuthus, posted 08-30-2004 4:08 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Mammuthus, posted 08-31-2004 5:08 AM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 41 (138220)
08-30-2004 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by PecosGeorge
08-30-2004 10:34 AM


Re: Don't matter
quote:
what evolution does or does not do. Nothing will change creationism, you cannot add to it or take away from it, it is simply fact to some and fiction to others, and so it shall remain.
There is no proof for or against God, there never will be. The creationist operates by faith and is so required to do.
When this is understood, all arguments will cease between the factions.
I don't think there would be this kind of debate if creationists didn't insist on getting creationism into public schools. There wouldn't be an uproar if children were not told that creationism is on equal scientific footing with evolution. There wouldn't be an uproar if creationists would stop misquoting scientists. There wouldn't be fighting amongst the factions if creationists understood that evolutionists do not accept scientific theories on faith alone. There wouldn't fighting if creationists compared evolutionists to Stalin and Hitler. There would be no fighting if creationists claimed that their theory is a philosophical stance that is not consistent with science. I think you get the picture.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-30-2004 05:34 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PecosGeorge, posted 08-30-2004 10:34 AM PecosGeorge has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 41 (138227)
08-30-2004 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by coffee_addict
08-30-2004 5:46 PM


Re: it's a matter of protocol
I obtained a secret decoder ring on another board through nefarious means. It meant going in disguise as a little old bag lady for three weeks and was highly dangerous work what with not being able to shave in order to maintain persona-non-gratus status. Then I infiltrated a Salvation Army home and snuck into the computer office at night. This was all done on-line of course.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by coffee_addict, posted 08-30-2004 5:46 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 25 of 41 (138357)
08-31-2004 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Loudmouth
08-30-2004 6:26 PM


quote:
But what if mutations resulting in the alleles within heredity were not truly random with respect to fitness? What if alleles were not governed by their fitness in the current environment but instead are pre-adative in that they are favored more by the current environment then they should be (eg feathered wings on whales for an extreme example).
You definitely have to play devils advocate since this has been shown in laboratory experiments to be wrong
In any case, even pre-adaptive traits would not completely falsify the ToE as Mr.Jack's thread is postulating. If it turns out that heritable methylation patterns or histone position can cause non-random mutation, you still have descent with modification and changes in allele frequency over time. The problem with postulating this is that so much of this has already been shown to be false i.e. pre-adaptation.
quote:
The genetic mechanism for dispersal of genetic content to the next generation could remain intact while the selection and producting of new genetic alleles could be under the control of non-evolutinary mechanisms. There would still be the appearance of common ancestory in the DNA of different species through currently observed hereditary mechanisms.
I don't get this. If the reason I am genetically similar to my parents is just an artifact of a non-evolutionary mechanism, then the hereditary connection to my parents is broken i.e. both genetics and evolution are falsified. If a chimp is more similar to human than any other primate or a dolphin to a whale merely because of some non-evolutionary statistical artifact, then relationships based on genetics and heredity itself is supported by the same artifact i.e. you are no more closely related to your parents as to a fruit fly. This is the leap of illogic creationists make in the micro macro evolution arguments. They wish to state that the mechanism of transmission and the mutations that distinguish a parent from its offspring work the way genetics claims based on the findings and the science of genetics. However, when it comes to species they claim said system is insufficient to explain the transmission of mutation by a normal hereditary mechanism..no reason other than religious zealotry is provided for the opposition to genetics of species versus populations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Loudmouth, posted 08-30-2004 6:26 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Loudmouth, posted 08-31-2004 2:05 PM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 26 of 41 (138359)
08-31-2004 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by fnord
08-27-2004 1:10 PM


The main reason why many scientists think creationism is not really an explanation is not that there's a better alternative, or that there isn't a God, but that there's very little scientific support for creationism. It fails to answer a lot of questions.
I'm not missing the point at all. That is my point. I wanted the creationists to defend their position without attacking evolution hence the fictional setup in which evolution was removed from the picture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by fnord, posted 08-27-2004 1:10 PM fnord has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 27 of 41 (138361)
08-31-2004 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Robert Byers
08-27-2004 2:10 PM


So, Robert, would you care to address the questions I posed in Message 7 from the point of view of Creationism, and demonstrate how Creationism can be used to answer the biological 'why' questions arrising from the variety and nature of the plants and creatures of the earth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Robert Byers, posted 08-27-2004 2:10 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 41 (138408)
08-31-2004 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Robert Byers
08-27-2004 2:10 PM


I think Mr. Jack's question is why, based on what evidence, should we believe in creationism at all?
Even if the theory of evolution were proven to be false, why should we believe in creationism instead of simply saying "we don't know how it all happened"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Robert Byers, posted 08-27-2004 2:10 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 29 of 41 (138423)
08-31-2004 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by PecosGeorge
08-30-2004 10:34 AM


Re: Don't matter
Nothing will change creationism, you cannot add to it or take away from it, it is simply fact to some and fiction to others, and so it shall remain.
and
There is no proof for or against God, there never will be.
These above statements that you made contradict themselves. You can't call something a fact if there can never be proof for or against it. It isn't simply fact, because when you call it fact this alludes to evidence that does not exist. I do agree with you that creation requires faith, though.
I doubt that some day, this problem that creationists have with the idea of "fact versus fiction" will be resolved. Your statements above just strengthen the proposition that many creationists are unable to distinguish between the two. There will probably always be those whose rational part of the brain has been scooped out, thrown on the floor, and stomped on. Often self-inflicted and often by their own feet...
This message has been edited by DBlevins, 08-31-2004 10:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PecosGeorge, posted 08-30-2004 10:34 AM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by PecosGeorge, posted 09-01-2004 10:11 AM DBlevins has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 30 of 41 (138428)
08-31-2004 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by PecosGeorge
08-30-2004 10:46 AM


Re: We've been there before
Creationism and science are highly compatible.
Any time the supernatural is invoked, it is most definitly NOT science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by PecosGeorge, posted 08-30-2004 10:46 AM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 08-31-2004 11:37 AM DBlevins has not replied
 Message 34 by PecosGeorge, posted 09-01-2004 10:12 AM DBlevins has not replied
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2004 10:27 AM DBlevins has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024