|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is False; now what? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Creationism is a result of the Bible and so that authority makes our case. What authority?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PecosGeorge Member (Idle past 6873 days) Posts: 863 From: Texas Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PecosGeorge Member (Idle past 6873 days) Posts: 863 From: Texas Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
And eventually they will get tired of answering you, and will stop. Then you can claim victory. (I have seen this happen.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Just playing Devil's Advocate here . . .
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).
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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3776 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3776 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
Creationism and science are highly compatible. Any time the supernatural is invoked, it is most definitly NOT science.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024