Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science support creationism?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 95 (152500)
10-24-2004 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Buzsaw
10-23-2004 9:35 PM


The more complexity which science has discovered and researched, the more I consider NS to be utterly impossible and the evidence of an existing infinitely super-intelligent creator actively managing the universe.
A fair enough claim.
But if God was influencing events, making things happen that wouldn't, otherwise, or preventing things that would have happened, wouldn't we notice? If God's having a non-random effect on the universe, wouldn't we be able to detect it?
Why is it, then, that things seem to happen just as the laws of physics seem to suggest that they would? Where do you propose the Hand of God can be detected?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 10-23-2004 9:35 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 95 (156409)
11-05-2004 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
11-05-2004 8:02 PM


I'm glad you asked, Pink.
You guys have fallen into Buz's trap where he gets to assail Natural Selection as if it were the only force involved in evolution.
He's right, of course. By itself, natural selection can only reduce the variability of a population to the most advantageous existing traits.
On the other hand, by itself, random mutation can only expand variation in a population randomly, with no regard as to the fitness of traits.
But to say that proves anything is stupid. Obviously, natural selection and random mutation work together to create new, advantagous traits in populations. What Buz is doing is like trying to "prove" that cars can't actually take you anywhere, because a car with no gas doesn't go anywhere, and gas with no car just runs through your fingers.
Duh. Natural selection without random mutation is like a car with no gas. Put them together, and like the car, there's almost no limit to where they can take you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2004 8:02 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2004 10:03 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 43 of 95 (156426)
11-05-2004 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Buzsaw
11-05-2004 8:53 PM


True or false? According to 2ltd, there IS a general tendency for entropy to increase.
Entropy is not the opposite of complexity, Buz.
As it turns out, ordered states aren't very complex. In fact, the thing that most characterizes a very ordered state is its simplicity.
So too is complexity generally typified by disorder. A fully constructed house is more complex but less ordered than lumber sitting on a lot in neat, organized piles. In regards to the brain, the state of the most order would be all the neurons on one side, and all the neuroglia on the other. That would be the least complexity, in all likelyhood.
Do you get it, yet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2004 8:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 95 (156460)
11-05-2004 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Buzsaw
11-05-2004 10:03 PM


On the other hand the tendency of NS is to work against random mutation, producing a weaker or often even dead product when something different is produced by the process.
Well, yeah. The vast majority of mutations have neutral or negative effects.
But some do have positive effects, and natural selection ensures that these come to dominate the population.
Natural selection is a destructive force, and random mutation is a destructive force. The amazing part about biology is that when you combine them, you get a force that has a creative effect on population - evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2004 10:03 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 73 of 95 (157080)
11-07-2004 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RoseBudd
11-07-2004 9:59 PM


But the way I see it, is that even though scientists try to use science to disprove God, it does just the opposite.
I'm sorry, when have scientists ever tried to do that?
That would be a very surprising thing for scientists to do, since most of them believe in God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RoseBudd, posted 11-07-2004 9:59 PM RoseBudd 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