|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is a Religious Issue | |||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Before this goes on too long perhaps you should give your definition of faith. It is a near certainty that you are not using the same definition as some others. Unless that is cleared up it will degenerate into a match of "IS!", "IS NOT!", "IS".
I think you are trying to compare it to religious-faith. If so please elaborate if not clear that up for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
You are yet another example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the creationist cults. You actually had the idea that you could pose questions that would be difficult to answer.
You have been fed misinformation and outright lies. When you find that it isn't as easy as you thought it would be you cut an run. You are, of course, in good company. I'd guess a majority of the literalists visitors behave as you do. Not the best advertisement for your faith but that is your choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Perhaps I jumped a bit quickly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
You are correct in that similar arguments can be used. The point is that the old "were you there" argument is not meaningful.
That is the point the Schraf was making. The next issue is are we making good use of the available information and drawing logical conclusions from it. In both the examples given we can, with a lot of good reasons, conclude that indeed someone did it. We know that these are the kinds of things known "someones" do and we can even find "someones" who do those kind of thing. That is no use to a creationist argument when they don't have evidence of the someone and the other side has evidence that the things being pointed to can arise without any someone being involved at all. Again, you missed the point that was being discussed. It seems however that you agree with Schraf on that point. It is just that the "were you there" argument is so obviously stupid that it is a surprise that people would actually bring it up. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-14-2005 13:46 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
There is still no evidence for Evolution to this point. I have seen none provided here or anywhere else. Did you read post 34? Just exactly what is wrong with what was given there as evidence? Just saying you've seen none when someone thought they were giving you some without you explaining why you don't think it is might lead us to believe you are blind to it. Care to show that you have actually considered what you have been shown? This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-14-2005 17:46 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
The idea of a common ancestor for all life is just a consequence of the theory, and it seems reasonable, given what we know about biology. No, it is not a consequence of the ToE at all. If it is true of all extant life on earth then that is just a happenstance of the unfolding of life's developement.\ In "The Origin of Species" Darwin referst to life being breathed into one or a few....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I like the way one evolutionist said it. Evolution is a fact, and went on to explain how speciation is a fact, but typically, and you cannot deny this is what evolutionists do, he was really saying common descent is a fact. You can't have it both ways. It's propaganda. Frankly, I don't even care if common descent is true. But to go around and use, in educational materials, the term "evolution" to refer both to speciation and common descent and then to say common descent but use the term "evolution" is true because lookee here, we see speciation is propaganda, and that's what evolutionists rely on. I'm confused as to what your point is. If evolution results in speciation then we have more than one species with a common ancestor. Thus speciation and common descent go hand in hand. What is the problem exactly? I don't understand your seeing speciation as propaganda. Most creationist organization have accepted speciation and even higher levels of taxonomic splitting (that is wider common descent). Could you explain what you mean? The descent with modification part I don't understand either. It actually does appear that you are saying that speciation doesn't happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
The dishonesty is the use of the term "evolution" as synonymous with "common descent" taken asmeaning all of life evolving from a common ancestor. Evolution is a proposed mechanism for the theory of universal common descent. It is not equivalent to the theory of universal common descent. Of course, you are right that they are separate. We could very well have evolution of several separate lines going back to multiple ancestors. However, calling this "dishonest" is a silly over statmentn. Since ALL the evidence suggests that we have only one surviving line of descent being a bit careless in the terms and mixing the two is only careless not dishonest. In searching back I seem to see that you are not talking about universal common descent but against any commonality of descent even at the species level. Could you clarify? As for the inclusion of ID. It may well be that this all got kicked off by a designer, it may also be that it was designed to evolve by the mechanisms that we have come to understand. That is the view of the majority of Christians. Are you arguing something different from them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I still think a monkey wouldn't leave it's tree/niche. Well, animals do. And what if the niche left the 'monkey'? Then what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
You flat our claim that just because people reproduce after their kind, producing offspring that share traits and DNA, that this is proof of common descent of all living things from a single original life form. So "kinds" share DNA and traits. Since all life examined so far shares DNA patterns and the traits that go with them the conclusion is that these are all one "kind". One kind that may have been specially created or not, but one kind none-the-less.
Sorry, but I am not setting the bar that high. You have just set it so low that one could deduce from the mere fact of reproduction that universal common descent must be true. This is, of course, not at all true. In fact, it is a ridiculous expression of the actual situation. I suggest that you currently know too little to make any progress in understanding the situation and are demonstrating an unwillingness to consider anything which you might have trouble explaning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I would suppose we would compare genetic studies of different creatures, and set of creatures, to verify genetic similarity corresponds with physical similarity, correct? Exactly! This is underway and has been done for rather a lot of animals (but only partial genome sequences). The physical similarities fit well AND the degree of difference in some parts match up to the fossil determined dates that were determined well before the DNA was examined. In addtion, some discrepancies (whales for example) had the DNA saying one thing and bones suggesting something else. Then additional fossils were found which fit the DNA.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024