Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where is the evidence for evolution?
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 228 of 367 (33418)
02-28-2003 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by DanskerMan
02-28-2003 1:01 AM


Well, you could try taking him at his word. "I don't know" seems pretty straightforward to me, especially on something of a peripheral point. Alternatively, you could pin him down with a nice, "Okay, you don't know. Fine. Does anyone?", which forces him (if so inclined) to go scrambling about the journals looking for information. Finally, you could simply drop that particular issue and go on to something else - like responding to the points he DID make or refuting something he wrote. What irritates a lot of evos is the immediate leap from "I don't know" to "Aha! See, evolution is dead". If you're serious about asking questions, then ask. If not, then rant away - the tactics are pretty well known, so don't be surprised if you're called on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by DanskerMan, posted 02-28-2003 1:01 AM DanskerMan has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1956 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 229 of 367 (33425)
02-28-2003 9:00 AM


you guys just don't get it
I can't seem to answer each and every one of sonnike the creationists questions - we all know what that means.
EVOLUTION IS JUST A BELIEF!
It is taken on Faith alone!
It is a dead paradigm!
It is intended to do away with religion!
Didn't you guys get the memo?
As has become obvious, Sonnike is not up to any sort of dialogue.
He does not want to learn.
I think my rant was right on - he is just searching for that crack to slime his way throough - to find justification for his flimsy anti-science beliefs.
And now he has found an excuse to 'go away' and conclude - laughably erroneously - that there is some big problem in evolution because I cannot answer one of his tangential questions (ignoring, of course, the fact that he has ignored nearly everything I had presented thus far).
He's Freddy Williams without the bad haircut.
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-28-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Admin, posted 02-28-2003 9:29 AM derwood has replied
 Message 240 by DanskerMan, posted 03-03-2003 11:49 PM derwood has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 230 of 367 (33429)
02-28-2003 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by DanskerMan
02-28-2003 1:01 AM


Sonnikke writes:
SLPx:I don't know, personally. I would assume, however, that the same way everything else did - mutation of some sort followed by selection of some sort.
Let me try again.....I'm really not quite sure how to respond to a statement like Scott's. Admin, if you'd indulge me, pretend you are a creationist for a moment, how would you respond to Scott's statement?
This is starting to come into better focus, and I think I understand better now the issue you, and many other Creationists, have with this sort of reply. I'll take a stab at this, and you can let me know whether I've gotten any closer.
I think the issue isn't so much that Scott doesn't know the answer, but more that he just assumes the answer must fit within an evolutionary framework. You're amazed that he can just assume that a branch of biology with whose deep details he's unfamiliar fits into the same evolutionary framework as those parts of biology with which he's better acquainted.
There are so many ways to address this that I don't know where to begin or which ones to use. I suppose I could start out by saying that when practicing science you assume that all phenomena have natural, as opposed to supernatural, explanations. If this assumption leads the investigation into a corner of contradictions then I suppose one could begin considering the supernatural, but then you encounter the problem of determining how one tells the difference between a really thorny problem and a miracle.
So far, the history of science is of one thorny problem after another giving way to naturalistic explanations. If you look at the thorny problems at the beginning of the 20th century, such as the indetectable ether that just *had* to exist, and said, "Here be God," then in 1906 when Einstein came out with his special theory of relativity you would have had to say, "Whoops, guess not." Or if you go back further in time to the 16th century and examine the thorny problem of what mechanism keeps the planets in their orbits and said, "Here be God," then when Newton came along you would have had to once again say, "Whoops, guess not."
This is why ID always focuses on the frontiers of scientific advancement, because that's where the thorniest questions are, and that's where it's easiest to say, "Aha, this problem is so thorny and complex (irreducibly complex in Behe's case) that not only can no one figure it out, it will *never* be figured out, and therefore 'Here be God.'" And in most cases within 20 years or so you'll again be wrong.
Those unfamiliar with the history of scientific advances, a couple examples of which I've just provided, can easily believe that science doesn't really advance, that it's really just a collection of facts and theories that scientists like to play with, and that in the case of evolution what they're really doing is playing with blasphemy and the denial of God's word. But not acknowledging that science studies the world and universe as it really is and as science actually finds it, and that this knowledge can grow and increase and build on itself, would be to deny reality. Science has made dramatic contributions to the changes and advances of the past few centuries. It is easy for anyone to look back over the last hundred years and see the marks of scientific progress by talking to parents and grandparents. My own mother grew up on the Alberta prairie in a house with no electricity or plumbing (rural electrification took longer in Canada than in the US). One of the dramatic advancements she remembers is when the pump was installed next to the kitchen sink from having been out in the yard, but now she uses a computer, watches a TiVo and cooks in a microwave. She hits a button and her car starts so it can be warm by the time she goes out.
Scientific advances have also come in biology, many of them with medical consequences. If scientists were just making it up then they couldn't look at a baby's DNA and determine whether it had a certain genetic defect. DNA identification wouldn't be admissible in court. We wouldn't even know what DNA looks like. We wouldn't have CAT scanners and MRIs, or even electroencephalographs and fetal monitors.
And at no point during all this scientific development has an area that we couldn't eventually penetrate been found. Maybe some of the current thorny problems represent the first cases of such problems, but I wouldn't bet on it because it would run counter to the example of 500 years of scientific advances.
Where I think the problem comes in for you is that you *know* evolution is wrong, but even more pertinent, you seem to believe that scientists are covering up some deep secret of missing evidence, and so you grasp at every hint of the unknown as the smoking gun.
But there is so much that is unknown. You should have no problem finding things we don't know because there are simply so many of them. There are more scientists alive today then at any time in world history - if there were not a lot that we didn't know then there would be little for them to do and they'd move into other professions. So get used to the idea that there are lots of things we don't know.
And, of course, as Scott has pointed out, science today is so big and so complex that to make progress almost everyone has to sub-specialize and sub-sub-specialize into narrow disciplines. I don't even attempt to explain my area of sub-sub-specialization to anyone outside my field. When my father was still alive and we got together one question he would invariably ask would be, "So, tell me, what is it you do again?" And I could never explain it to the point where he could understand, and this man was an organic chemist. By the way, please don't think I'm bragging. I'm not claiming to be brilliant, just very, very specialized, as are most scientists today. But the important point is that all this specialization means that many scientists know little outside their specialty beyond the general principles of their own branch of science.
There's another aspect to all this, and it's a very important one. There is a significant and extremely important difference between these two things:
  • Evidence of evolution, for instance, fossils in the geologic column, or classification systems for living organisms, or genetic relationship trees, etc.
  • Projection of an evolutionary framework onto a biological question. This means asking how evolution might have produced something, say an eye or a hand. It is *not* evidence. The proposed scenario might be bolstered by evidence, or it might be completely speculative.
I'm no biologist and have no idea whatsoever whether there's a good answer today for the question you asked about the evidence for how various genetic control mechanisms might have evolved. But, the evidence we have so far indicates that all living things have arrived at their current forms through the process of evolution, ie, mutation and selection, because these are the only naturalistic processes we know that produce new species, and to this point in time no one has ever come across a scientific problem that indicates non-natural means must be considered. So, if one is doing science then one has no choice but to project what we know onto the question. Hence, when you ask your question, the only scientific answer possible is that the evolution of genetic control mechanisms took place through the same process as all other evolution, ie, mutation and selection.
So now I think it's time to throw the question back to you. In light of all I've just explained, when Scott says he doesn't know how genetic control mechanisms might have evolved, but that it probably had something to do with mutation and selection, does it still make sense to you to assume that, even if science has no good answers, that this represents a thorny problem calling into question not only all of biology, whose modern form is based upon evolution, but even all of science, which is based upon the assumption of naturalistic causes?
Hope this gets closer to your question. If not I promise to be briefer next time.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by DanskerMan, posted 02-28-2003 1:01 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by DanskerMan, posted 03-03-2003 11:36 PM Admin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 231 of 367 (33431)
02-28-2003 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by derwood
02-28-2003 9:00 AM


Re: you guys just don't get it
Please, Scott, I know I'm responsible for prodding you to be more patient and forthcoming and that subsequent developments have tended to reinforce your viewpoint and not mine, but if I could indulge upon your patience a little longer it would be appreciated.
By the way, about my tongue-in-cheek portrayal of your email, yes, Moose mentioned to me the email you sent him, but I actually had in mind a parody of the email you sent me last year after your first suspension. It wasn't intended to be accurate or anything, hence the smiley, I apologize if I stepped over a line. I was just trying to point out to Sonnikke that during your time here we've been more at loggerheads than anything else, and that charging us with complicity made no sense.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by derwood, posted 02-28-2003 9:00 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by derwood, posted 02-28-2003 1:20 PM Admin has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1956 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 232 of 367 (33443)
02-28-2003 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Admin
02-28-2003 9:29 AM


Re: you guys just don't get it
quote:
Admin:
Please, Scott, I know I'm responsible for prodding you to be more patient and forthcoming and that subsequent developments have tended to reinforce your viewpoint and not mine, but if I could indulge upon your patience a little longer it would be appreciated.
I will try.
quote:
By the way, about my tongue-in-cheek portrayal of your email, yes, Moose mentioned to me the email you sent him, but I actually had in mind a parody of the email you sent me last year after your first suspension.
Well, I felt the same way then, too. And I don't believe I used the phrase "two-bit" then, either.
quote:
It wasn't intended to be accurate or anything, hence the smiley, I apologize if I stepped over a line. I was just trying to point out to Sonnikke that during your time here we've been more at loggerheads than anything else, and that charging us with complicity made no sense.
What line?
My goodness, some folks are so serious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Admin, posted 02-28-2003 9:29 AM Admin has not replied

iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 367 (33456)
02-28-2003 4:05 PM


SLPX can you direct me to so supportive evo literature addressing the issues ranging from basic to advanced?

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Percy, posted 02-28-2003 4:28 PM iconoclast2440 has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 234 of 367 (33457)
02-28-2003 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by iconoclast2440
02-28-2003 4:05 PM


If it helps, rmwilliamsjr had a book recommendation for human evolution in this message:
http://EvC Forum: Let us reason together. -->EvC Forum: Let us reason together.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by iconoclast2440, posted 02-28-2003 4:05 PM iconoclast2440 has not replied

Rich
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 367 (33474)
03-01-2003 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by drummachine
01-23-2003 9:30 PM


I'm new, too. I'm a Christian, but never entered into the argument before. Recently, I realized that Genesis 1:1 referred to the creation of the original earth. Today, we call it evolution, but I think if was more of a devolution because God doesn't create junk. I believe that man was created and satan, in his attempt to be greater than God, perverted the creation until it was slime. At that point, the world was destroyed by the FIRST flood, causing geological changes and the DESTRUCTION of life; thus the world became without form and void, Genesis 1:2. At that point, God gave the old world new life, such as we see it today. satan is still attempting to pervert this world, but there are more obstacles in his way. There is also a time table attached to this world. It will not have as many years to devolve. I know that this is not an accepted theory, but it came from a very HIGH SOURCE. YOU WILL NEVER FIND A TRANSITION BETWEEN THE TWO WORLDS. THEY HAD NO LINKAGE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by drummachine, posted 01-23-2003 9:30 PM drummachine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by rmwilliamsjr, posted 03-01-2003 12:06 PM Rich has not replied

rmwilliamsjr
Inactive Junior Member


Message 236 of 367 (33479)
03-01-2003 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Rich
03-01-2003 10:02 AM


gap theory
what you are describing is the gap theory. ie big gap between gen 1:1 and 1:2. lots of history and comments on it.
gap theory of genesis one chapter one
gap theory
and there is a gap-theory.com site even.....
and that is just the first page at a yahoo/google search.
richard williams
------------------
Signature too long, 100 chars max.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Rich, posted 03-01-2003 10:02 AM Rich has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 237 of 367 (33480)
03-01-2003 1:22 PM


This thread has become focused on genetic evidence for evolution. Discussion of the creation of the world should be moved to a thread in either the Cosmology and the Big Bang forum, or the Geology and the Great Flood forum.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

derwood
Member (Idle past 1956 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 238 of 367 (33560)
03-03-2003 3:30 PM


Admin:
... subsequent developments have tended to reinforce your viewpoint and not mine, but if I could indulge upon your patience a little longer it would be appreciated.
Boy, it sure is rough being right so often....

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 367 (33590)
03-03-2003 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Admin
02-28-2003 9:21 AM


Hi Admin,
I'll try to re-quote as little as possible (I know you frown upon it )
Certainly I agree and applaud the advancements of science. I doubt *anyone* would do otherwise. That is not to say that scientific advancements = proof for evolution, it absolutely does not.
I can see the problem of specializing and sub-specializing etc. Which really means that scientists (who are just like the rest of us) rely on information from other scientists, and either trust it or not, correct? It should be noted that many scientific advancements were made by bible believing christians, and undoubtedly are still being made today (unless I'm mistaken wasn't the invention of the CT scanner by a creationist?)
TABLE I
SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS
DISCIPLINE - SCIENTIST
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY - JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY - LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS - ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS - JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY - ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY - GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE - CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS - LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS - ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS - JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS - JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS - MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS - LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS - HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY - MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS - GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY - WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS - ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS - GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY - LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY - JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS - LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY - MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS - BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY - LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY - WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS - LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY - JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY - BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY - MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY - DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY - JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY - RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY - JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS - JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS - JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY - NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY - CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS - LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS - HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY - GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
TABLE II
NOTABLE INVENTIONS, DISCOVERIES
OR DEVELOPMENTS BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS
CONTRIBUTION - SCIENTIST
ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE SCALE - LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ACTUARIAL TABLES - CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
BAROMETER - BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
BIOGENESIS LAW - LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULATING MACHINE - CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
CHLOROFORM - JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM - CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
DOUBLE STARS - WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
ELECTRIC GENERATOR - MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ELECTRIC MOTOR - JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
EPHEMERIS TABLES - JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
FERMENTATION CONTROL - LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
GALVANOMETER - JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
GLOBAL STAR CATALOG - JOHN HERSCHEL (1792-1871)
INERT GASES - WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
KALEIDOSCOPE - DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
LAW OF GRAVITY - ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
MINE SAFETY LAMP - HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
PASTEURIZATION - LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
REFLECTING TELESCOPE - ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
SCIENTIFIC METHOD - FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626)
SELF-INDUCTION - JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
TELEGRAPH SAMUEL - F.B. MORSE (1791-1872)
THERMIONIC VALVE - AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
TRANS-ATLANTIC CABLE - LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
VACCINATION & IMMUNIZATION - LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
You cite "evidence"
Evidence of evolution, for instance, fossils in the geologic column, or classification systems for living organisms, or genetic relationship trees, etc.
You would have to agree that this "evidence" can and does just as easily apply as evidence for creation, would you not?
But, the evidence we have so far indicates that all living things have arrived at their current forms through the process of evolution, ie, mutation and selection, because these are the only naturalistic processes we know that produce new species...
What new species are you talking about?
..., and to this point in time no one has ever come across a scientific problem that indicates non-natural means must be considered.
That's a pretty bold statement. So are you saying that all the opposition to evolution basically counts as "no one"?
So, if one is doing science then one has no choice but to project what we know onto the question.
And given our limited and changing knowledge, is it not safe to assume that saying "mutation and selection did it" is potentially if not probably incorrect, especially if a paradigm is so held to as to not allow for conflicting evidence to be presented.
Hence, when you ask your question, the only scientific answer possible is that the evolution of genetic control mechanisms took place through the same process as all other evolution, ie, mutation and selection.
Only when you have a priori commitments would you say "the only scientific answer possible".
So now I think it's time to throw the question back to you. In light of all I've just explained, when Scott says he doesn't know how genetic control mechanisms might have evolved, but that it probably had something to do with mutation and selection, does it still make sense to you to assume that, even if science has no good answers, that this represents a thorny problem calling into question not only all of biology, whose modern form is based upon evolution, but even all of science, which is based upon the assumption of naturalistic causes?
Well I'm not sure if this is what you are trying to say, but it sounds like you are saying that because of an a priori commitment to naturalism and evolution, the only answer to such questions is obviously within that framework. How is that not dogmatic I ask?
Finally, you have aroused my always curious nature so I would like to ask you Admin, what is your speciality? (If you don't mind me asking).
Thank you,
S
p.s. I *really* hope the above does not get seen as un-serious as happened previously. I am in this thing solidly and sincerely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Admin, posted 02-28-2003 9:21 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Admin, posted 03-04-2003 12:36 AM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 242 by derwood, posted 03-04-2003 11:11 AM DanskerMan has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 367 (33593)
03-03-2003 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by derwood
02-28-2003 9:00 AM


As has become obvious, Sonnike is not up to any sort of dialogue.
He does not want to learn.
If that's "obvious" to you, I wonder how "obvious" scientific discoveries are to you.
I think my rant was right on - he is just searching for that crack to slime his way throough - to find justification for his flimsy anti-science beliefs.
Now you are just acting like a kindergarten bully who is bragging to his buddies about un-truths that makes himself feel good and important.
And now he has found an excuse to 'go away' and conclude - laughably erroneously - that there is some big problem in evolution because I cannot answer one of his tangential questions (ignoring, of course, the fact that he has ignored nearly everything I had presented thus far).
I'm glad you are not a psychologist.
He's Freddy Williams without the bad haircut.
When did you see my picture?
Let me know when you are back from recess so we can keep talking,... if you still want to.
S.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by derwood, posted 02-28-2003 9:00 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by derwood, posted 03-04-2003 11:17 AM DanskerMan has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 241 of 367 (33600)
03-04-2003 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by DanskerMan
03-03-2003 11:36 PM


I've already stepped much too far outside the bounds of moderator. One thing you said is helpful, though. If you do not accept science's definition of science, in your case the requirement that only evidence in some way available to the five senses be considered, then it explains why you accept so little that is explained. You might find it helpful to explore the issue of what constitutes acceptable scientific evidence over in the Is It Science? forum.
My interest here is to keep discussion on-topic and moving forward. I'd like to request that you and Scott diminish the number of content-free exchanges.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by DanskerMan, posted 03-03-2003 11:36 PM DanskerMan has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1956 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 242 of 367 (33624)
03-04-2003 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by DanskerMan
03-03-2003 11:36 PM


'creationist scientists'
I always get a kick out of such lists, as they are at best red herrings and are, with little doubt, quite completely irrelevent as to the validity of creationism as a scientific field.
Of that hallowed list, how many of the 'fields of science' or scientific contributions were the result of the 'creation scientist's' reliance upon a literal interpretation of the bible?
Did the 'inventor' of gynecology, for example, use the bible as his anatomy/physiology text? Did a literal reading of Genesis (or would it be Ruth?) inspire the discovery of the vagina?
As for the Admin's comment on content-free posts, I think it clear that I have been trying to get some content from Sonnike in order to move on. As my initial intuition has largely been shown to be correct, that Sonnike was merely out to find a 'chink in the armor' to seize upon, I would hope that the greatest change in post content be from Sonnike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by DanskerMan, posted 03-03-2003 11:36 PM DanskerMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by nator, posted 03-07-2003 9:38 AM derwood 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