|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is Not Science | |||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Sorry to 'but' in, but ...
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b]As requested by the EvC Forum Administrator, this deleted message is being reposted here, which should be a more appropropiate forum than the one in which it originated. Message origination:Evolution versus Creationism Is It Science? A Christian (and creationist)'s condemnation of "Creation Science" (Page 4) Originally posted by minnemooseus: I think I'm striving for more of a "creationism and evolution can getalong" type topic, here. Creation by evolution. See also, the Kenneth Miller: Finding Darwin's God topic. Have a nice day,
***An observation of the problems involving the co-existance ofevolution and creation.***Jet /b][/QUOTE] None of us should have to tell someone with your vast intellectualbackground and reasoning ability that the above has nothing to do with ToE. However ... how creating the conditions necessary for the spontaneousgeneration of life would proove creation is beyond me. The experiment would be designed, sure, but it would be designed tomimic conditions that would occur naturally ... quote: How is this relevent to evolution ... perhaps we need a definitionof evolution for this debate ... oh, wait what's in the glossary? quote: There is no evidence that it couldn't ... your point is ? Could you perhaps start a thread on the above so you couldpresent your reasoning, rather than just stating an assumption. quote: What about colony organisms like slime mould (which also exhibita rudimentary intelligence) ? Doesn't outright proove it I guess, but then (as with theprevious point) there is no evidence directly against it. There are observable organisms which indicate a potential routefrom single to multi celled life though. Matter of interpretation, perhaps. quote: This is a no transitionals thing ... and leads to the tritebut true absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. quote: There is no evidence of a common designer ... yet you accept that. Common anatomy could, I agree, equally reflect either common designor common descent. It is evidence in isolation though, when coupled with the other branches of ToE support it fits the theory very well. quote: Sounds like the way you argue your side to me.
quote: Hmm .. you use existence of God (which can niether be prooved nordisprooved) as refutation of evolution. Interesting. And you say that some of us are narrow minded, with limited reasoning ability! If God exists he didn't need the flood either. If he is powerfulenough to speak an entire universe into creation, surely he is powerful enough to wipe out mankind without resorting to a flood, or sending angels to rain fire and brimstone on cities. And if God prizes free will in his creations, why try to terrify theminto doing as they are told ? If he is omniscient why would he have bothered since it hasclearly not worked ? If god created the earth 4.5 billion years ago, pinked some lifeinto existence and gave it the ability to evolve ... we would see no evidence of his hand in the work. because his only hand would be 4.5 billion years ago. If there is evidence in existence which can be interpreted asevolution (and there must be otherwise the theory would not exist) then (according to you) God put it there ... and that opens a whole new can of worms.
|
|||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: First, what you have described is NOT evolution. Second, that potential is testable ... because it's about chemistry.Set up the right environment and see if you can produce organic compounds ... didn't someone do that already ? Is archeology religion too ?
quote: These are hardly linch-pins of evolutionary theory, and theembriology stuff has been rejected via peer-review and research ... which tends to suggest that evolution IS scientific. quote: For photgraphs, perhaps, we cannot say they intended todeceive. Where do they rest ? And what factors could have affected thedifferences in colour distribution in the locations studied ? It is still evidence of population trait distributions changing,which is all that was intended. quote: Not sure of the relevence of this to evolution.
quote: Did you intend the wording above ? 'Not necessarily' and'need not' imply that sometimes homology can be related to the same gene doing the same thing. Common descent and convergent evolution are both considered to be encompassed by ToE. quote: OK. And that refutes evolution because ... ?
quote: Still, it supports natural selection.
quote: Unlikelihood is hardly relevent. It is unlikely for any oneperson to win the lottery, doesn't mean no-one does (unless there's a conspiracy I don't know about The argument is that mutations can promote no-lethal changes thatare claimed to be impossible. How do we know that the absense of flying ability is a disadvantage in all environments ... I mean ants seem to do alright. quote: The fossil record is incomplete ... no one will tell you otherwise. Too many differences for what ?
quote: So people pull off hoaxes, your point is ? Perhaps you are saying that ALL support for ToE has beenhoaxed and/or manipulated and that no-one has attempted to do the same in support of creationist views. Perhaps these hoaxes were perpetrated BY creationists toultimately discredit ToE ... who knows. The existence of hoaxes does not detract from the many linesof evidence which are not hoaxed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024