Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Points Of View
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 8 of 45 (484326)
09-27-2008 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
09-26-2008 2:56 PM


A couple of points.
- natural selection theory is false, or an after the fact rationalization
- creationism is true, since all is based on decision not cause and effect
- lots of discoveries were, and are made through creationism, for example Mendellian genetics which was conceived in terms of the species having boundaries of variation, and I think Newton's theory of gravity which works instantaneously over distance is also basically a creationist idea from a creationist
So given that creationism is true, and evolution is false, you should then argue the merit of science eventhough it is false. Otherwise it is just more arrogance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 09-26-2008 2:56 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2008 9:07 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 12 by Granny Magda, posted 09-27-2008 9:48 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 33 of 45 (484390)
09-28-2008 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Granny Magda
09-27-2008 9:48 PM


Let me rephrase then.
Evolution theory is generally false, creationism is generally true. Given that, was the approach of evolution still better. Or so to say, do we have to wait for a scientific theory that establishes free will, or can we just posit free will by direct evidence and common sense.
I think the last, we do not have to wait, direct evidence and common sense is sufficient grounding for a scientific theory, we do not have to know everything about creation prior to accepting any creation.
Natural selection, differential reproductive success, could be just as true as differential rolling down the hill success when I let go a sack of oddly shaped rocks, and the rocks roll down further and less far according to their variation. Or otherwise, when you have a bag of M&M's and you group them according to color, and then cause a war between the different color M&M's, eating the victims, then actually that is just happening in the imagination. And yes it is fact that the one color gets eaten while the other still doesn't, and it's a fact that a variant organism in a population reproduces while the other variant doesn't, and it's a fact that the one rock rolled down further than another because of it's shape, but nature itself does not use any of these processes. Nature is not in the habit of comparing things, be they variant rocks, variant organisms, or variant M&M's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Granny Magda, posted 09-27-2008 9:48 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by anglagard, posted 09-28-2008 6:29 AM Syamsu 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