|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total) |
| |
FossilDiscovery | |
Total: 893,178 Year: 4,290/6,534 Month: 504/900 Week: 28/182 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What i can't understand about evolution.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 490 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: No. I suspect you'd be surprised to learn that the vast majority of those people accept the ToE and have no problem reconciling it with their religious beliefs. There's a tremendous difference between being a creationist and being a scientist who believes in a supreme being. The reason science rejects creationism has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that creationists believe in god. It's because their work doesn't comport with generally accepted principles of science. quote: I'd be very interested to see what your source for these quotes is. I suspect you won't say. I also suspect it's a creationism website of some sort or other. I haven't the inclination to investigate all of them, I'll just talk about one, Harold Morowitz. He testified on behalf of plaintiffs who were challenging the Arkansas Balanced Treatment Act in McLean v. Arkansas. You can read all of his testimony, it's not very long. But it's more or less summarized at the end with the following:
I strongly suspect that he never actually said anything even close to what you quote. It's difficult to tell for sure if you don't provide a source for your quote. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 490 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: If you are committed to this definition, then the game is over and your position is defeated. The evolution of new species, that are incapable of interbreeding with the parent species, has been observed to occur in nature, and in a laboratory setting as well. Thus, evolution beyond "kind" is a well-known, observed phenomenon. This is where you back track, and try to redefine "kind" so as to preserve your preconceived notion, despite the evidence. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 506 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined: |
Yes I know you have said this before. Yet when for example in Message 228 you describe evolutions role in diversification, the examples you use include parrots, cats, dogs, and horses. Most of those are classed as genera which contain many species, the exception being parrots which is actually classed as an order which contains many genera. Anyway this was a side issue. My main issue was your conflating evolution with abiogenesis. Since you had nothing to say on what I wrote on that issue, I will assume you don;t have a problem with my examples showing how they are separate considerations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4165 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
believe it or not, its only been in the last day or two that i've come to realize what you all mean when you use the term 'creationist'. I thought i was a creationist, but now i realise that term is reserved for those who adhere to the young earth theories. i've inadvertently been arguing for something i dont agree with LOL but darwinian evolution and the spontaneous generation of life on this planet is not logical to me either, not in the slightest.
Leslie Orgel quote "Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide" p. 188 Harold Morowitz quote "Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide" pp. 32, 49, 128 Edited by Peg, : No reason given. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2209 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.4 |
Creationist isn't reserved just for the young earthers. "Creationist" generally applies to anyone who wishes to replace science with magic. soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 70 days) Posts: 2384 From: UK Joined: |
Peg, you have got to stop allowing creationist websites to spoonfeed you shite.
quote: Scientist? I think not. Here are what some other sources have to say about Hitching.
It appears that Hitching is just another crank. He's not a scientist. Whichever creationist website you got this claim from is either lying, incompetent or (most likely) both. And that's just the first on the list. Face facts; the overwhelming majority of experts in biology are convinced that evolution occurs, including most of those who believe in God. Quoting a few kooks and quote-mining a few scientists won't change that. Mutate and Survive "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4165 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
could you provide some examples of this with perhaps links to the actual laboratories and the research you are referring to ? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4165 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
i has been said by others that it is a separate issue.
abiogenesis and evolution have nothing to do with each other, evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life etc etc but its one thing to say that evolution is how species evolved from other species then not back up where the species began in the first place thats why they are very much linked together
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 490 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: In fact, you are incorrect. Anyone who attempts to invoke anything other than natural means to explain the development of life on this planet because they believe the ToE is insufficient is a creationist. This includes YECs, OECs, the transitional species cdesign proponentist, and the latest crop, intelligent design theorists. They all use the same basic playbook, with slight alterations in terminology. quote: If you were to simply state that you haven't studied enough of it to understand it and, thus, couldn't express an opinion, I'd be willing to let it go at that. However, you go beyond that. You quote creos of every stripe, swallowing the distortions and lies that they liberally spoon out. You challenge scientists who've spent their entire careers studying the ToE, making arguments in the process that do nothing so much as they show how little you know about the subject. I do appreciate you providing your sources. I'm going to have to add the Origins book to my reading list, I'm not familiar with it. I am familiar, however, with Denton's book. It's really nothing more than typical creo ramblings. You can find a more detailed discussion of it here. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 4755 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
They sure are related, but they are not the same thing. If you have an issue with abiogenesis, why don't you call it abiogenesis? calling it evolution just confuses everybody else and stalls the debate. Edited by fallacycop, : typo Edited by fallacycop, : more typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Peg, I heartily agree. It's like creationists advocating creationism and exempting Genesis from creationism in apologetics for creationism. Similarly, it's like Biblicalists exempting Genesis from apologetics for the Biblical record. Are you any relation to Ann Coulter? ;) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 1339 days) Posts: 7789 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Strange, I always thought he was mild mannered and rather genial sex maniac.
'Many' is something of a poor choice of word here. Creationists who also happen to be practicing biologists are very very rare breeds indeed. I don't think I could name even a few. There are a couple of more that are Intelligent Design proponents. So lets say you have five thousand electricians giving you one piece of advice and three that are giving you the opposite advise based on philosophical objections to the materialist electricity hypothesis. What do you do?
You of course realize that for centuries Creationists dominated the field. Might there be a reason they are becoming less common other than some conspiracy to silence them? Maybe they are just not as good at convincing experts in the field that their arguments have merit. We could say the same thing here for any now largely forgotten idea. Those who have done any studying accept that world is at least somewhat spheroid and that in simple terms the common centre of orbit for the planets of the solar system is the sun, not the earth and that diseases are caused by bacteria and viruses rather than demons and spirits. Is this problematic in some way?
Well, lets get specific. Francis Collins believes in God. Let's see where that puts his research with a quick look at wikipedia: quote: On pretty good grounds, I'd say, no?
Nope. In fact, Francis Collins is/was both a practicing evolutionist and Christian, he says, "I am unaware of any irreconcilable conflict between scientific knowledge about evolution and the idea of a creator God; why couldn't God have used the mechanism of evolution to create? And to visit a different discipline John Polkinghorne, who played a role in discovering the quark in the field of physics is also an ordained priest. quote: I agree with him. quote: I have nothing much to say on Hoyle and Wickramasinghe. They aren't biologists as noted, but they are exploring panspermia, good luck to them. (well to Wickramasinghe, Hoyle passed away some years ago) quote: And indeed it is difficult. What do you think he spent the rest of the article (titled "Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life") doing but trying to show how that might have happened? This is called a quote mine. It is somewhat standard to start a scientific article by explaining to the reader what the problem is that you propose to discuss and maybe even solve before going on to do that very thing. You'll excuse me if I don't go into the rest, why don't you try investigating a few of them yourself?
What's pointless, exactly?
Again, not true. Evolution has no opinions since it has no brain. Evolution is just the observed phenomenon that life changes over time. It might be the case that this is as the result of purely naturalistic causes or it might be the case that a supernatural agent is directing things. The modern evolutionary theory as yet has no supernatural agents included in its explanatory framework, to paraphrase Laplace: Peg, I have no need for that hypothesis. Some evolutionary biologists believe there is a supernatural guiding force, and that belief doesn't usually get in the way of them doing their job. At this time, nobody has proposed a scientific method for discovering the actions of these intelligent agents that might be at work, nobody has proposed how they are changing life over time exactly and therefore there is no scientific theory.
Explain why. According to you, common descent (not evolution), is the proposal that all species on earth have evolved from other organisms and that all current life shares a common ancestry. Evidence from Natural History and the Theory of Evolution itself would suggest that this common ancestor was likely a single celled organism. From this, how does it follow that that common descent, the theory of evolution or evolution itself must by necessity be able to explain the origin of life. Can you show how they explain the origin of life - a Nobel prize await. If God created the first life, then it stands to reason that the theory of evolution will never be able to explain the origin of life even if we assume it could otherwise. If Aliens created the first life, then we aren't going to get any closer by looking at how chemicals on prebiotic earth interact.
The study of biological evolution and the study of biological origins are not unrelated studies. Indeed - I have already given you a simple ten minute video that explains how thermodynamics and other simple forces coupled eventually with ideas from the theory of evolution can generate a sort of proto-life form. I have not denied that the fields are related - it just doesn't serve well to say inaccurate things about what evolution is (the fact that populations change), the theory that explains those changes (inheritable changes acted upon by selective pressures etc) and the study of the history of nature (natural history) and the still somewhat disputed fact that all current living organisms are related by a single common ancestor. As long as you don't get them confused we're doing fine. Do we want to know how life might originate? Yes, that's why we spend millions researching it. Happy with that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 490 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Here is a rather extensive discussion of observed speciation instances.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 2677 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Gday Peg,
There are many examples of observed speciation, with details, here : Some more examples here : K.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 4755 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Two important points 1.) It may surprise you that most of those scientists that believe in God are evolutionists. 2.) By using expressions such as "atheists/evolutionary scientist" you make me believe you might think all evolutionary scientists are atheists. I would like to point out that that's not the case.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022