|
|
 |
|
Getting On : Faith
Evolution is a religion | from Mixza - Wednesday, September 01, 2004
accessed 2580 times Evolution is not a fact as it cannot be proven by science. I have read a few comments on this site regarding Evolution vs. Creation, remarks like “Science and religion don’t mix” etc.
So I figured I’d add my two cents worth on this particular topic.
Firstly, I would like to point out the fact that Evolution is as much a religion as any other.
A religion is based on a belief, a belief that cannot be proven by science.
Evolution is, at best, a theory, not a fact, Evolution cannot be proven (just as Creation cannot) due to the fact that it cannot be reproduced nor can it be observed taking place in the world today.
Evolution calls for an increase in genetic information, new information (not to be confused with new COMBINATIONS of genetic info), there is no evidence of new information being created, EVER! In fact, all the evidence is pointing towards a downward spiral, the LOSS of information…
The world view adopted by an Evolutionist/Creationist is used to explain his/her interpretation/hypothesis on how the world came to be.
An Evolutionist and a Creationist will both give different explanations for the same fact; their 'theories' are constructed according to their BELIEF or worldview, both claims that the same evidence proves their respective theories.
EXAMPLE:
FACT: Shells have been found on some of the highest mountains in the world.
EVOLUTIONIST’S EXPLANATION: Evolutionists explain this as being the result of the uplift of land [plate tectonics] over millions of years.
CREATIONIST’S EXPLANATION: Noah’s flood.
Do you see the problem here? Both sides rely on the ASSUMPTION that their worldviews are correct!
EVOLUTIONIST’S REASONING: The world is 4.5 billion years old. There are shells on mountains; thus the world must be 4.5 billion years old.
CREATIONIST’S REASONING: The bible is true. There are shells on mountains; thus the bible must be true.
There are hundreds of examples of this kind of circular reasoning which I won’t go into…but the point is that Evolution is not a fact as it cannot be proved by science.
The average person is not even aware that Evolution is, in fact, a Theory! I have many well educated friends that will argue with me, until we are both blue in the face, that Evolution is a fact!! Whereas if you ask any Evolutionist, they will admit that it is in fact a theory (?!!) which they believe “best explains” the origin of the universe.
So the oft heard phrase “Science and religion don’t mix” is actually correct, HOWEVER, keep in mind that this must also then be extended to include Evolution, not just Creation…
|
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Baxter
Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 05:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm of the personal opinion that this debate itself is somewhat in the process of evolving; we don't seem to be on the same track on which we started. Nevertheless, since the lines have most certainly been drawn in the sand, I'm interested to know what those lines are.
Mixza, if you don't mind me asking, what exactly is your opinion on creation? Categorically:
1. Do you believe in the Judeo-Christian model of God?
2. Do you Believe in the Bible?
3. Are you of the opinion that the Bible answers the question of origin in any manner (either partially or completely)?
4. If so, do you believe that God created the universe in 6 days?
5. Do you believe in the story of Noah?
6. Do you believe that man is at the epicentre of God's plan for existence? Ergo, are we the most important factor in the universe (other than God, of course)?
Perhaps I have missed it somewhere, I simply haven't caught on to what it is that your defending.Again, perhaps I am being ignorant; however, while I understand that your position throughout has been one of criticism against Evolutionism (which, in itself, I am not against), I still have no idea: are you in fact a creationist, or do you merely have criticism for the Evolutionary theory?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | from Wolf
Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 04:20
  (Agree/Disagree?)
Despite the worthlessness of this article I agree with one point the author makes: evolution can be a religion, for those who see evolution as a way of disproving God’s existence.
Let’s get something straight: evolution does not and cannot disprove the existence of a god or gods. First of all, life could have been “created” and then evolved from its original form(s), so the theory of evolution is not in direct opposition to creation hypotheses. Even if someone could prove for a fact that life on this earth appeared spontaneously, it would not negate the possibility that there is a god or higher intelligence of some sort somewhere.
Of course, evolution greatly reduces the significance of a God or any higher intelligence, and abiogenesis would make God’s relationship with life on earth completely meaningless, which is why some Christians have such a hard time accepting the theory of evolution, even though it doesn’t discredit their religion (unless they are 100% sure that every word in the Bible comes directly from God, has preserved its original meaning, is translated correctly and is meant to be taken literally).
On the other hand, I have a sneaky suspicion that people who use evolution to attack religion secretly believe in God and hate him / her / it. For them, evolution may be a religion. For everyone else, it is simply a reasonable explanation for biological development, and has nothing to do with God or religion.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Marc
Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 16:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
Mixza,
All you have "proven" with your article is that you have not had any formal science training (or did not pay attention). Since this happens to be my field and I have a degree in Biochemistry and Biophysics (that is, I _did_ pay attention), I shall play the card. Everything in science is a theory; but scientists and engineers still sent man to the Moon using the same methods they use to explain how we became who we are. Even gravity is called the theory of gravitation, although, you can test (not prove) the theory any time by dropping a heavier-than-air object and watch it fall to the ground (that is, towards the center of the earth). For those without the science training this may seem disheartening. Indeed, a person of religion may feel more comfortable with absolutes and dogma. This is where Evolutionists and Creationist diverge: A Creationist claims to know the truth about the origin of life and backs up his or her claim by faith. An Evolutionist only suggests a possible explanation and continually searches for a better and more complete one. What is more, any explanation must be backed up by a wealth of scientific data (again, not proof).
It is interesting how the general public accepts and uses everything science has given them except when it contradicts their religion. If you _truly_ understood the theory of evolution you would also understand the beauty of its explanation.
There has been far too many articles written about there being no proof of evolution and that it is nothing more than a belief system (do a simple Google search). All of this is because people are asking the wrong questions and do not have the science background.
I suggest you read the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism_and_macroevolution
(reply to this comment)
|  From Mixza
Saturday, September 04, 2004, 05:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
---“All you have "proven" with your article is that you have not had any formal science training (or did not pay attention). Since this happens to be my field and I have a degree in Biochemistry and Biophysics (that is, I _did_ pay attention), I shall play the card. Everything in science is a theory”---
First of all, I admit that I did confuse the difference between “hypothesis and theory”.
There is speculation, hypothesis and theory. But theory belongs only to operational or experimental science. Hypothesis is the beginning of a theory. Speculation is first and where there is nothing more. So admit that I did get my definitions mixed up…there are, in fact, two types of science; operational, the type that put man on the moon and produces new medicines: this science is done in the PRESENT and relies on REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS done in the present.
The second in historical science that attempts to reconstruct the past. This type of science employs operational science in examining the evidence but ultimately relies on assumptions to construct a story about the past. Evolution and Creation are both historical science. The evidence used by both evolutionist and creationist are the same, but each brings to the evidence his own world view within which he interprets the evidence. The evidence does not speak for itself. The question then remains which hypothesis about origins best fits the evidence that we have at hand.
So we cannot call evolution (nor creation) a theory because a theory is what we apply to a body of evidence that has been successfully tested over a period of time. In fact, as the theory survives repeated test of nullification, we eventually call it a Law, eg the Law of Gravitation. So evolution is not a theory, really.
Karl Popper, who was one of the world's leading philosophers of science, once stated that evolution is not a scientific theory but a metaphysical research program [1].
Birch and Ehrlich state that:
“Our theory of evolution has become . . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observation. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.” [2]
Green and Goldberger, with reference to theories on the origin of life, have said that:
“. . . the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture.”[3]
It seems obvious that a theory that is outside of empirical science, or a theory that lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis cannot qualify as a scientific theory. Any suggestion that these challenges to the status of evolution as a scientific theory are exceptions can be refuted by a thorough search of the scientific literature.
[1] K. Popper, The Philosophy of Karl Popper , vol. 1. La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishers.
[2] L. C. Birch and P. R. Ehrlich, Nature , vol. 214, pp. 369, 1967.
[3] D. E. Green and R. F. Goldberger, Molecular insights into the living process . New York: Academic Press, 1967.
Let’s examine the evidence.
The current mechanism that evolution (and we are talking about macroevolution that supposes that animal forms evolve into higher and higher forms with more and more complexity) is mutations. Yet there has never (to date) been documented a single evolutionary change that has ADDED information to the genome. In some instances there have been changes (like sickle cell anemia) that has conferred an evolutionary advantage on a species in an isolated habitat. In the case of sickle cell anemia the person becomes resistant to malaria because the malaria parasite cannot take hold in the sickle shaped blood cells of the person, but the person also has a reduced capacity to absorb oxygen in his blood stream. So it is a loss of information—in the mutation of the particular gene—that has caused the advantage, but at a cost. Now evolutionist often confuse what they call microevolution with macroevolution. Microevolution is incorrectly named, it actually means Natural Selection, which is a process that operates in an organism to select the best traits for the organism to survive in a habitat. Natural Selection, which is a real process that occurs in the realm of experimental science, only selects from the existing genetic information—none is ever added, usually information is lost. Prof. Richard Dawkins (ardent anti-creationist and professor of Oxford on biology/paleontology and spokesman for evolution) was asked on a documentary to name one example of an evolutionary change that adds information to the genome. He was silent for 19 seconds on camera and asked for it to be switched off. When he came back on camera he ummed and ahhed and sidestepped the question. He couldn’t answer it.
---“but scientists and engineers still sent man to the Moon using the same methods they use to explain how we became who we are. Even gravity is called the theory of gravitation, although, you can test (not prove) the theory any time by dropping a heavier-than-air object and watch it fall to the ground (that is, towards the center of the earth). For those without the science training this may seem disheartening. Indeed, a person of religion may feel more comfortable with absolutes and dogma.”---
As above on the nature of science
---“This is where Evolutionists and Creationist diverge: A Creationist claims to know the truth about the origin of life and backs up his or her claim by faith. An Evolutionist only suggests a possible explanation and continually searches for a better and more complete one. What is more, any explanation must be backed up by a wealth of scientific data (again, not proof).”---
Both evolutionist and creationist rely on their respective world views. The creationist relies on the written text of the Genesis account by an author (given through men) who was there in the beginning. This is the eyewitness account that is relied upon very strongly in a court of law. The evolution believes in the properties of matter itself under the action of time and chance. He has no God and no eyewitness of the origin of life. Scientific data as mentioned above can be applied to both worldviews—it then is interpreted within the framework of the researchers own belief system. The evidence does not speak for itself.
---“It is interesting how the general public accepts and uses everything science has given them except when it contradicts their religion. If you _truly_ understood the theory of evolution you would also understand the beauty of its explanation.”---
I do understand the conjecture of evolution. It is not a actually theory nor an hypothesis. It presents at least one aspect that is testable – an increase of information between successive upward steps to higher organisms which have more complex genetic code. All experiments have ever done though is falsified this mechanism. Mutations don’t add information—usually destroy—at best a zero growth of information is observed. In any case to evolve from ‘pond scum’ to humans requires an enormous increase in information. Carl Sagan said himself in 1977, The Dragons of Eden . Hodder and Stoughton, London. p.28:
“...mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful—it is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.”
And see quote from Schwabe, C., Mini review: theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 107B (2):170, 1994:
‘Upon close examination it appears difficult at best to make a plausible case for mutations as an important evolutionary factor. Gene duplications may well occur, but contrary to the idea that such an event would free the organism to “invent” new functions with one gene while the other is keeping house, both copies would suffer mutations at the same rate. The presence of duplicate genes does not protect either one from truly random events while the organism is perhaps safer with two genes of one kind, certainly it is no more free to experiment because there is conceptually no way to restrict mutational activity to one of the copies.'
Dr Lee Spetner (bio-informatics expert), Not by Chance , The Judaica Press, Brooklyn, NY, pp.159–160, 1997:
‘ Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome.’
And variation (Natural Selection) is not evolution, see this quote:
‘We can go on examining natural variation at all levels...as well as hypothesising about speciation events in bed bugs, bears and brachiopods until the planet reaches oblivion, but we still only end up with bed bugs, brachiopods and bears. None of these body plans will transform into rotifers, roundworms or rhynchocoels.’
George L. Gabor Miklos , Emergence of organisational complexities during metazoan evolution: perspectives from molecular biology, palaeontology and neo-Darwinism Mem. Assoc. Australas. Palaeontols 15, p.25, 1993.
---"There has been far too many articles written about there being no proof of evolution and that it is nothing more than a belief system (do a simple Google search). All of this is because people are asking the wrong questions and do not have the science background."---
I may not have a scientific background, but the above quoted scientists do, as well as Dr Colin Patterson who said in regard to the existence of transitional kinds in his book:
‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils … I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’
This was from Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London, in a letter to Luther D. Sunderland, 10 April, 1979 as published in Darwin’s Enigma , Master Books, 1984, p. 90.
And also Stephen Jay Gould (now deceased), Professor of Geology and palaeontology, Harvard University wrote in Paleobiology 6, p. 127, 1980:
‘The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’
He is one of the Americans that Patterson refers to.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Mixza
Thursday, September 02, 2004, 17:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
What validates a theory is the ability to test it (you know that!), and for others to reproduce the same results...name one evolutionary theory that is reproducible (i.e. testable in an experiment) and I will concede...
Modern science is based on observation, a theory that is able to explain an observation is accepted (until it is disproved, or a better explanation is offered).
Also, scientific data is generally collected by conducting experiments and observing/recording the results...which, unfortunately, is not possible when it comes to evolution...we cannot observe evolution, thus it is unverifiable...that’s my point...
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Marc
Friday, September 03, 2004, 18:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Mixza,
Again, you have it all wrong. Theories are _not_ validated. Hypotheses are proposed and tested and then theories are developed from these hypotheses. Get your definitions down first, then debate the subject.
Believe whatever you want to but for goodness sake leave science to the scientists. Quit trying to sound like you know what you are talking about. Reading a couple of articles by Christian "scientists" does not make you an expert on evolution. These "scientists" of yours seem to get their degrees from colleges like Southern Baptist College and do not, in my opinion, make them accredited. Your posts continue to betray your lack of scientific training. Statements such as, "we cannot observe evolution, thus it is unverifiable" do not belong in a scientific debate. You are much too fond of using absolutist remarks and dogma and need to move beyond that if you wish to come to a better understanding of things.
Why not instead write something like: "From what I have been reading [name sources] it appears that there is no currently known way to observe evolution. From my understanding of how science works, wouldn't this mean that the theory is incomplete? Does anyone know of ways in which scientists have tested their theories on evolution?" Do you understand the difference?
Your "questions" (more like challenging statements) regarding reproducible results verifying the theory of evolution are, once again, the _wrong_ questions. In science we _propose_ hypotheses (not theories) in such a way that we can make them fail; this is called the null hypothesis method. Note that we are _NOT_ testing a theory! A theory is the result of many _failed_ hypotheses conducted by many scientists, under various conditions, and over a great amount of time. The theory of evolution has itself evolved over time. So much so, in fact, that Darwin would not recognize (or understand) it as we did not know about genetics or DNA back then. This is somewhat similar to Wright brothers trying to fly an F-16.
I will not argue or debate with you about the "proofs" of evolution. You simply do not have the background to understand the science behind it all. Take four years of science in college and then we can debate. Let me, however, point out something you should have already understood: There are thousands of scientists all over the world, from many different backgrounds, religions, and cultures who have no problem understanding and using evolution in their work and research. Do you honestly believe that all these scientists are deluded or, worse yet, part of an international conspiracy to dupe the public into believing their theories on evolution? These are the same scientists and engineers who give you modern medicine, feed the billions of people around the world (and yes, with GM food), produce nuclear energy and the bomb, solar panels, hybrid automobiles, satellites, computers, little robots traversing the Marian deserts, your mobile phone, etc. etc. They are able to give you all of that (and you know it works because you use it every day) . . . but they certainly must be mistaken about evolution. Do you honestly believe that? Think about it!
I wrote "using evolution" because that is exactly what some scientists, called Molecular Biologist, do _all_ the time. In fact, some of these experiments are so easy to perform that a high-school student could do them. In the many lab classes I took, we routinely used the methods of molecular biology to conduct reproducible experiments in evolution. I will give you a hint as to what we were doing: Bacteria, vectors, PCR, cloning, gene transplantation, and sequencing. Look it up! The "cookbooks" are freely available at _any_ university's department of biology (or biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, etc.) course web pages. Although, these universities probably do not have "Baptist" in their name.
PS: In case you did not know, "data" is plural. Thus, you should have written, "...scientific data _are_ generally collected..."(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Wednesday, September 08, 2004, 08:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Way to go, Marc! I leave town for a few weeks and, of course, somethimg interesting happens. Your logic is flawless and your argument is solid. I can see that this debate has been in good hands while I was away. Too bad I missed the beggining. When I have time to read more carefully, I will add my own two cents to yet another pathetically inadequete attempt to discredit scientific theory by yet another unqualified know it all!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Mixza
Saturday, September 04, 2004, 05:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
---“Again, you have it all wrong. Theories are _not_ validated. Hypotheses are proposed and tested and then theories are developed from these hypotheses. Get your definitions down first, then debate the subject. “---
See above, but Evolution is now beyond refutation. Every attempt to refute it is met with modification or rejection of the opposing evidence. So Evolution also does not fall into your category of a theory nor an hypothesis. At best it is a conjecture.
---“Believe whatever you want to but for goodness sake leave science to the scientists. Quit trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.”---
Why are you so condescending? Do you take or have you taken as gospel what your biology professors have told you? Do challenge the conjectures? Or take them without question?
---“Your posts continue to betray your lack of scientific training. Statements such as, "we cannot observe evolution, thus it is unverifiable" do not belong in a scientific debate.”---
You are correct, evolution does not belong to a scientific debate—it is not testable by definition. The first origin of life on Earth was a one off—how do you explain that “scientifically”?
---“You are much too fond of using absolutist remarks and dogma and need to move beyond that if you wish to come to a better understanding of things.”---
You are condescending again—and you add no useful information. You attack the man –ad hominiem-- instead of the argument.
---“Why not instead write something like: "From what I have been reading [name sources] it appears that there is no currently known way to observe evolution. “---
See all my named sources above—and these are but a tiny few.
---“From my understanding of how science works, wouldn't this mean that the theory is incomplete? Does anyone know of ways in which scientists have tested their theories on evolution?" Do you understand the difference?”---
I think we should stop calling evolution a theory---gravitation, relativity they are theories. Besides what evidence would you call the result of a successful—ie non-null—test of evolution? Surely it must be the very mechanism itself—addition of information. Where are the results? Name one!
---“Your "questions" (more like challenging statements) regarding reproducible results verifying the theory of evolution are, once again, the _wrong_ questions. In science we _propose_ hypotheses (not theories) in such a way that we can make them fail; this is called the null hypothesis method. Note that we are _NOT_ testing a theory! A theory is the result of many _failed_ hypotheses conducted by many scientists, under various conditions, and over a great amount of time. The theory of evolution has itself evolved over time. So much so, in fact, that Darwin would not recognize (or understand) it as we did not know about genetics or DNA back then. This is somewhat similar to Wright brothers trying to fly an F-16. “---
You are right Neo-Darwinianism is totally different. But one does test a theory—one tries to falsify the theory. But as I said evolution is not a theory—nor an hypothesis—it is conjecture. If I am wrong state the theory? What is testable? If it is the existence of ‘transitional types’ like between reptiles and birds.
BTW, Your comparison between the Wright Bros and evolution is completely wrong. What is the theory you are testing? With aerodynamics we can test very specific physics, with evolution, either it was a one off event (untestable) or it can be reproduced in the laboratory. Which is it??
And how do you explain ‘irreducibly’ complex structures like the flagellum of bacteria? Each component cannot be singularly added (which confers an advantage on the organism), all must be added at once for the mechanism to work. Evolution cannot explain it because the intermediate stages are not favored.
---“I will not argue or debate with you about the "proofs" of evolution.”---
As I said earlier, why not just give one example of an increase of information to the genome, just to humor me?
---“Let me, however, point out something you should have already understood: There are thousands of scientists all over the world, from many different backgrounds, religions, and cultures who have no problem understanding and using evolution in their work and research.”---
You can’t argue from majority? How about evils in the world? Many argue that it is what the majority believe—therefore it is right. Adolf Hitler argued that because of ‘social Darwinianism’ it was right to execute 70,000 handicapped people in Germany, Poland, Austria etc.
---“Do you honestly believe that all these scientists are deluded or, worse yet, part of an international conspiracy to dupe the public into believing their theories on evolution? These are the same scientists and engineers who give you modern medicine, feed the billions of people around the world (and yes, with GM food), produce nuclear energy and the bomb, solar panels, hybrid automobiles, satellites, computers, little robots traversing the Marian deserts, your mobile phone, etc. etc. They are able to give you all of that (and you know it works because you use it every day) . . . but they certainly must be mistaken about evolution. Do you honestly believe that? Think about it! “---
No –absolutely I don’t believe people are in some conspiracy. But they are victims of their own world view. They are wearing ‘evolutionary’ glasses. It doesn’t permit them to interpret the evidence from a creationist world view. It is all about bias—we are all biased—you are clearly biased towards evolution—but you believe it by faith. You cannot prove anything about the past any more than I can.
---“I wrote "using evolution" because that is exactly what some scientists, called Molecular Biologist, do _all_ the time. In fact, some of these experiments are so easy to perform that a high-school student could do them. In the many lab classes I took, we routinely used the methods of molecular biology to conduct reproducible experiments in evolution. I will give you a hint as to what we were doing: Bacteria, vectors, PCR, cloning, gene transplantation, and sequencing. Look it up! The "cookbooks" are freely available at _any_ university's department of biology (or biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, etc.) course web pages. Although, these universities probably do not have "Baptist" in their name. “---
You are talking about repeatable operational science. This is not evolution. Where is a single experiment that you can do in a lab that will add information to the genome of an organism by random shuffling of the genetic code ?? If you think that by doing a experiment where you splice a piece of code from one organism to another is evolution then you have forgotten your original assumption—random, undirected and blind processes—certainly not with intelligent input, that would be like a creator..
---“PS: In case you did not know, "data" is plural. Thus, you should have written, "...scientific data _are_ generally collected...””---
Again you are condescending, why? The Bible says “knowledge puffs up”. Sounds like it has gone to your head. You attack the man again, why not answer the criticism. Cite one example of a transitional form in the fossil record, or one example in vivo where information was added by a mutation.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Saturday, September 04, 2004, 01:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree with most of what you’re saying, and I especially agree that a bit of education would do Mixza a lot more good than “frothing at the mouth” on this site, as Exister so aptly put it.
I don’t agree, however, that only those with years of education in the natural sciences are qualified to discuss the origins of life. Anybody who paid attention in high school biology classes knows enough to see what an idiot Mixza is. And IMO one semester of Biology 101 can give a person enough knowledge to put together realistic hypotheses and test them.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Marc
Saturday, September 04, 2004, 02:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wolf,
I re-read my last post to Mixza and would have to apologize for coming across a bit elitist. You are right, high-school (or secondary school) biology is sufficient education to debate this topic and I tried to somewhat convey this in my post. I would only argue that the more education one gets in the natural sciences, the more well-versed they become to debate the appropriate issues.
Just to clarify (to the general reader), a Ph.D. in physics does _NOT_ make one an expert in evolution. I never wrote anything about "evolution-believing scientists" and would love to hear more about these Creationist who were/are the "greatest thinkers of our time."
Mixza, the only reason I have taken the time to reply to your posts is for the general reader at MovingOn. Far too often dogmatic absolutists, such as yourself, have badgered people into believing you actually have a point (or is it an agenda?). Take your bible-thumping somewhere else . . . I dare say most people on this site do not give a damn what that book says!
Finally, I like my "high horse." She's a good steed and has served me well! ;)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Mixza
Friday, September 03, 2004, 22:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks for the pointers...
I do honestly believe that they are deluded when is comes to evolution...but I guess that’s my prerogative...
Oh go on then, just give me one little example of evolving one species into another...just to humor me...if you cant manage that, even just creating (not manipulating) some new genetic information would be fine…
----"These "scientists" of yours seem to get their degrees from colleges like Southern Baptist College and do not, in my opinion, make them accredited..."----
Actually, my dad, John G. Hartnett, is a has a Phd. in Physics from the University of Western Australia, currently a research fellow and internationally respected in his field, an "expert" in evolution turned "Creation Scientist", Authored more than 40 refereed-scientific papers and holds 2 patents.
Go on and do a Yahoo search for “John G. Hartnett UWA” if you want…
Or if you like, here is a link to some of the papers he has written (which relate to this subject) … http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_hartnett.asp
So I may not have the background to debate this issue with you, but I have been hearing/reading my dads stuff for the past 20 years, which has kind of given me a fairly good grasp of the merits of both sides…
And give me a break about evolution-believing scientists giving us modern medicine etc etc…there are two sides to that coin…why, some of the greatest thinkers of our time were creationists…so get of your high horse about that!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Mixza
Friday, September 03, 2004, 21:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Haha...that’s probably true...
I dont mind looking like a fool in your eyes, and what is the big deal with you about sounding intelligent?
Just because its something you seem to strive hard for, doesn’t mean jack shit to me...I didn’t post this article to try to "sound intelligent", I just wanted to give my point of view...
Get over your superiority complex already...what are you trying to prove anyway?
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Saturday, September 04, 2004, 03:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have nothing against you sharing your point of view. It’s just irritating that you attempt to sound like you know what you’re talking about, when you obviously aren’t even familiar with basic biological terms. The fact that your Dad has a PhD doesn’t say anything about your IQ.
BTW, I’m not at all opposed to a discussion of the merits of creation hypotheses. I have no opinion about the origin of life; an intelligent designer may have made the first life forms, or they may have been produced by some sort of chemical reaction. I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt by the available evidence that simple life forms appeared on the earth long before mammals and other more complex life forms, and I’m also convinced beyond reasonable doubt that living things have the ability to adapt to their surroundings in order to survive. These adaptations are the basis of evolution, and yes, several new species have emerged in the last 100 years. I could give you a number of examples, but it would be a waste of my time, since there are literally thousands of biology textbooks, science magazines and web sites that give detailed examples of evolutionary change that has been documented in the past 100 years.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but from looking over your Dad’s work briefly it seems he specializes in discussing the big bang theory, not biological evolution. As far as I know it’s widely accepted that there are many holes in the big bang theory, and new hypothesis for the origins of the universe are constantly emerging. I’m pretty sure mankind will never know for certain exactly how the universe came into being, or how the first life forms came into existence. That has nothing to do with evolution, however.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Mixza
Saturday, September 04, 2004, 09:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
---“living things have the ability to adapt to their surroundings in order to survive. These adaptations are the basis of evolution, and yes, several new species have emerged in the last 100 years.”---
This is called Natural Selection and does NOT support evolution…evolution is based on the ADDITION of NEW genetic information, NOT the selection of information already there.
BTW, do you know the difference between SPECIES and KIND? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From frmrjoyish
Wednesday, September 08, 2004, 15:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks, Wolf, but you seem to be doing just fine without me. I'm very impressed by what I've read so far!
It doesn't really matter if the allele sequences are rearranged or not as long as the trait they code for is "new". Since all genetic information boils down to the specific arrangement of allele sequences, I guess rearranging them would produce "new" information. I do agree with you though that "new" is not the best choice of terms.
However, there are enzymes that during replication can add or delete allele sequences that were not on the parent DNA strand. In fact, after two rounds of replication you get 4 totally different DNA strands only one of which is identical to the parent strand.
And to the author who stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence:
Look up the oft repeated experiment of turning avirulent Diplococcus pneumoniae into a virulent species. In addition to meiotic and mitotic mutations, procaryotes can also introduce "new" genetic information through a process called transformation.
You'll have to argue with a phylogenist on the requirements for single celled organisms to be catogorized as seperate species (good luck if you try that lol), but the bottom line is that through transformation, the genotype of an entire population changes. That, darling, is evolution observed in a human lifespan.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From night_raver
Sunday, September 05, 2004, 12:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
The diff btwn species & kind? I had 1 biology class, very basic... one of the few things I remember was "king phillip came over for good spaghetti" to remember "Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species" -- I'm sorry, I don't see any mention of "kind", can you tell me where it fits in the heirarchy? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Wolf
Saturday, September 04, 2004, 16:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
I’m not sure I know the difference between “species” and “kind” – would you enlighten me? As far as I know, “kind” can mean many things, including species or genus, whereas “species” is a basic category of biological classification for interbreeding individuals. Thus, the emergence of a new “species” means the emergence of a new population that only breeds among itself and does not breed with its ancestor population.
Why do you think evolution is about the addition of new genetic information? None of the evolutionary theories I’ve read have anything to do with the addition of new information. They all involve modification of current genetic information, a process which not only can be observed, it has been observed.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Wolf
Monday, September 06, 2004, 04:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
That was a good laugh dude, thanks. Complete with a German accent and all. “Eet iss eemposseebl to cum frum a seempl lifing beeng too an elefahnt”.
Is that what you listen to for bedtime stories?
In one of my posts here did my best to describe how a simple organism can evolve into a more complicated one by modification of existing information rather than addition of new information. If my explanation wasn’t understandable, you can find the process described in almost every biological textbook and thousands of internet articles.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Mixza
Sunday, September 05, 2004, 05:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
First of all, YOU are starting to sound like you don’t know what you are talking about…
Any educated person (even our ‘well versed’ friend Marc) should know that the mechanism of Macroevolution calls for the ADDITION of information to the genome.
If evolution is only about modification of current genetic information, then the total information content is never increased!! If so, a single cell, with 1 book of information in its genetic code, can NEVER evolve into a human with 1000 books of information in its genetic code...YOU NEED NEW INFORMATION...
---"None of the evolutionary theories I’ve read have anything to do with the addition of new information."---
Please state the theories that you are referring to...most likely you are referring to ‘Microevolution’ which is, in fact, Natural Selection, and lends no support to the conjecture of macroevolution --- BECAUSE IT ADDS NO NEW INFORMATION.
Natural Selection IS NOT evolution, see this quote:
‘We can go on examining natural variation at all levels...as well as hypothesising about speciation events in bed bugs, bears and brachiopods until the planet reaches oblivion, but we still only end up with bed bugs, brachiopods and bears. None of these body plans will transform into rotifers, roundworms or rhynchocoels.’
George L. Gabor Miklos , Emergence of organisational complexities during metazoan evolution: perspectives from molecular biology, palaeontology and neo-Darwinism Mem. Assoc. Australas. Palaeontols 15, p.25, 1993.
So get your facts straight before you start call me an idiot...(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Wolf
Sunday, September 05, 2004, 08:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Damn, why did I get myself into a biological argument with someone who doesn’t know anything about biology…
Let me make this as simple as possible, please do try to understand because I don’t have time to write this 100 different ways: A single bacterial cell can be as complicated as a cell in our human body. Aside from differences in structure, the main difference between a bacteria cell and a human cell: the human cell has become dependent on other cells for its survival, and can no longer survive on its own. The cells in a human body, through variation, have taken on varying functions that allow the human body to function as a whole, whereas the single bacteria cell is a self-sustaining unit all by itself.
Creationists often try to play on the ignorance of people who never studied biology or just didn’t pay attention by using dumb rhetoric such as “a bear could never turn into a roundworm”. Of course it can’t! That’s simply not a realistic description of evolution. I'll attempt a more realistic description: one single-celled organism finds that by teaming up with another single-celled organism, it increases its chances for survival. Each cell adapts to take on certain functions and allow the other cell to perform other functions. Pretty soon these two cells are dependent on each other and can no longer exist without each other. They produce offspring with combined genetic information. This process continues until, thousands of generations later, an organism with thousands of cells has formed, and each cell serves a unique function and is dependent on the others.
I realize that this is an extremely simplified model, but I hope you get what I’m saying: no new information is added in the process. Information is simply combined and modified.
And you’re right, natural selection is not evolution, it’s a mechanism of evolution.
Now, do yourself and the rest of us a favor, please read up on basic biology before you post anything else on this subject.(reply to this comment) |
| | From moon beam
Monday, September 06, 2004, 09:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have a question. I saw an interresting documentory years ago about snakes who'd evolved into different species depending on the island they inhabited (when the land mass was seperating, forcing them to be cut off..). For instance one group became larger due to the large nesting birds that frequented the island, another became smaller and a different colour as they fed on frogs etc.. Would this be an example of evolution? It would seem to me, it is!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Wolf
Monday, September 06, 2004, 09:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, that’s an example of natural selection, a mechanism of evolution. Small scale evolution of this sort (microevolution) has been observed in many places. When the genetic differences between the two groups of snakes (or birds, dogs, etc.) become great enough, the two populations can no longer interbreed, and a new species is born (or several new species). This has been observed in a number of cases.
Macroevolution is the same process, but on a larger scale. The gradual changes in species eventually affect not only species and genera, but whole families and orders. There are only two essential differences between microevolution and macroevolution: macroevolution takes longer, and it hasn’t been observed because modern man hasn’t been around long enough. Evidence for macroevolution can and has been found in the fossil record, morphological divergence, patterns of development etc.
Until somebody invents a time machine, we can’t be 100% sure of macroevolution. In the mean time, I would love to see a creationist come up with a model that fits the evidence in the fossil record as well as macroevolution.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Mixza
Saturday, September 04, 2004, 08:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
---“I have nothing against you sharing your point of view. It’s just irritating that you attempt to sound like you know what you’re talking about, when you obviously aren’t even familiar with basic biological terms. The fact that your Dad has a PhD doesn’t say anything about your IQ.”---
I do know what I am talking about, I only mentioned my dad in reply to Marc’s comment:
---“ These "scientists" of yours seem to get their degrees from colleges like Southern Baptist College and do not, in my opinion, make them accredited..."----
…not as an attempt to embellish my IQ…
Also, the point of my post (as worthless as it is :p) was not to discuss/promote the merits of creation (i.e. fuck off with the ‘bible bashing’ remarksàMarc). I am merely pointing out (for the benefit of the general reader at MovingOn) that Evolution is no more ‘scientific’ than creation…(reply to this comment) |
| | from Snufkin
Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 09:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
To be honest i dont know beans about Evolution... my whole Creation/Evolution education came in the form of a 2 hr seminar by a Dr Kent Hovind when i was 15... seems to me the whole basis for his arguments was "Creation cant be disproved so it must be true"
While i do belive in some form of inteligent design (old beliefs die hard) i cant say I believe one or the other theory... To be honest i mostly cant be bothered as its so irrelevant to my life. That and the fact that i dont believe i can chose between the two since ive never been taught the "other side" in any form other than its flawed arguments.
If im not mistaken there is not even just one evolutionary theory, but several (just as there are several creationalist theories...most of them seriously flawed). Is there a place that lists them all in relativly simple terms (no jargon pls... cant be bothered to wade thru that... blame my shoddy education) Id like to improve my knowledge in that area.
Ill never forget the look on my teachers face (the one and only time I went to a public school... for the yearly exam) when he realized that i didnt know anything about it. I didnt get a bad grade, cuz he figured that it was within my parents rights to teach me creation, but apparently he thought we were hopelessly stone age. Creationalisim isnt as popular in Europe as it is in the States is it? As my dad puts it: "Europe is so goddamn AC" lol
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from banal_commentator
Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 09:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
What a banal article
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From roughneck
Sunday, September 05, 2004, 11:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
'Cause there's just no way that reading "banal" so many times in one day is healthy:
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.5)
Entry: banal
Function: adjective
Definition: commonplace
Synonyms: blah, bland, bromidic, clichéd, common, conventional, corn, corn-fed, cornball, corny, dull, everyday, flat, hackneyed, ho-hum, hokey, hokum, humdrum, insipid, no place, nothing, nowhere, old hat, ordinary, pablum, pedestrian, platitudinous, square, stale, stereotyped, stock, stupid, tired, tripe, trite, unimaginative, unoriginal, vapid, watery, wishy-washy, zero
Antonyms: deep, fresh, new, original, provocative, rich
Please people, some originality in the invective already. :P(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from exister
Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 09:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Mixza, you simple minded mouth breather. If you cared to look into it you would realize that few intelligent people believe that anything can be proven beyond any doubt, and that "absolute scientific proof" is more the stuff of pop culture science than of the halls of academia. Most competent thinkers have long ago moved on to examining the interesting problems we can't solve and why. Heck, since the 1930s it has been general academic knowledge that no complete system of logic can even possibly exist.
Why don't you keep your shirt on and do a little more thinking and a lot less frothing at the mouth?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Elle
Monday, September 06, 2004, 04:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ja, eftersom vi slutade prata... :-) Jag skulle verkligen vilja veta hur mycket han (B) förstår av vad vi säger. Ibland försöker man vara riktigt tydlig, säga saker som betyder samma på engelska, men jag vet inte om han greppar... Oavsett är det härligt att ha någon som älskar det skandinaviska språket. Du är en underbar människa, Baxter! Håller du inte med, Vicky?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from Baxter
Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 07:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
" It is certainly not the least charm of the theory that it is refutable: it is precisely with this charm that it entices subtler minds."
Friedrich Neitzche
Evolution stands as any other theory: it is an argument, a conjecture, an assertion. It, like any other of it's type, merely begs exploration, but never requires faith. This is what separates it from religion.
What you are referring to, in my opinion, is the very human institutionisation of the theory into dubiously accepted fact. This, in itself, has almost nothing to do with the theory of Evolution, because it is no longer concerned with the propagation of possibility, but the designation of conjecture as fact, the erroneousness of which you have recognised and illustrated in your own text.
Essentially, to call Evolution a religion is, in my view, errant thus: the assertion is almost akin to blaming a human intellectual construct with a fault of human nature; all human belief can be partially related to religion if it's inception is possible without the necessity of factual support, or if it provides simple answers to those who seek them for mere peace of mind, and who do not wish to reside in doubt. Although I agree that human society has undoubtedly generated a considerable deal of dogma not unlike that of religion around the theory of evolution ( as has occured with almost all other facets of modern science), but this is neither the fault nor design of the scientific theory itself. Once we separate the scientific study from the social politics we find a very different animal indeed. The vast majority of scientists concerned with the field do so in the spirit of scientific exploration, not in the name of dogmatic propagation. Furthermore, the original theory itself has perpetually evolved with time, negating the necessity of actual faith in it's argument, else it would, arguably, have no followers.
Our contemporary mindset may have dismissed the old social requirement for religon by supplementing it with an unfounded 'scientific' model, but to blame science for this unfortunate human discrepancy is, in my opinion, somewhat short-sighted. I believe I understand you perspective, but I must question your conclusion.
(reply to this comment)
| From Mixza
Thursday, September 02, 2004, 21:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Faith has several meanings, i agree with you in that it does not require "faith" as in "The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God...", however it does require "faith" as in "Confident belief in the truth of an idea".
By the way, you are the only person who seems to have grasped the point that i was trying (however simply :p) to make...many people do honestly believe that evolution is a fact, not a theory...this is a misconception on their part...
Evolution is a belief system, that is "Something believed or accepted as true".
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Friday, September 03, 2004, 04:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
As I said, I appreciate your point of view, and to a certain degree, concur it; what I find fault in is your central statement: that Evolution, technically a theory, is in fact a religion. My point is that I think you are shooting at the wrong target, mate.
Whether or not men should hold to Evolutionary doctrine as others hold to Religious doctrine is beside the point. Evolution, a theory, stands to be criticised, refuted, debated, and if possible or necessary, debunked. From a scientific point of view, this would not be damaging but positive progress in the field of human scientific pursuit. Whatever political uses it furnishes to those who would wield it thus, it's design is not towards such an end, nor is it's importance undermined by criticism. A disproved religion, however, serves no purpose except to dissillusion and depress it's followers, and would leave no legacy save to demonstrate the absurdity of generic religious logic, or perhaps to expose those who exploit religious dogma. Religion requires believers; Science requests observors.
The enemy is not Evolution, or indeed any other field of science. It is human nature, which leads people to blindly believe whatever is the most attractive at the time, rather than to critically observe, and conclude for themselves. The major difference, as far as I can see, is that, whether or not it's followers, be they educated or lay, choose to accept Evolution as truth, there is no genuine requirement to do so ( and neither with any other branch of science- even the so-called scientific laws stand to be disproved if it is possible). This is certainly not the case with Judeo-Christian religion, which does require you accept it's doctrine(s) as truth. 'Neither is there salvation in any other....', etc. stands out quite strongly to me, and I have yet to hear the Darwinian equivalent.
Judeo-Christian Religion stands alone, insofar as I can tell, without a genuine logical argument, and only the human desire for simplistic positive answers for company. True science rarely if ever concerns itself with such, seeking only to ask questions and formulate possible answers, no matter how pessimistic. The function of true science and true religion are as different as night from day, so to speak. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Mixza
Saturday, September 04, 2004, 09:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
---“…what I find fault in is your central statement: that Evolution, technically a theory, is in fact a religion. My point is that I think you are shooting at the wrong target, mate.”---
See my reply to Marc above regarding Theory. Evolution may be considered a religion because it is a BELIEF SYSTEM.
---“ Religion requires believers; Science requests observers.”---
Well said, operational science does indeed require observation, Evolution cannot be observed, thus IT DOES NOT FALL INTO THE REALM OF OPERATIONAL SCIENCE and THUS REQUIRES FAITH…just as any other religion… (reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Sunday, September 05, 2004, 08:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
I disagree that the requirement of belief necessitates the definition of Evolution as within the bounds of religion. The role of religion within society is arguably different from that of science; I agree that there is a definite correlation between the two in terms of social function.
My point was and is that if evolution itself provides a supplementary source of faith to it's religion-rejecting constituency, then this is not the fault of science or of evolution, but of human politics. if indeed your assertion is correct, then everything within the human sphere to which is at any time attached the notion of faith or belief is itself also religion. My point is that the definition of religion is, as I understand it, somewhat more narrow than the possible necessity for belief, and/or the dependence upon a belief structure. Else, perhaps I indulge in the religion of friend-worship, parent-worship, or the worship of anything/one else in which I subconsciously or otherwise place faith or confidence in.
PS. just because some of the other contributors to this debate have seen red and gone personal, doesn't mean we all have. Some of us just enjoy the good debate. Some people on this site tend to be a bit volatile when it comes to controversy, and you will get used to it. Just don't think that because people disagree with you that they are necessarily siding with the angry mob.If any of my prose begins to sound patronising, I apologise and assure you that such was not my intention.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Sunday, September 05, 2004, 09:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Baxter, I don’t know about Marc and Exister, but the reason I got worked up about this subject is because I’ve seen first hand the dangers of mixing bits of pieces of correct information to make an incorrect point. I think the average person is somewhat like Snufkin, they probably don’t care that much about biology, physics, astronomy, etc., they just studied what they needed to in order to pass the test. That’s why the average person is liable to be swayed by tired creationist rhetoric if the speaker is good enough.
Take “the Big Lie”, for example (and understand that by making this comparison, I’m not saying that Mixza is like Berg): It’s written very simply, directed at the average person who doesn’t know and doesn’t care about the intricacies of biology, chemistry, etc. By using simple metaphors that seem to make sense, Berg managed to convince thousands of people to believe in a load of hogwash.
It’s not that I think I know so much about biology or any of the other natural sciences. But since I have studied the subject fairly recently, it bothers me when somebody writes like they know what they’re talking about, when they obviously don’t. Take the first sentence in this post, for example:
“Evolution is not a fact as it cannot be proven by science.”
If Mixza wrote “As far as I’m concerned, evolution is not a fact as it cannot be proven by science”, his post wouldn’t bother me at all. It would just be an ignorant person stating his opinion. However, since it is stated as a fact, it does bother me. Of course evolution could be proven; at least to the extent that anything else can be proven. The appropriate question would be whether or not is has been proven. Further, he doesn’t qualify what he means by “evolution”. If he meant changes in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation, he would be wrong, because such changes have been observed. If he was referring to the theory that all existing organisms developed from earlier forms, then he’s partially right, this can’t be proven, it can only be accepted as the most realistic explanation for existing evidence.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Sunday, September 05, 2004, 20:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Look, mate, there is a valid and recognisable argument in what you are saying, and don't wish to detract from that. I just don't think it's necessary to digress from arguments into insults. I think that in itself is much more insulting to the debate and to the participants than any of the conflicting arguments presented. I respect that this is closer to your field of knowledge or study than it is for most of us, including myself. If as you say (and I agree) , all percieved knowledge is subjective, then what right do any of us have to make condemnatory judgements of anyone else's opinion? I mean, who has the authority to determine that anyone else is ignorant? I just think that the debate itself is and should be far more important than any of the personal conclusions to which any of us may profess, and in any case, all we will leave with are our own, albeit possibly more evolved, opinions. I do agree that I personally found his conclusion to be somewhat dubious (at least as a statement), but as I don't know the bloke, and he hasn't insulted me personally, I didn't feel the need to communicate thus. But, hey, maybe I'm just being ignorant. I mean, he very well might know something I don't (reply to this comment) |
| | From Mixza
Monday, September 06, 2004, 00:26
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Baxter, you're absolutely right...Wolf achieves nothing by attacking me personally, it only speaks for HIS character, not mine...I can only guess that his attacking my IQ was an attempt to embellish his own (does it need embellishing Wolf?).
You will notice that he has not replied to my criticism, I have quoted a number of respected sources to back up my argument, so far he has quoted NONE...
I can refute every single argument, and back it up with references…all he can seem to do is point the finger and holler 'idiot'…'religious dogma'…'uneducated' etc …
It would seem that his education is hardly as extensive as he so believes (given that he fails to acknowledge that Evolution calls for the increase of genetic information to the genome, obviously not taught in High School Biology).
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Monday, September 06, 2004, 04:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dude, your “respected sources” are either misquoted or have nothing to do with your argument. And aside from attacking your intelligence I also addressed a few of the mistakes you made, as simply as possible.
I never bragged about my own education, in fact in the above post (to Baxter) I said “it’s not that I think I know so much about biology or the other natural sciences”. This may sound cowardly, but while I could refute almost everything you’ve said here and back it up with quotes, I simply don’t have the time. I don’t see why I should either; I know you can find the correct information for yourself if you want to.
Don’t think I haven’t read those creationist arguments; I was particularly interested in this subject when I left TF, and I actually wanted to believe that the Bible was literally true because I didn’t want TF to be able to say that I forsook my faith; so I read any creationist material I could get my hands on. Even before I started reading the evolutionists’ perspective I started to realize that creationist material was dubious at best and relied on attacking evolution instead of providing realistic models for creation. This was before I studied biology and the other natural sciences. During my studies I realized there are so many things that creationists cannot provide a realistic answer for, such as the clear evidence in the fossil record that early life forms were simple and became more complex over time, the absence of any modern animals in older rock layers, the evidence from radiological dating, etc., etc.
I accept completely that abiogenesis is speculation that can’t be proven. Many people make the mistake of thinking that evolution provides an explanation for the origin of life, but it doesn’t. It provides an explanation for the evidence of change and diversification in the fossil record. If a creationist manages to provide a realistic model that matches the available evidence, I’m sure many people will sit up and take notice. So far it seems all they’re capable of is attacking evolutionary models.
I realize you’re upset that I’ve called you an idiot. But I put up with Berg’s bullshit for years, I’m not about to sit by quietly when somebody’s pushing the same bullshit on this site.(reply to this comment) |
| | from Wolf
Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 05:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Mixza, I think you need to study up on the topic a bit. Evolution is not the opposite of creation; the opposite of creation is abiogenesis, or spontaneous origin of life. It’s easy confuse the two, even evolutionists do it.
I already discussed the subject on this site and you can read my post in this section http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=2&Cat=8&ID=1348 if you’re interested.
In short, the theory of evolution doesn’t tell us how life began. It gives us a plausible explanation for the development of life forms from their original very simple state to their current complex state.
(reply to this comment)
| from xhrisl
Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 00:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wow, this would be a fun debate to enter into were it not for the point that no matter what an individuals position is neither side seems willing to concede any ground---with the exception of the Catholic Church, whose position is that of an intelligent design hypothesis through evolution. The fact is that all species adapt. Evidence for this is found most readily in cell biology and viral agents. A macro exemplification of process can be observed within a generational cycle of plant life thanks to Mendel’s work. The recombination of genetic information is in fact central to the process of evolution. As far as the theory is concerned, it remains what every theory is---a best guess based on empirically tested information.
In the course of my academic studies I have come across professors who held varying viewpoints with regard to the issue. I had Anthropology Professor who postulated that since almost all species have developed eyesight, when even in the evolutionary phase an organism without it would not know that it was needed having never seen anything, and hence he argued for intelligent design---to a Biology Professor, who insisted that evolution was the only explanation. Moreover, that the creation story was a myth used by primitive man as a way of rationalizing a world he did not understand. The Judeo-Christian creation myth in fact postulates the order of creation in the same manner as evolutionary science with the exception of a couple of billion years and a deity.
That some form or another of the creation myth is found in every culture bespeaks to the centrality of the human need to understand the world and our place in it. That being said every side chooses a viewpoint that serves them best. The great misfortune lies not in difference, yet rather in the strict adherence to ones own set of beliefs to the exclusion of the possibility that another frame of reference may also hold validity. The tendency within western thought to hold on to dichotomy is an unfortunate side effect of western religious influence---stemming directly from the good/evil, light/dark, God/Satan debacle. Itself also a circular argument, ergo, how can a perfect being create evil or allow evil to exist?
In the end it is all a matter of belief. Moreover, while I have extended the courteous offer to those who proselytize; “that should they seek to prove the existence of their god to me at the exclusion of all other belief systems I shall be happy to accommodate them in a meeting with their creator---where after they can tell me for certain the true nature of God, the Universe, and the Devine plan”, thus far none have taken me up on my generous offer.
Personally, I would prefer to live my life with some measure of human dignity not contingent upon the belief that a good life is necessary to escape some future punishment in an unsubstantiated hereafter. The rest I shall look forward to as a great adventure into the unknown.
(reply to this comment)
| from Tim R
Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 22:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Mixza, if you choose to believe creationism, then great. The problem with the above argument is that it greatly oversimplifies both sides of the debate. There is no such thing as "Creationism Vs. Evolutionism". There are a wide variety of positions on both sides. (BTW, a flood would explain shells ON a mountain, but not shells in the rock inside the mountain.)
The best resource I have seen on the subject is "The Creation/Evolution Continuum" from the National Center for Science Education. This is their take on the subject:
"Many -- if not most -- Americans think of the creation and evolution controversy as a dichotomy with "creationists" on one side, and "evolutionists" on the other. This assumption all too often leads to the unfortunate conclusion that because creationists are believers in God, that evolutionists must be atheists. The true situation is much more complicated. I encourage people to reject the creation/evolution dichotomy and recognize the creation/evolution continuum. It is clear that creationism comes in many forms. If a student tells a teacher, "I´m a creationist", the teacher needs to ask, "What kind?" --Eugenie C. Scott.
Here is the link to the continuum below:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp
(reply to this comment)
| From Mixza
Wednesday, September 01, 2004, 23:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
this is such as thing as black vs. white, with all shades of grey inbetween...i know that there are many viewpoints...but i belive that it does boil down to Creation vs. Evolution, God vs. Man...so i have to disagree with you there...
In my opinon there are three main choices of belief:
- Creation (by god(s)),
- Evolution and
- belief in nothing.
I know that many people what to mix and match, have their cake and eat it too...but i see this as indicision...you cant pick and choose...
I know it sounds simplistic, but i dont think its all the complicated..(reply to this comment) |
| | From Fish
Thursday, September 02, 2004, 07:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Not to forget the “aliens brought us here” or “we are aliens” explanation. Of course, it naturally follows that they had to come from somewhere. However, if there are truly aliens, it seems unlikely that we would understand their origins. (Did fire evolve?) Perhaps they have always existed…
I personally still hold to the creationist faith, mainly cause I’m too indifferent to trouble with changing my belief system. I honestly could care less. I think we should focus less on our point of origin and our destination; instead we ought to lay back and enjoy the damn journey.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From roughneck
Monday, September 06, 2004, 11:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
*snip* By the way, the flood can certainly explain shells in rocks in mountains... *snip*
OK then, so where did the over 8,800 vertical metres of water go (to ask nothing of where it came from in the first place) that could have deposited shells in (not on, *in* - look up the formation of sedimentary rock sometime) the rock of the Himalayas? Pre-emptively, it wouldn't be the polar ice-caps. If all the ice at the poles (glaciers n' stuff too) were to melt, sea levels would only rise about 77 metres. That's more than 8,700 vertical metres shy. It sure as hell wasn't simple evaporation, as reference to grade-school texts on the water cycle would prove beyond rational argument. (Hint: it's called a cycle for a reason) (Note to the excessively correct: the following calculations are very approximate) Earth's surface area is more than 400 trillion square metres. If you multiply that by the height that the flood's water surface was supposed to have attained (13 cubits above the highest mountain, {Everest, at +8,848 metres above sea level} if I recall), you get the astronomical figure of 3,539,200,000,000,000,000 cubic metres of water that flooding the earth to the height of Mt. Everest (to say nothing of the additional 13 cubits) would have required. What's biblical creationism's answer to that pray tell? Have the laws of physics yet again been suspended to make the bible appear true? When answering, please bear in mind that prior to manned spaceflight, no object (much less 3,539,200,000,000,000,000 m^3 of water) had left the pull of Earth's substantial gravity.
Personally, I think that the plate tectonics explanation (shifting & buckling tectonic plates formed mountain ranges from sea-bed over millions of years) requires much less suspension of disbelief, but maybe that's just me and my apparent lack of imagination.
I don't know if anyone has touched on this yet, but as I see it, the fundamental difference between science and religion is which end of a problem each party starts out at. The scientist starts with an unknown and works through available data to formulate a theory which best fits the evidence. The creationist starts out with a conclusion (God created) and only then seeks evidence to support this supposition, blithely ignoring and often loudly denouncing any and all evidence that would tend to refute the presupposed notion. It was Berg's contention (and it seems, yours) that "evolutionists" start out with an atheistic agenda to pervert "godly science" and that all of scientific progress is really just a big attack on Christianity. Sorry to burst your bubble, but this just ain't so. Honest scientists are more than happy to admit that they don't have all the answers (the admission will usually be qualified with a "yet", but I digress), but I have yet to meet an ardent religionist who could make a similar admission in regards to the validity of their chosen faith. The judeo-christian creationist's entire credo is based upon having the ultimate answer to everything, (ie. "In the beginning, God Created" or "I am the way the truth and the life, NO MAN cometh to the father but by me", et cetera).
If Science and Religion find themselves on a collision course, it is SOLELY because the creationist is travelling the wrong way down the road. Instead of starting with a question (why do the rocks X number of feet down contain only simple life forms, while upper layers contain progressively higher life-forms) and looking for an answer that doesn't refer to mythical events in ancient fiction, the creationist maintains (before even examining any evidence aside from Genesis) that God created the world (and universe) in six days and if geology/palaentology/biology/chemistry/astrophysics/astronomy say different, then it's all a cOnSpIrAcY oF eViL AtHiEsT sCiEnTiStS out to corrupt the minds of the youth. Science seeks answers using theories supported by provable fact while religion is merely supported by poor fiction and unfounded speculation. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Monday, September 06, 2004, 20:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well said, roughneck.
I’m going to play Devil’s advocate for a moment here: Some creationists have speculated that the earth’s axis used to be straight, and the jolt that tilted the axis (an asteroid or something) was so strong that the water in the oceans spilled over in giant tidal waves that covered the earth. I doubt there was somebody standing on top of Mt. Everest to measure how big the tidal wave was when it hit the mountain. This “spilling over” may have been coupled with the water which is currently frozen in the ice caps to create quite a nasty flood.
I know this sounds far-fetched, but it does seem to be a more realistic scenario than 3,539,200,000,000,000,000 m^3 of water coming out of nowhere and going nowhere. Since many cultures do have a universal flood story, I still wonder if something along these lines may have happened. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Big Sister
Thursday, September 02, 2004, 10:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Mixza, you are misunderstanding the point of a scientific theory! Evolution is a theory; that is, our best current possible explanation for how life forms fit together and change on the earth over time. The job of science is to search for an understanding of how things work (and why) and to refine the resulting theories. This process is not static, for the most part. Haven't you noticed that scientists are continually re-working ideas and coming up with revised theories? They are pursuing knowledge, not locking it down and throwing away the key!
Meanwhile, many scientists are also religious people. They are able to hold faith (which actually does means "faith" and does not, therefore, require proof) and pursuit of knowledge in their hearts and minds at the same time.
God does not whisper "true facts" into the ears of scientists. Those who imagine that are confusing scientists with cult leaders. Scientists, like most people, are not fond of "facts tainted by the bias of the interpreter" and work hard to unharness bias from theories, ideas and the development of facts, even in their own work! Scientists review each other's work and critique it openly, publicly. Scientists who falsify data in order to "prove" something are held in distain; they lose power and credibility.
And finally, scientists, while holding passionately to the work they pursue and the theories they are proving or disproving, do not have the power to force you or me to believe anything that they think. They lack this power because everyone in our society (what you may have once called "The System") has the opportunity-some say the responsibility-to ask questions, develop new theories, argue over ideas and to accept criticism.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Mixza
Thursday, September 02, 2004, 22:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
---"Evolution is a theory; that is, our best current possible explanation for how life forms fit together and change on the earth over time." ---
If you exclude the possibility of creation, then yes, it is the best possible explanation...of course scientists are biased by their belief system!
A creationist will look at a fact and try to explain within the bounds of their belief system, as will an evolutionist!
An evolutionist will not include the possibility of creation; rather he/she will attempt to explain WITHIN the boundaries of his/her PREDETERMINED belief system...
So dont try to tell me that scientists are unbiased in their interpretation of facts...it is simply not the case...
I know that evolutionary theories evolve as new facts/supporting evidence is discovered and old theories are debunked, HOWEVER all the resultant theories STILL come within the evolutionary supposition that the universe evolved, i.e. was NOT created: their belief system does not allow for the possibility that the universe was created by a supernatural being..
In the same way a creationist will evolve theories according to his/her belief in a divine creator.
And no, I never called society "the system" (that was berg and zerb’s term, not mine :p), and yes, no one can (or should not attempt to) force their beliefs on anyone.(reply to this comment) |
| |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]