|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/8/2005 6:57:56 PM | | This is my favorite thread. Where did you all go? :) Keep posting! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/8/2005 7:33:38 PM | Here you go, Dharma:
2. Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false. Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough. Also, the observation must be something which can be checked by an independent observer.)
The existence of DNA as a code, precise and predictable (with, admittedly, the capacity to malfunction), tends to support the view that design is present, in that a complex, working, coded “message” is included in the very basis of each and every living thing.
2a. Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?
Yes. As the hypothesis suggests, by means of the coded DNA, reproducing organisms give rise to like organisms of the same “type.” Insects to insects, mammals to mammals, etc. Also, taking into account the paleontological ramifications of a shorter span of time on the Earth, it has been predicted that long spans of time are not necessary for fossilisation, a viewpoint borne out by the present events near Mt. St. Helens. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/8/2005 8:09:41 PM | Good point. I didn't even catch that. This is all in response to Trewq's questions toward the beginning of the thread, but you're right. You'd have thought the question "What is your theory?" would have been at the beginning, wouldn't you? Guess that says something about the assumptions we tend to make in the debate. I've noticed quite a few in the questions themselves. Anyway:
3. Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory? (The suggestion that major points are still under investigation will only be accepted for theories that are relatively recent. Any exposition which cannot be distinguished from solipsism or nihilism will not be accepted.)
To the question, the answer is yes. Would you like a statement of the theory? (Sorry, that one just begged for sarcasm.) Hypothesis (wanted to call it a theory, but it’s not widely enough accepted): That life on Earth is the result of conscious effort and intelligent design. That reproducing organisms give rise to like organisms. And that the creation of diversity among the lifeforms of Earth was planned and accomplished by the originating agent in a relatively short span of geological time (say, for the sake of argument, under six hundred million years).
3a. Is there any statement of the scientific (or other) rules of evidence which you accept? (If your answer is that some document is your guide, explain the rules for interpreting the document, and your rules for determining which document is your guide.)
Again, not sure I get the question, but I’m game. Sure, science will be used, as will the dictates of logic with regard to the Bible, Koran, Torah, and any other inspired documents that support, modify, or have a bearing on the hypothesis.
First, tell me the theory you are talking about. :)
Does that help?  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/8/2005 8:39:13 PM | To the question, the answer is yes. Would you like a statement of the theory? (Sorry, that one just begged for sarcasm.) Hypothesis (wanted to call it a theory, but it’s not widely enough accepted): That life on Earth is the result of conscious effort and intelligent design. That reproducing organisms give rise to like organisms. And that the creation of diversity among the lifeforms of Earth was planned and accomplished by the originating agent in a relatively short span of geological time (say, for the sake of argument, under six hundred million years).
The problem being that the fossil record shows that organisms have arisen from 'unlike' ancestors. It's a long way from Pikaia, a primitive chordate in the Burgess Fauna to humans, but we have a fossil record that covers quite a bit of it.
How could one tell that a particular evolutionary series was 'planned' versus 'natural' anyhow? Simply claiming that 'X could not have evolved, it must have been designed' without any sort of criteria to support the argument isn't scientific, it's Argument from Incredulity. Actual evidence of Design or examples of life forms (or structures in same) that could not have been produced by Darwinian evolution would be needed. So far none are forthcoming from IDers. Where ID types like Behe have tried to claim 'irreducible complexity' - clotting factors, bacterial flagella, and the like, it has been rapidly pointed out that there is indeed clear evidence of evolution in the systems. Even Behe accepts that Darwinian evolution exists.
ID is simply Creationism with the name 'God' crossed out and 'a Designer' written in in crayon. If they want to get taken seriously they need to get busy and do real research.
The Theory of ID is the same as the Theory of Creationism - 'Goddidit'. It wasn't science before the name change, and it isn't science afterwards.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/8/2005 9:46:53 PM | What IF a higher power created some basic forms of life, meant to diversify *through* evolution. That diversity of life gives us, that is humans, the ability to live because of the amazing life diversity we are built upon. Then, we'd have to be either stupid or too smart for our own good (or smart enough to say WHAT are we doing?) to be doing what we are doing now to Earth's creatures and life diversity right now. We destroy habitat [like primary forests, wetlands, and other habitat that can NOT BE REPLACED]. That CANNOT continue. Destruction of intact habitat MUST stop now *and* we need to restore elsewhere. 'No net loss' of wetland of the Bush Sr. idea is really BULLSH-T. Man cannot build an equal 'wetland' to G-d. Maybe human beings can to try to ameliorate for PAST damage with restoration, but NEVER to JUSTIFY HARM!!! Restoration does not replace intact habitat. Just doesn't, but should still try (because a restoration is better than a monoculture, anyday). That's my HONEST 'editorial.'
Would THAT mean that BOTH evolution AND creation are partly right? Wonderin. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/9/2005 1:13:04 AM | | What predictions do the theory of Creation make? If none then it's not a theory. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/9/2005 1:13:41 AM | Okay, the fact that DNA exists does not mean someone designed it. There is no proof of that. Just the fact that it is there is not proof.
We call DNA a code, but that doesn't mean that it is a "code" in the linguistic sense. It is more of a natural pattern that is stored in cells that is basically the blue print of what an organism will become. There is no proof that it was designed that way. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/9/2005 1:15:17 AM |
What predictions do the theory of Creation make? If none then it's not a theory.
People being tortured for being heretics. You can predict that based on the "theory" of Creation. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/9/2005 10:52:25 AM | | Approximately 97% of DNA is classsed as "Junk" , that is, that the DNA is redundant, how dose this clash with Desighn? It seems to be a very poorly desighned blueprint if it has so much junk in it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/9/2005 1:31:56 PM |
We destroy habitat ...... That CANNOT continue This is the warm, fuzzy environmentalist view of the world. It's commendable and probably quite important from the point of view of human preservation, but it ain't how it really is. The current environmental sentiments are for HUMAN reasons. Habitat destruction has evolutionary precedents - as does habitat CREATION. We acknowledge that in the principles of Gaia. The harsh realities of evolution are that death and even extinction are essential components of the process. Should humans be immune? Is it possible that our eternal preservation may even impede evolution? It seems unlikely that humans know the answers, although highly probable that human actions will influence the outcome. How significant is the thought that Feral quoted? - along the lines that it doesn't matter because God will save the day?
As for Intelligent Design, even scientists agree that language is inadequate to describe the world from a scientific point of view, let alone a spiritual one. Conscious design? - what is consciousness? .. mind? Is a rock conscious? .... an atom ....... a string?
Is it possible that the scientific laws that we have discovered have always existed? Science believes that the world today is an inevitable consequence of these laws. Have they always existed - just because? - or did they originate from some ingenious creator? Do we need to add a creator that always existed to the idea that physical laws always existed? How do you test for these alternatives?
The most brilliant minds of our time have no idea why the cosmological constants are what they are. They just know that if the cosmological constants were different, we wouldn't exist - The Anthropic Principle. They debate wether there are other universes with different cosmological constants, or wether the cosmological constants vary with location in our own universe. Are we a coincidence of cosmological constants or a consequence of an intelligent choice of cosmological constants? How would we distinguish the two? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/9/2005 1:56:29 PM | | Quietjohn- good post. Those are valid philisophical queries. What amazes me about the ID people is that they continue to accuse evolution of not providing answers for the origin of life and the universe, when that question is completely irrelevant to the theory. There is nothing about the theory that precludes a supreme being having set the laws in motion that moves the mechanism of evolution. I don't believe it, but it is not precluded by the theory. The real conflict that irks them is the age of the universe, for which there is a wealth of scientific evidence, where as their estimation is easily debunked. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/9/2005 3:25:47 PM | I think what really irks them as that some people have the right to think for themselves without asking them for their approval.
But not for long. Good 'ole Bush is about to take care of that by legislating religion into our constitution for us.
George W. Bush is far more intelligent than Thomas Jefferson who originally came up with the division of church and state.
Bush is protecting our rights.
Like our right to be forced to pray in school and our right to be forced to be taught intelligent design. Yay!!! Americans are so lucky!!! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/9/2005 7:41:57 PM | Oie! I've been cloistered away for some time, this thread has gotten rather diverse. So many varitations.
Thought I'd throw a bone into the pack.
Is adaptation of a species evolution? and does "conscious intent" generate adaptation of a species?
ie: (example species thinking here) "If my species had longer legs we could run faster, then the big bad predetor couldn't catch us". and suddenly, vwuala !! after - - - - many generations said species has longer legs, runs faster and is safe from slow predetor which in turn causes aforementioned slow predetor to proceed to do its own adaptation, er evolution, as it were. Viscious cycle that.
Also so as not to leave out the earth evolutionist or C-14ists lot or for that matter the creationist and evolutionist combatents.
In 2001 a Canadian oceanographic team was mapping the ocean (they do that you know, thus the name) off the western shore of Cuba, found a curious thing, a submerged city 1900 - 2500 feet below the surface. aprox. 7 mls square.
This can be verified (or villified)sp) by searching National Geographic/submerged cities
This is a slightly dated web page but will surfice for now. This didn't slide off of Cuba, this is noted in other listings, if you're interested you'll look for it.
So what would the earth look like if we sunk the oceans 2500 ft? and where did all that water come from?? I'm in school full time, lots of studying and what not. So bash at will, or not - I will respond in due time, or not. later | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/9/2005 8:04:17 PM |
Is adaptation of a species evolution? and does "conscious intent" generate adaptation of a species?
Evolution is a change in gene frequencies in a population over time. Evolution can lead to adaptation. For example you could move to a cold climate which favors a rounder body shape (retains heat better). People with genes that cause their bodies to be rounder (e.g. more fat collected around their waist-line) would tend to survive better and hence reproduce more.
If enough people consciously focussed their intent on selecting for some physical characteristic then it would become more prevalent. This is how we got so many varieties of dogs and horses by the way. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/9/2005 9:17:30 PM |
Is adaptation of a species evolution? and does "conscious intent" generate adaptation of a species?
Adaptation is one mechanism of evolution. Not all evolutionary change is adaptive, however. I'm not sure what you mean by "conscious intent", however.
In 2001 a Canadian oceanographic team was mapping the ocean (they do that you know, thus the name) off the western shore of Cuba, found a curious thing, a submerged city 1900 - 2500 feet below the surface. aprox. 7 mls square.
No, they didn't. They saw some rocks that they thought looked like structures, but so far no evidence they are. Sorry.
I don't have Hallam's works on sea level handy but I'm pretty confident there hasn't been a 2500 foot 'low stand' in the last million years. I doubt there's ever been a lowstand of that magnitude.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/10/2005 8:43:25 AM | | What the heck does he mean by concious intent? Is he suggesting Lamarkism? If so, buddy, that evolutionary theory was debunked long ago, which illustrates one of the main misconceptions of evolution. What scientists debate is not whether evolution occured, there is an almost endless wealth of empirical evidence that it did. What scientists debate are the mechanisms by which it occurs, although much of that has been ironed out over the last century. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/10/2005 9:43:41 AM | "ummmhmmm...Australopithicus Afarensis...missing links....molars in the desert....extrapolations of the "evidence" into the ridiculous"
I haven't the vaguest idea what you are trying to say here. You've accused me of being wordy, but I have to accuse you of the opposite. You want to make that a clear statement as to your position please? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/10/2005 10:39:56 AM | Let's play nice now 
We all have our bad days but that ain't worth burning the respect we've earned on our better days.  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/10/2005 10:44:02 AM | | quitejohn- this chick has taken a dislike to me, and now makes an effort to attack me wherever I post. If you go back and read the exchanges it will be clear to you what is going on. My understanding of Evolution is quite sound, and there is absolutely now reason for her to suggest it isn't. Honestly did that post make a lot of sense to you? The reason it is so cryptic is because her objective is not to make a point, but to attack me. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/10/2005 11:00:33 AM | | See, now that was pleasant. I accept your olive branch of two little yellow circles hugging and reciprocate. I'm not sure how to respond without repeating myself from other threads, but, briefly... that is why I used the phrase "ironed out" as opposed to solved. The connotation is quite different. Science is a process. I can't say that enough. People continue to bash evolution because it does not offer a final dogmatic belief to hang your world view on, and, I'm here to tell you, it probably never will. Just like physics it is an ever ongoing process of discovery. The main tennets of the theory have remained relatively unchanged though. Because scientists squabble over particulars, that does not invalidate the theory. No one "cooked up a whole new theory of evolution." due to unearthing new evidence. You are confusing theory with conjecture and hypothesis. These are very different terms within the realm of science. Postulates about missing links are conjectures within the theory, but not theories themselves, and they will continue to be refined as new evidence weighs in. As for the physical possibility of time travel... well that's a whole different topic. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/10/2005 11:38:23 AM | I've always marvelled at the amount of conjecture that can be stimulated by tiny increments of new information. The important point in science isn't always if they are right or wrong, even to the point of ridicule. It is in the number of important questions that they generate.
In all of our debates, arguments, disagreements, I have seen very little criticism of the need to continue questioning, exploring and understanding.
Can't remember who it was, or where, but I once remember reading a comment by a famous intellectual suggesting that out most valuable interactions are with out greatest critics. They are the ones who make us think the hardest.
Respect your critics - and those you criticize. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/10/2005 12:09:03 PM | "our most valuable interactions are with out greatest critics. They are the ones who make us think the hardest."
That is a good point, which is why it is so important that, at the very least, you always remain a critic of your own ideas. Wouldn't you say that that is essential to the scientific method? Always searching for holes in every theory is a foundation of critical inquiry. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/10/2005 12:31:05 PM | | I'm honestly not sure how science is done, Wonka. Finding holes isn't very productive and can't be done unless someone has come up with something to find holes in, but I know what you mean. I guess some people would argue that the only way to come close to confirming the truth of a statement is by a long-term failure to find any holes in it. Karl Popper is a renowned philosopher who delved into the scientific process in great depth. He's a good read, though often misquoted. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/10/2005 12:36:18 PM | | Popper is a good read. Failure to debunk is one way of confirming the validity (I balk at using the word truth) of a theory and would fit under the notion of "peer review," but there are many. How well it fits with a larger architecture of established theory is also an important element, as is adherence to logic, predictive prowess, support by empirical data... | |
|
|
| Page 24 of 156
|
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 |
|
Home
login 
