Intelligent Design - a nonscientific post
Rand's Email
proto-biomolecules and letting them evolve might be a more "intelligent" way
for God to design organisms than actually designing them? Think of the
trouble it saves (from God's point of view). No need to individually design
2,000 species of mammals (including 900 kinds of bats), 2,600 species of
birds, 600,000 species of insects (including 45,000 species of beetles
alone), not to mention all the complexities of interlocking food chains so
they can all survive, and a whole fossil record to make it look as though
evolution happened! And this is just one planet! Oi vey!
Rubystars
"Rand's Email" <randkb...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:B8A5B8F0.196E%randkb...@attbi.com...
I think the simplicity of the creation itself is irrelevant, as God could do
whatever He wanted to create life. However, it probably is a good way to
design living things because it allows them to adapt themselves to changing
environments without needing constant tweaking.
According to the interpretation of Genesis that I follow, we're in the
seventh day now, and God isn't actively guiding any new species to appear,
but life continues to evolve and adapt with its own evolutionary mechanism.
-Rubystars
J Forbes
>
> "Rand's Email" <randkb...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:B8A5B8F0.196E%randkb...@attbi.com...
> > Has it occurred to anyone else out there that starting off with with some
> > proto-biomolecules and letting them evolve might be a more "intelligent"
> way
> > for God to design organisms than actually designing them? Think of the
> > trouble it saves (from God's point of view). No need to individually
> design
> > 2,000 species of mammals (including 900 kinds of bats), 2,600 species of
> > birds, 600,000 species of insects (including 45,000 species of beetles
> > alone), not to mention all the complexities of interlocking food chains so
> > they can all survive, and a whole fossil record to make it look as though
> > evolution happened! And this is just one planet! Oi vey!
> >
>
> I think the simplicity of the creation itself is irrelevant, as God could do
> whatever He wanted to create life. However, it probably is a good way to
> design living things because it allows them to adapt themselves to changing
> environments without needing constant tweaking.
And the other reason to think that this is a good way for God to
have done it, is that it does not require God to exist...hence,
it happened!
> According to the interpretation of Genesis that I follow, we're in the
> seventh day now, and God isn't actively guiding any new species to appear,
> but life continues to evolve and adapt with its own evolutionary mechanism.
>
> -Rubystars
Jim
Martin Crisp
wrote (in message <B8A5B8F0.196E%randkb...@attbi.com>):
> Has it occurred to anyone else out there that starting off with with
> some proto-biomolecules and letting them evolve might be a more
> "intelligent" way for God to design organisms than actually designing
> them? [...]
Of course, but I don't accept the 'god exists' conjecture, but when I
did, that's how I saw it.
<rest snipped>
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #(2^8)*(2^3-2^0)
[...]Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile.
-- Tertullian
Almost always SMASHed
PGP Key (ID 0xED55A6D0) Fingerprint:
A7C7 F865 B317 ABBB B10E D8AC F4AD 347D ED55 A6D0
Ivar Ylvisaker
Two creatures, dressed in robes, are standing on a cloud. The smaller
creature, apparently an angel is saying to the larger creature,
apparently God, "Wouldn't it be easier if we modified some monkey DNA?"
Ivar
Rand's Email
The way I see it, you can believe whatever you like about how this whole
universe got here in the first place, whether there is a conscious designing
God or not, and whether or how often this God sticks his oar into the
proceedings here on earth. There's no rational, objective way to reach
certainty about those questions. My personal preference is to follow Isaac
Newton and frankly admit ignorance rather than making things up to fill the
gap. (Newton refused to speculate about WHY there is gravity, saying "I
will feign no hypotheses.")
It does seem clear, though, that evolution by Darwinian mechanisms is part
of the natural, "default" behavior of living systems - that absent any
external intervention, "evolving" is what living systems do. And there's a
vast amount of evidence in comparative zoology, paleontology, and
comparative genetics to show that the living system of the Earth has been
"evolving" for a very long time. That does not prove, and cannot prove,
that other influences (including supernatural ones) have not also played a
role. Trouble is, how would we ever know? J. Forbes' post suggests a God
who likes to "cover his tracks". We cannot be sure we would recognize a
supernatural intervention, even if we stumbled upon it in broad daylight.
stew dean
> proto-biomolecules and letting them evolve might be a more "intelligent" way
> for God to design organisms than actually designing them?
Yes it had. If we started off life on another planet and the
conditions where roughly right it would evolve in to a suboptimal
solution - but one more optimal than we could design.
The environment is a much better designer than any intelligent entity.
Stew Dean
J Forbes
(rearranged to TO standard of replying at end of message)
I guess my wording was not up to snuff...
What I meant: since it appears that if there were a God, then
God must have fully covered his tracks...hence there is no
reason to think that there is a God.
But fortunately for us who are interested in studying how the
world works, we may observe that God is merely an aspect of
human behavior. Since humans are physical objects, their
behavior is subject to scientific study. And what little study
has been done to determine the origins of God, shows that
perhaps human mental processes which have evolved in a way that
allows us to be highly effective social animals, also give us a
tendency to invent gods.
Jim
J Forbes
The only thing that might throw a monkey wrench into this line
of thought, is that evolution is not goal oriented. What
results depends on a very complex set of variables, most of
which are quite unpredictable.
So, an intelligent designer would have a very difficult time
indeed, trying to make humans using evolution!
Hence the conclusion that there is no intent is easier for me to
accept.
Jim
Rand's Email
with you and did not mean to put words into your mouth. I also think you
are probably right that human beings have a built-in religious impulse, born
both of wonder at and fear of forces beyond our control. The supreme irony
is that this very impulse may itself be an evolutionary adaptation!
Clfranck01
>The only thing that might throw a monkey wrench into this line
>of thought, is that evolution is not goal oriented. What
>results depends on a very complex set of variables, most of
>which are quite unpredictable.
>
>So, an intelligent designer would have a very difficult time
>indeed, trying to make humans using evolution!
>
>Hence the conclusion that there is no intent is easier for me to
>accept.
It could be God is more of an artist than a designer (the
universe is a kind of abstract art) or all the design went
into the physics. Biological organisms could be a kind of
an icky build-up that forms on the surface of planets (I
believe Heinlein's "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan
Hoag" was something along these two lines).
Craig Franck
clfra...@aol.com
Cortland, NY
J Forbes
Yes, it could be.
But it could also be that we humans are quite good at inventing
interesting scenarios such as this, because we have such well
developed imaginations, which have evolved as we have become
such complex social animals.
Jim
J Forbes
>
> Jim, it may be that my interpretation is not up to snuff. I actually agree
> with you and did not mean to put words into your mouth. I also think you
> are probably right that human beings have a built-in religious impulse, born
> both of wonder at and fear of forces beyond our control. The supreme irony
> is that this very impulse may itself be an evolutionary adaptation!
Actually, from the little that I've read on the subject
(Religion Explained, by Pascal Boyer, 2001), it doesn't work
quite like that.
It has more to do with how we store information about different
classes of things, especially people. We can easily construct a
personality, such as God, with some exceptional properties (such
as omnipotence, invisbility, etc). We treat information about
this "person" as we treat information about other (real)
persons. It appears that such supernatural agents are common
to almost all human societies, although the nature of the agents
varies widely.
I suggest reading the book if you're interested in this
subject...it is quite refreshing to see a scientific look at
this aspect of human behavior which has been taboo for so very
long!
Jim
Michael Painter
No unless you opt for an uncaring or evil god. It leads to unnecessary and
horrible cruelty.
The "design" of the human body is adequate but any caring god would have
made it far superior.
The allowance of the much better adapted mosquito leads to the death of
about 5,000,000 people a year.
A semi rational human would not allow this and many pray that it be stopped.
Rand's Email
food chain is evidence of an "uncaring or evil god"? The struggle to
survive and reproduce is a fact of life. Is it "cruelty"? Without it we'd
be hip-deep in cockroaches. It is the way it is. Who are we to judge it?
> From: "Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net>
> Organization: AT&T Worldnet
> Newsgroups: talk.origins
> Date: 2 Mar 2002 15:19:07 -0500
> Subject: Re: Intelligent Design - a nonscientific post
>
>
Bobby D. Bryant
> It could be God is more of an artist than a designer (the universe is
> a kind of abstract art) or all the design went into the physics.
> Biological organisms could be a kind of an icky build-up that forms on
> the surface of planets
Expaining the Great Flood very nicely.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> Well, it's a dog-eat-rabbit, owl-eat-mouse world. Do you think that
> the food chain is evidence of an "uncaring or evil god"? The struggle
> to survive and reproduce is a fact of life. Is it "cruelty"? Without
> it we'd be hip-deep in cockroaches. It is the way it is. Who are we
> to judge it?
That last sentiment is the ultimate rotten plank in the Intelligent
Design platform.
When the smoke is cleared away IDologists are seen to insist,
simultaneously, that we *can* judge it, and also that we *can't*.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
dkomo
>
> Has it occurred to anyone else out there that starting off with with some
> proto-biomolecules and letting them evolve might be a more "intelligent" way
> for God to design organisms than actually designing them?
No, it never occurred to me because I think the idea that life was
designed, either indirectly like this or directly (as in Shazaam! --
let there be life), is absurd. But I'm a bit strange because I even
find the idea that something supernatural created the Universe we
inhabit to be totally weird.
> Think of the
> trouble it saves (from God's point of view). No need to individually design
> 2,000 species of mammals (including 900 kinds of bats), 2,600 species of
> birds, 600,000 species of insects (including 45,000 species of beetles
> alone), not to mention all the complexities of interlocking food chains so
> they can all survive, and a whole fossil record to make it look as though
> evolution happened! And this is just one planet! Oi vey!
If God is truly omnipotent and omniscient, nothing you just said above
is valid or logical. An omnipotent being can do anything It pleases,
and there is no gradation in difficulty in what It does. To a real
God, instantaneously creating 10^(600,000) species with 600,000!
interlocked interactions among them, and doing this across 600,000
planets is no harder than doing it for 600,000 species of insects on
one planet.
If you tie into the God of the Bible, you're plugging into
omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect love, perfect
goodness, eternity, and infinity. And at that point, you basically
pitch logic -- at least human logic -- out the window.
Jean Hill
> Clfranck01 wrote:
> >
> > >From: J Forbes jfor...@yahoo.com
>
> > >The only thing that might throw a monkey wrench
it's hard to avoid it these days:
http://free-1.com/web2/heroes/curiousgeorge.htm
Louann Miller
>J Forbes <jfor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3C812D9F...@yahoo.com>...
>> Clfranck01 wrote:
>> >
>> > >From: J Forbes jfor...@yahoo.com
>>
>> > >The only thing that might throw a monkey wrench
>
>it's hard to avoid it these days:
>
> http://free-1.com/web2/heroes/curiousgeorge.htm
Darn. I've lost my link to the web children's book "Curious George and
the High-Tension Power Line" and I was hoping your URL might be it.
Frank J
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:a5rfmj$m75$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
"IDologists" - catchy title!
Frank J
God" he characterizes the various "mutually contradictory" creationist
positions as promoting a Creator who is either a charlatan, a magician or a
mechanic.
Jean Hill
Sorry to disappoint you
Leonardo Dasso
"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:y_fg8.72598$7a1.6...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
And then you have the theistic evolutionist god, who is like a cattle
breeder, trying to "guide" natural processes with a bit of artificial
selection. I wonder which one is worse.
regards
leo
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote
>> It has occurred to Kenneth Miller, for one. In his book "Finding
>> Darwin's God" he characterizes the various "mutually contradictory"
>> creationist positions as promoting a Creator who is either a
>> charlatan, a magician or a mechanic.
>>
> And then you have the theistic evolutionist god, who is like a cattle
> breeder, trying to "guide" natural processes with a bit of artificial
> selection. [...]
God of the calfs?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Drearash
>Date: 3/3/02 12:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <a5tmc9$sdg$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
Von Smith
"You are not thinking...you are merely being logical" -Niels Bohr
Bobby D. Bryant
Bring forth the striped staves!
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
John Wilkins
Is the Lord trying to breed a Golden Calf?
--
John Wilkins
Occasionally having fun for over 46 years...
I am nothing like this - no, really:
<http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame17.html>
Edward L. Mincher
> Has it occurred to anyone else out there that starting off with with some
> proto-biomolecules and letting them evolve might be a more "intelligent" way
> for God to design organisms than actually designing them? Think of the
> trouble it saves (from God's point of view). No need to individually design
> 2,000 species of mammals (including 900 kinds of bats), 2,600 species of
> birds, 600,000 species of insects (including 45,000 species of beetles
> alone), not to mention all the complexities of interlocking food chains so
> they can all survive, and a whole fossil record to make it look as though
> evolution happened! And this is just one planet! Oi vey!
You're not looking at life you're looking at death and an imperfect
creation. The Bible says: "for we are part of a "groaning," imperfect
creation. But with God working for us, we can be more than conquerors,
and one day God will make all of creation perfect again.
Evolution runs from God and science; namely, it's not a science.
Respectfully,
Eddy
The eternity of God is his essence itself, which has nothing mutable
in it. In it there is nothing past, as if it were no longer; nothing
future, as if it where not yet. In it there is only ‘is, ‘ namely, the
present.
...................................Augustine, Saint A.D. 354-430
Leonardo Dasso
"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1f8ir4o.qi4y3j1jqcnjcN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> Bobby D. Bryant <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 15:20:38 -0600, Drearash wrote:
> >
> > >>Subject: Re: Intelligent Design - a nonscientific post From: "Bobby D.
> > >>Bryant" bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu Date: 3/3/02 12:26 PM Eastern
> > >>Standard Time Message-id: <a5tmc9$sdg$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
> > >>
> > >>On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 08:39:38 -0600, Leonardo Dasso wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> "Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote
> > >>
> > >>>> It has occurred to Kenneth Miller, for one. In his book "Finding
> > >>>> Darwin's God" he characterizes the various "mutually contradictory"
> > >>>> creationist positions as promoting a Creator who is either a
> > >>>> charlatan, a magician or a mechanic.
> > >>>>
> > >>> And then you have the theistic evolutionist god, who is like a
> > >>> cattle breeder, trying to "guide" natural processes with a bit of
> > >>> artificial selection. [...]
> > >>
> > >>God of the calfs?
> > >>
> > >>Bobby Bryant
> > >>Austin, Texas
> > >>
> > > The Lord is my cowherd...
> >
> > Bring forth the striped staves!
> >
> Is the Lord trying to breed a Golden Calf?
> --
I should have said a "chicken breeder" ;-)
regards
leo
Bobby D. Bryant
Are you indicating that it's a golden chicken rather than a golden
calf?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Rubystars
"Leonardo Dasso" <Lda...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a5tcji$9u94o$1...@ID-102497.news.dfncis.de...
He just happens to be able to create all the other life that way too, which
does not mean nothing to Him. There are creatures on the sea floor who live
their lives and that we know little or nothing about, but they are also
God's creatures. It gives us a connection, a physical connection, to the
world in which we are to have stewardship over. Is that so bad?
-Rubystars
Rubystars
"Edward L. Mincher" <iedd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6dd271a4.02030...@posting.google.com...
> "Rand's Email" <randkb...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<B8A5B8F0.196E%randkb...@attbi.com>...
> > Has it occurred to anyone else out there that starting off with with
some
> > proto-biomolecules and letting them evolve might be a more "intelligent"
way
> > for God to design organisms than actually designing them? Think of the
> > trouble it saves (from God's point of view). No need to individually
design
> > 2,000 species of mammals (including 900 kinds of bats), 2,600 species of
> > birds, 600,000 species of insects (including 45,000 species of beetles
> > alone), not to mention all the complexities of interlocking food chains
so
> > they can all survive, and a whole fossil record to make it look as
though
> > evolution happened! And this is just one planet! Oi vey!
>
> You're not looking at life you're looking at death and an imperfect
> creation. The Bible says: "for we are part of a "groaning," imperfect
> creation. But with God working for us, we can be more than conquerors,
> and one day God will make all of creation perfect again.
>
I don't see why predator-prey relationships and other natural checks can be
seen by you as being imperfect. They serve functions of keeping ecosystems
stable and recycling nutrients.
I do believe that people can make life unhappy for others by sinning and the
world can become an evil place to be, in that sense, and I agree with you
that there will be a new and better creation as stated in Revelation.
> Evolution runs from God and science; namely, it's not a science.
>
Wrong. Science has nothing to do with God, so you can't criticize it for
"running away" from God. It deals with the creation, not the creator. It
operates just fine whether or not there exists a God, gods, or other
supernatural agent. Science deals with physical, objective reality, which is
the same for everyone regardless of religion, philosophy, or culture.
Now understanding that, (if, indeed, you do), how can you say that the
theory of evolution is not science?
-Rubystars
Leonardo Dasso
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:a5uo6g$htd$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
You better watch it, dude. Some of us almost got burned at the stake by the
self-appointed holy inquisitors of t.o. for less than that. They'll be
coming after you next.
regards
leo
Edward L. Mincher
Hi, Rubystars
>It deals with the creation, not the creator
Running. Most certainly just read a few posts here or anywhere.
>Now understanding that, (if, indeed, you do), how can you say that
the theory of evolution is not science?
If a scientist told me there was no Wonder Woman and then opened my TV
set and showed me that it was only wires and circuits. Or a chemists
showed me that there was no Shakespeare because of the chemical
composition of the ink. That science might be good, but it would be a
science of poverty. Knowledge without faith leads too poverty because
faith is not blind.
It would take a mighty spirit to deceive you into thinking that the
above obviously kooky examples were good science. That kind of science
would pare no fruit; namely, you would not find a system of proofs nor
a set laws in it. Is there such a science? Just one?
In evolution we say the last thing first. That is, the first premise
is that there is no basis for the subject (a type of magical mishap.)
It says that because it's philosophy.
Regards,
Eddy
Time began in God's garden.
(Someone Said)
Rubystars
Hi Eddy :)
> >It deals with the creation, not the creator
>
> Running. Most certainly just read a few posts here or anywhere.
>
Evolution deals only with the physical apsects of how life changes over
time, or how allele frequencies in populations change. You can see evidence
of this change by looking at the fossil record and then looking at what we
have today. Today's species had ancient precursors.
> >Now understanding that, (if, indeed, you do), how can you say that
> the theory of evolution is not science?
>
> If a scientist told me there was no Wonder Woman and then opened my TV
> set and showed me that it was only wires and circuits. Or a chemists
> showed me that there was no Shakespeare because of the chemical
> composition of the ink. That science might be good, but it would be a
> science of poverty. Knowledge without faith leads too poverty because
> faith is not blind.
>
> It would take a mighty spirit to deceive you into thinking that the
> above obviously kooky examples were good science. That kind of science
> would pare no fruit; namely, you would not find a system of proofs nor
> a set laws in it. Is there such a science? Just one?
>
I fail to see how your analogy applies to evolutionary theory. Gathering
evidence about ancient life is more like forensic science, gathering
information in the present in order to infer things about the past.
Evolution is the best theory that explains the evidence. At this time, it is
the *only* scientific theory that can explain the evidence. If you have
another one, then please present it along with supporting evidence. Remember
that you have to account for why evolution has done such a good job so far
of explaining the evidence we have and making predictions.
> In evolution we say the last thing first. That is, the first premise
> is that there is no basis for the subject (a type of magical mishap.)
> It says that because it's philosophy.
>
Evolution is not a philosophy. Evolution is a fact.
-Rubystars
vj...@ev1.net
X-To: Edward L. Mincher
On Sun 3 Mar 2002 20:09, Edward L. Mincher left a msg about
"Intelligent Design - a nonscientific post", under a 1 year supply of
Bronto Chow.
ELM> Evolution runs from God and science; namely, it's not a
ELM> science.
That's shameful! Now please state the theory of creationism.
| 10 2 | vjunc
| DR PEPPER | @
| 4 | ev1.net
Chris Thompson
>
>
> Hi, Rubystars
>
> >It deals with the creation, not the creator
>
> Running. Most certainly just read a few posts here or anywhere.
>
> >Now understanding that, (if, indeed, you do), how can you say that
> the theory of evolution is not science?
>
> If a scientist told me there was no Wonder Woman and then opened my TV
> set and showed me that it was only wires and circuits. Or a chemists
> showed me that there was no Shakespeare because of the chemical
> composition of the ink. That science might be good, but it would be a
> science of poverty. Knowledge without faith leads too poverty because
> faith is not blind.
Your examples are contradictory. Howeverm the first one is quite
applicable. Do _you_ believe that all those characters you see on your
tv screen are actually little people inside the box, behind the glass?
Your second example is flawed, as you present it. Your analogy is
trying to say (I believe) that since the Bard's works exist, there must
have been a creator; since the earth exists, it must have been created.
Here is the solution: yes, Hamlet exists. Since Hamlet exists, we
examine evidence to determine what brought it about. We look at written
histories, newspapers of the time, works by contemporaries. We read the
play carefully to look for the influence of other authors, or indeed,
whether someone else penned the play.
Based on the evidence, we conclude that Hamlet was indeed written a few
hundred years ago by someone named William Shakespeare.
We don't just stop and say "This was created". We look at the process
and all the characteristics of our object of study. In short, and to
repeat myself, we examine the evidence.
There is no evidence that we were simply created. There is ample
evidence- literally, mountains of evidence- that live evolved on this
planet.
Chris
>
(snip)
Edward L. Mincher
<<<snip>>>
A species comes about almost instantaneously (a few thousand years or
so) and remains stable until its extinction. This is what the fossil
records tell us "ton after fossil ton" – each and every time, see any
hard-core evolutionist.
>I fail to see how your analogy applies
You will not find a single Sir Isaac Newton is evolution, you will not
find a system of proofs in evolution, you will not find a set of laws
in evolution, and you will not find science in evolution because it's
philosophy.
Simple scientific principles work. Take proof by induction or just
flip a coin and count the heads and tails. Then lie under a tree and
let the apple of increasing complexity drop. Asked why.
But science won't set you free. Jesus says, "Pay attention, come to
me; listen, and you will live. I shall make an everlasting covenant
with you in fulfillment of the favors promised to David."
Regards,
Eddy
Faith is based upon something -- the evidence of things not seen. To
have faith, we must have evidence. Faith is not blind. We can know the
invisible by seeing the visible. We can see the trees bend and know
there is wind. We can see the moon reflect light and know the sun is
shining. We can see man, and know there is something beyond.
"The supernatural is the natural not yet understood."
Elbert Hubbard
Rubystars
"Edward L. Mincher" <iedd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6dd271a4.02030...@posting.google.com...
> >looking at the fossil record
>
> A species comes about almost instantaneously (a few thousand years or
> so) and remains stable until its extinction. This is what the fossil
> hard-core evolutionist.
>
There are many transitional forms in the fossil record that have
characteristics intermediate between well known groups. Cynodonts come to
mind first. You might also look up living examples: Spiny Echidna, or maybe
a Platypus. Wow, mammals that lay eggs, imagine that! They're called
monotremes. There are even transitional fossils for human ancestors, though
the closest surviving relatives we have today are chimpanzees and bonobos.
Of course, each species is "fully formed" as if they weren't, they wouldn't
be passing on any offspring.
> >I fail to see how your analogy applies
>
> You will not find a single Sir Isaac Newton is evolution, you will not
> find a system of proofs in evolution, you will not find a set of laws
> in evolution, and you will not find science in evolution because it's
> philosophy.
>
It's not philosophy. It's a scientific theory based on physical evidence.
Philosophy deals with ideas, not physical evidence.
> Simple scientific principles work. Take proof by induction or just
> flip a coin and count the heads and tails. Then lie under a tree and
> let the apple of increasing complexity drop. Asked why.
>
Or find the entire geologic column.
> But science won't set you free. Jesus says, "Pay attention, come to
> me; listen, and you will live. I shall make an everlasting covenant
> with you in fulfillment of the favors promised to David."
>
Why are you going off topic to the rest of your post? I am a Christian, and
I don't need you to convert me to whatever form of Christianity you believe
in.
-Rubystars
Edward L. Mincher
Based on the number one evolutionary theory we come and go unchanged
very quickly.
....notable fact observed in the fossil record. That is, when a new
species appears in the record it usually does so abruptly and then
apparently remains stable for as long as the record of that species
lasts. MS Encarta 96
Were going in unchanged and end unchanged (stable for as long as the
record...)
Although these proposed periods of rapid change would be abrupt only
in terms of the geological time scale and would actually occur over
periods of thousands of years... MS Encarta 96
If we look at the sexual complexity of women, it becomes apparent that
in a slow evolutionary environment she needs a few more billions years
of evolution.
>It's not philosophy. It's a scientific theory based on physical
evidence.
>Philosophy deals with ideas, not physical evidence.
There is no science in evolution because it begins with the assumption
that there is no basis for the subject. This is the last thing a
science would say because when you do you can't to science anymore. In
fact, the entire study is based on its initial assumption.
Best regards,
Eddy
There are set before you fire and water; to whichever you choose,
stretch forth your hand. Before man are life and death, whichever he
chooses shall be given him. Immense is the wisdom of the LORD; he is
mighty in power, and all-seeing. The eyes of God see all he has made;
he understands man's every deed. No man does he command to sin, to
none does he give strength for lies. NAB Sirach 15:16
Rand's Email
this thread that I started.
This implies that it's either-or: knowledge is incompatiblie with faith, so
we must choose one or the other. I think that's nonsense. Truth is truth:
if we find ourselves thinking that there is an incompatibility between our
religious faith and our devotion to scientific truth, then we have some how
misunderstood the nature of one or the other. Einstein had it right:
"Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind."
>>
>> Why are you going off topic to the rest of your post? I am a Christian, and
>> I don't need you to convert me to whatever form of Christianity you believe
>> in.
>>
>> -Rubystars
>
> Based on the number one evolutionary theory we come and go unchanged
> very quickly.
>
> ....notable fact observed in the fossil record. That is, when a new
> species appears in the record it usually does so abruptly and then
> apparently remains stable for as long as the record of that species
> lasts. MS Encarta 96
As if a mass-market lowest-common-denominator encyclopedia was a good
source.
>
> Were going in unchanged and end unchanged (stable for as long as the
> record...)
>
> Although these proposed periods of rapid change would be abrupt only
> in terms of the geological time scale and would actually occur over
> periods of thousands of years... MS Encarta 96
>
> If we look at the sexual complexity of women, it becomes apparent that
> in a slow evolutionary environment she needs a few more billions years
> of evolution.
>
>> It's not philosophy. It's a scientific theory based on physical
> evidence.
>> Philosophy deals with ideas, not physical evidence.
>
> There is no science in evolution because it begins with the assumption
> that there is no basis for the subject. This is the last thing a
> science would say because when you do you can't to science anymore. In
> fact, the entire study is based on its initial assumption.
Nonsense. Evolution begins with the observation, confirmed by comparative
zoology, the fossil record, and more recently comparative DNA sequencing,
that all living things are organized in a classification hierarchy of
successive differentiations from a common root. This hierarchy is "real",
not arbitrary, because we get the same hierarchy whether we classify by
bones, DNA, or any other set of inheritable characteristics. The most
straightforward explanation of this hierarchy is that all living things are
descended from a common ancestor.
If that is so, the next question is how did all the families, genera, and
species become different from each other. The theory of evolution proposes
two mechanisms, mutation and natural selection, to account for this. It
makes lots of falsifiable predictions about the outcomes of laboratory
experiments that expose short-lived species like bacteria to selection
regims, and about what we can expect to find (and not find) in the fossil
record. The theory predicts that we will continue to find that the "tree of
life" is a true hierarchy, that we will not find "mix and match" traits
being shared between branches that have diverged. Coniferous plants will
never be found producing flowers, because flowers are an evolutionary
advance that happened after the angiosperms and the gymnosperms
differentiated. And so on through myriads of detailed predictions. The
theory also predicts that the chronology of the fossil record should be
consistent with the successive branchings of the tree of life - mammals
became differentiated from reptiles before the different families of mammals
became distinct from each other, etc.
Evolution is a scientific theory because it is naturalistic, empirical, and
makes objectively testable predictions about what we will and will not see
in nature and in the lab. There is a nearly universal consensus in the
scientific community that evolution passes those tests.
On the other hand, to say that every species is an individual, special
creation by an inscrutable Creator not only is not science, it denies the
very possibility of scientific explanation. If everything in the universe
is the product of the Creator's arbitrary will, then what point is there in
even trying to understand it? The explanations are located in a place where
we by definition have no hope of finding them.
Nick Keighley
> "Rubystars" <windst...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message > news:<a6427f$ar29m$4...@ID-63471.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "Edward L. Mincher" <iedd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:6dd271a4.02030...@posting.google.com...
> > > >looking at the fossil record
> > >
> > > A species comes about almost instantaneously (a few thousand years or
> > > so) and remains stable until its extinction. This is what the fossil
> > > records tell us "ton after fossil ton" - each and every time, see any
> > > hard-core evolutionist.
what does "remains stable" mean? I was under the impression that
species
changed over time. This is one reason why there has to be one (or a
small
number?) of "model" fossil specimums to be the pattern for a species.
> > > >I fail to see how your analogy applies
> > >
> > > You will not find a single Sir Isaac Newton is evolution,
Darwin?
> > > [...] you will not find a system of proofs in evolution,
nor in any other science. Newton never *proved* his theory of gravity.
> > > [...] you will not find a set of laws in evolution,
there's a lot of math in modern evolutionary biology.
Laws
- natural selection
- central dogam of genetics (genotype->phenotype)
> > > [...] and you will not find science in evolution because it's
> > > philosophy.
> >
> > It's not philosophy. It's a scientific theory based on physical evidence.
> > Philosophy deals with ideas, not physical evidence.
> Based on the number one evolutionary theory we come and go unchanged
> very quickly.
>
> ....notable fact observed in the fossil record. That is, when a new
> species appears in the record it usually does so abruptly and then
> apparently remains stable for as long as the record of that species
> lasts. MS Encarta 96
nonsense.
> Were going in unchanged and end unchanged (stable for as long as the
> record...)
>
> Although these proposed periods of rapid change would be abrupt only
> in terms of the geological time scale and would actually occur over
> periods of thousands of years... MS Encarta 96
>
> If we look at the sexual complexity of women, it becomes apparent that
> in a slow evolutionary environment she needs a few more billions years
> of evolution.
what? Could you expand on that. I read this two ways:-
1) women are too sexually complex (whatever *that* means!) to have
evolved
in only a few million years.
2) women are sexually not complex enough (how do you measure this?)
but
give 'em a few more billion years and they'll get it right.
ok. lets get the PC stuff out of the way first. How do men's sexual
complexity
stack up? We ok?
1) is easy, all the *other* mamals seem to have roughly the same
"sexual complexity" so female HS *has* *had* billions of years to "get
it right"
2) what exactly is wrong with womens "sexual complexity"
We demand rigidly defined definitions. With metrics.
> >It's not philosophy. It's a scientific theory based on physical
> >evidence.
> >Philosophy deals with ideas, not physical evidence.
>
> There is no science in evolution because it begins with the assumption
> that there is no basis for the subject.
what? I'd absolutly and fundamentally disagree with this. If I could
work out what it meant... Who assumed there was "no basis for the
subject"? Did he
explain what "no basis for the subject" meant? Could you explain.
> [...] This is the last thing a
> science would say because when you do you can't to science anymore. In
> fact, the entire study is based on its initial assumption.
*** OUT OF CHEESE ERROR <brain reloading>
--
Nick Keighley
Fortran is like a shark, very old and effective. --Tor Rustad
Michael Painter
<snip>
> > > A species comes about almost instantaneously (a few thousand years or
> > > so) and remains stable until its extinction. This is what the fossil
> > > records tell us "ton after fossil ton" - each and every time, see any
> > > hard-core evolutionist.
>
> very quickly.
>
> ....notable fact observed in the fossil record. That is, when a new
> species appears in the record it usually does so abruptly and then
> apparently remains stable for as long as the record of that species
> lasts. MS Encarta 96
>
Please give some information about these totally new creatures that showed
up in only a few thousand years.
Instantaeous to biologist and geologists usually mean a few hundred thousand
years. Abrupt, rapid, fast usually means over a million or so.