24 Jun 05
2 edits
Originally posted by Alpha10Nice post... smartest thing you've said so far.
Seems Rwingett is getting a little mad. I'm sorry Rwingett. You do know everything and I am wrong. I shouldn't have an opinion, because what you say goes.
As for your other posts, I think I've lost another 6 or 9 IQ points.
RX
Edit! I wrote this post when your post was blank. I've also lost another 3 IQ points after reading your edit, thank you.
24 Jun 05
Originally posted by PhlabibitI have to edit alot. Sometimes the page comes up the same as it was, and won't allow me to see the latest post, so I have to edit or post. Seems a smarter idea to edit than to post.
Nice post... smartest thing you've said so far.
As for your other posts, I think I've lost another 6 or 9 IQ points.
RX
[b]Edit! I wrote this post when your post was blank. I've also lost another 3 IQ points after reading your edit, thank you.[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 Jun 05
Originally posted by telerionMicroevolution does not involve frogs turning into princes.
Descent with modification is an empirical fact. Thus evolution is a fact.
You need to distinguish between evolution and the "theory of evolution." It's analogous to distinguishing between gravity and "gravitational theory."
I am sure Frog was refering to macroevolution.
24 Jun 05
Originally posted by Alpha10Have you ever read an introductory text on evolution? If so, which one? I ask because you are obviously completely ignorant about evolutionary theory (like dj2becker and CalJust ignorant) and the evidence for it. If you'd like to remedy this intellectual defect of yours, I can list any number of great sources (e.g., "What Evolution Is", by Mayr).
Seems Rwingett is getting a little mad. I'm sorry Rwingett. You do know everything and I am wrong. I shouldn't have an opinion, because what you say goes.
24 Jun 05
Originally posted by Alpha10forget about any higher power for a second.
I agree with you on some things. My skepticism comes from the fact that, the bacteria that evolved had to come from somewhere. Did they evolve from something else? If so, where did the previous come from. If there is a higher power, where did it originate?
your question about 'where did the previous come from' reminds me of dj2's rantings about life developing from 'nonlife' (there is a whole thread of his moose droppings lying around somewhere if you want to take a look at it). personally, i don't see why life developing from nonlife should be so hard to buy into. the defining features of a 'living thing' are really not very mind-blowing: it must be some ordered system that perseveres against the tendency to disorder, and it must reproduce. the smallest living thing you could think of would be comprised of very few atoms. the probability of these nonliving atoms coming together to create life is admittedly very small. once this improbable event occurs, conditions must also be such that life can continue to exist and evolve -- also quite improbable. so just when you are thinking it's hopelessly improbable, in steps the Anthropic Principle and you realize no matter how vast the depths of improbability (barring impossibility), the improbable is still possible.
even as a skeptic i would admit that 'hopelessly improbable' things happen regularly. evolution, to me, makes sense, and that is why i give it a fighting chance. that some arbitrary creator created everything and that the anti-creator planted fossils and other evolutionary evidence to dupe us into thinking evolution makes sense does not strike any chords with me.
24 Jun 05
Originally posted by bbarrThank you. I will be sure to read that. And you're right. I do know little about evolution and evolutionary theory. What I do know I learned this past year in high school from school books. I am allowed my ideas and opinions, though, and I would appreciate it if people would respect them goddamn it.
Have you ever read an introductory text on evolution? If so, which one? I ask because you are obviously completely ignorant about evolutionary theory (like dj2becker and CalJust ignorant) and the evidence for it. If you'd like to remedy this intellectual defect of yours, I can list any number of great sources (e.g., "What Evolution Is", by Mayr).
24 Jun 05
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhere did the "non life" come from? Where did it originate? Why does it matter if we evolved or not? It is nothing more than something for people to argue about, and a piece of knowledge.
forget about any higher power for a second.
your question about 'where did the previous come from' reminds me of dj2's rantings about life developing from 'nonlife' (there is a whole thread of his moose droppings lying around s ...[text shortened]... king evolution makes sense does not strike any chords with me.
24 Jun 05
Originally posted by Alpha10Why does it matter if we evolved or not?
Where did the "non life" come from? Where did it originate? Why does it matter if we evolved or not? It is nothing more than something for people to argue about, and a piece of knowledge.
i agree that my ability to type this message right now hinges little on whether i evolved or whether i was created. either way i am as i am. however, i think discussing the validity of evolution is important because of its fundamental ramifications.
i also agree you have a point when you say that evolution will never be proven 100% one way or the other; but knowledge does not necessarily require absolutes. if it did, skepticism would be the norm and we would never know anything. i merrily rule things out that make little sense. that advances my knowledge. i disagree that evolution is just an excuse for argument.
Where did the "non life" come from?
i'm not convinced this question is relevant.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderSo is macroevolution a fact?
I regard "debating" evolution with someone like dj2becker, as roughly akin to "debating" someone who believes the Earth is flat; no amount of scientific evidence will suffice. Indeed, he rejects the very basis of science: the premise that natural phenomena should be explained by natural causes. As his peculiar views on Scripture require that ...[text shortened]... evolution."
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/preface.html
'Nuff said.
24 Jun 05
Originally posted by Alpha10The living matter arose from non-living matter. If you ask where the non-living matter came from then you've gone way outside the scope of the theory of evolution. If we reject a scientific theory because it cannot explain everything, then we are left with no science.
I agree with you on some things. My skepticism comes from the fact that, the bacteria that evolved had to come from somewhere. Did they evolve from something else? If so, where did the previous come from. If there is a higher power, where did it originate?
You see, by this reasoning every scientific theory that is predicated on some natural thing must be rejected. Take the theory of gravity for example. We still not found a graviton, the particle used to explain gravity in quantum mechanics. Let's say that we did find a graviton. Should we reject quantum mechanics until it can demonstrate where the graviton came from? Must every scientific theory independently answer for the entire chain of causation to be valid?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 Jun 05
Originally posted by telerionClearly there would not be a creation-evolution controversy if it were universally agreed and adhered to that evolution meant solely “a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time.” There is a creation-evolution controversy (a major one at that) precisely because evolution means far more than what TO leads its readers to believe here. The controversy exists because evolution—the full-fledged manifestation of evolution (including Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution)—is for many a metaphysical belief that elevates the philosophy of materialistic naturalism (hailing purely natural laws and processes, including time and chance, as our “creators&rdquo😉, and dismissing God (a Creator with purpose) as an irrelevant product of superstition.
Descent with modification is an empirical fact. Thus evolution is a fact.
You need to distinguish between evolution and the "theory of evolution." It's analogous to distinguishing between gravity and "gravitational theory."
After all, why is it that so many people are offended by the theory of evolution to the point of fiercely opposing it? Why is it that emotions run so high and intellectual battles persist? Because of ignorance? Hardly! Although there will always be uninformed people on both sides of any dispute, a great many well-educated people in science, mathematics and other disciplines are among those who disagree adamantly with the precepts of evolution. Evolution is offensive because it is bad science and is as equally bad a metaphysic—in short, on close examination, evolution fails on all counts. There is a controversy precisely because of clashing metaphysics—the same type of conflict that exists when Christian theology comes face-to-face with Islam, Buddhism, or even atheism, to name just a few popular counter-Christian belief systems.
Despite all of this, TO promotes the view that the creation-evolution controversy is a war of ‘religion versus science’—‘emotion versus reason.’ This view is held mostly out of ignorance, but there are undoubtedly those within the TO organization that understand the matter well enough to know better. However, TO does very little to educate its audience on the philosophical foundation of its position. This is deception by omission.
refer to:http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp