CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Religion A-Z › I weep for Ohio Chewers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I weep for Ohio Chewers - Page 2

post #51 of 56
Thread Starter 
Well, yeah. I have faith that if I drop my waterbottle, it'll fall. Not only will it fall, but it'll accelerate by 9.81m/s every second. Every time. Why do I have faith in this? 'Cuz it works, mate! Put a satellite in orbit assuming this and it actually orbits instead of flinging off into space or crashing to earth. To say "science is just faith too" is just semantics some people use to lend matters of true faith false scientific credence.

All of Burke's examples have been soundly shot down a hundred times along with the people who wrote them. I'm not going to do so again, I'm going to cook breakfast instead, but I'll say this: evolution is most certainly falsifiable. A confirmed 3 billion year old human skeleton or dinosaur and human skeletons clearly buried at the same time would blow evolutionary theory as it stands out of the water. As for the parts (feathers, retinas, whatever) being useless until all the other parts come together, that's a bit of misdirection. Who says feathers didn't show up as a form of successful insulation which, coupled with hollow bones, combined to make rather useful gliders and flyers thousands of generations down the road? Or to use an example I've read, removing parts from a mousetrap leaves you with something that isn't much of a mousetrap but makes a fine tie clip.
post #52 of 56
Seabass,

You assume things apriori. I'm trying to get people to stop doing that, regardless of whether I'm right or wrong. You ever hear the phrase "garbage in, garbage out?"
post #53 of 56
However, if it were taught the way Adam describes it (i.e. we don't know how it happened but it did) I would be very satisfied. It ain't taught like that. It's taught like this: "Evolution created living organisms through non-living material..."

You're using a definition of evolution which provides a means to the end of your argument. You imbue evolution with the characeristics of a diety; evolution created this, evolution planned that, and so on. This is simply not the case. Nor is it taught as such.

Evolution:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986(and stolen from talkorigins by me)

Evolution is not Grand Unification Theory. Natural selection partially explains the process by which living organisms change to create new—different— organisms. Abiogenisis is the process by which organic matter is produced from inorganic matter. Mr. Denton's irreducible complexity is immaterial to validity of these concepts. And evolution as a whole.

Your second point puts my words out of context. I did not and do not have time to explain the erroneus misconception which is the second point of your first post.

Talkorigins has a well-written <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html" target="_blank">Introduction toEvolutionary Biology</a>.

They also explain, and with far more clarity than I could, that <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html" target="_blank">mutations are not harmful</a>.

Your third point, while resting on the emporer's new laurel of one and two, is the most ridiculous of all. I've no time for context-free quotes plucked from some poorly-researched creationist website.

"The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs."

What illiterate dingbat wrote this? It is insulting to both science and the English language. It hurts my eyes. A totally new animal? new organs? this is rubbish.

The fossil record is not perfect. But really good evidence exists.
post #54 of 56
This is not a priori. You sound like David Hume. I should have made lunch.
post #55 of 56
I don't imbue "evolution" with the force of a deity. Textbooks do.

Arguing that evolution is "change" and then using sweeping generalizations of change is the fundamental semantic fallacy of the whole shebang. Change=evolution but does not equal creation. Somehow, the word evolution has come to imbue as many varied characteristics as the word "God." Stop equating change with creation. It's the pepper moth fallacy over and over again.

Sorry if I misquoted you. I wasn't sure exactly what you meant. I just noticed you didn't answer my theorem. The point is there have to have been an awful lot of mutations for some of these theories to work out. Punctuated equilibrium is not the answer.

To say a lizard turned into a bird sounds like rubbish to me... but to each their own. Keep the faith! wink
post #56 of 56
What does evolution have to do with creation?

It sounds like the righties are unable to have a discussion about the matter at hand, which is par for the course.

And life springing from inorganic matter is still more believable than it coming from Big Sky Daddy.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religion A-Z
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Religion A-Z › I weep for Ohio Chewers