8 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnz+++++++++++++++++++++++
Hoyle was an idiot though. Ask Stephen Hawkins.
As for "evolutionists distancing themselves recently, well, this is patently false. Darwin did it, in "Origin". Since them we've came a long way. Dawkins discusses numerous hypotheses, all under investigation, in his books.
You should read them.
Hoyle was an idiot though. Ask Stephen Hawkins.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It would be interesting to hear Hawkings talk about Hoyle. However, this doesn't mean we should easily discredit everything the man says.
I don't think much of Stephen Hawking's idea that a Computer Virus qualifies to be defined as a life form.
Even a brilliant guy can get caught saying something a bit idiotic.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As for "evolutionists distancing themselves recently, well, this is patently false. Darwin did it, in "Origin". Since them we've came a long way. Dawkins discusses numerous hypotheses, all under investigation, in his books.
You should read them.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I plan to.
I already said I am not in favor of scrapping the theory of Evolution altogether.
I hear a number of cries that it would be wrong to dump Evolution because it doesn't have all the answers. I agree with that.
Do you think you skeptics provide the same lattitude for Intelligent Design ????
By no means, no how!
No such lattitude that you ask for for the sake of your Evolution Theory do you intend to recipricate with concerning Intelligent Design.
I don't think you have any intention of practicing the same open-mindedness towards Intelligent Design.
I expect you or someone to respond with justifications that the same lattitude should not be respected towards ie, Michael Behe or other serious Intelligent Design theorists.
That's different. Right? Throw out the baby with the bathwater. Evolution's the only game in town. Right?
Originally posted by jaywillSo why did you equate them to two versions of creationism which are not only beliefs rather than scientific theories but two separate contradictory beliefs that do not come under the same umbrella?
No. I am saying that both areas of inquiry come under the overall umbrella of Evolution.
There are those apologists who are careful to restrict Evolution to only biological matters.
And what do you mean by 'biological matters'? I have already pointed out that virus' are not living but nobody can deny that they evolve. I would call virus' biological. The question is whether to term pre-life, self replicating chemicals biological.
There are those Evolutionists who are more general to include pre-biotic and biotic aspects as all wrapped up in a idea into which they place much hope - Evolution.
Then there is much of the unscientifically trained public who have been inundated with ideas that both pre-biotic and biotic areas are both Evolution.
So some members of the public do not realize that there is a difference between "the Theory of Evolution" and the word "evolution".
If you are one of those members of the public - which you seem to be - then let me explain it:
Evolution describes a process which comes into effect in any system which has certain characteristics (Reproduction, Variation and Competition) and has been shown to take place in various systems even in computer simulations.
The Theory of Evolution is a theory which states that life evolved and is continuing to evolve via the process of evolution. It obviously can only cover the part of lifes history where evolution was taking place ie there was Reproduction, Variation and Competition. Whether or not the entities that were engaged in Reproduction, Variation and Competition when it first began fall under the definition of the word 'life' is not really important. What started the Reproduction, Variation and Competition is not covered in the Theory of Evolution.
Read again Dawson's comment written around 1890:
"Evolution sometimes professes to explain the origin of things; but of this it knows absolutely nothing ... This is ADMITTED in terms by Darwin and his followers, BUT CONSTANTLY OVERLOOKED IN THEIR REASONING, IN WHICH EVOLUTION IS SPOKEN OF AS IF IT WERE, OR COULD BE AN EFFICIENT CAUSE."
My Emphasis.[/b]
So Dawson admits that Darwin does not make the claim, he also admits that he knows that Darwin does not make the claim. He does not state that the 'unscientifically trained public' believes otherwise. So he is not supporting your view.
If you agree with Dawson that Darwin and his followers are overlooking something in their reasoning then make that claim and show it rather than trying to support a claim that you have no evidence for whatsoever.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead+++++++++++++++++++++
So why did you equate them to two versions of creationism which are not only beliefs rather than scientific theories but two separate contradictory beliefs that do not come under the same umbrella?
[b]There are those apologists who are careful to restrict Evolution to only biological matters.
And what do you mean by 'biological matters'? I have al t rather than trying to support a claim that you have no evidence for whatsoever.[/b]
If you agree with Dawson that Darwin and his followers are overlooking something in their reasoning then make that claim and show it rather than trying to support a claim that you have no evidence for whatsoever.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I already did. Go read the preface to the book subtitled "...From Pre-biotic Soup to Modern Humans".
You'll have to do the work this time. But I quoted the man on a previous post up there.
And you must have missed that the author intends to show how competition and survival mechanisms were involved before life arose.
He also talked about our pre-biotic inheritance. In other words the mechanisms of Evolution cover pre and post biotic graduations of lifeless matter to modern humans.
It is all Evolution - to this author.
Originally posted by jaywillAnd I would agree with the author (if he is talking about prebiotic systems where Reproduction, Variation and Competition are taking place).
He also talked about our pre-biotic inheritance. In other words the mechanisms of Evolution cover pre and post biotic graduations of lifeless matter to modern humans.
It is all Evolution - to this author.
I doubt that he makes the claim that those systems came from previous systems that did not have Reproduction, Variation and Competition via the process of evolution.
Also you didnt read my post (or didnt understand it.). I explained the difference between the process known as evolution and the theory known as the Theory of Evolution. As far as I know the pre-biotic stage is covered only by hypothesis not a Theory even though it is hypothesized that the same mechanism known as evolution took place.
2 edits
So Don't Scrap Evolution because there is a gap unexplained in the theory.
But Intellgent Design SCRAP to the ground and shout about the "god of the gaps". Discard it. Nip it in the bud before the divine foot gets in the door. Shield our public school children even from exposure to it in the classroom (USA).
Be fair with Evolution and reject unscientific Intelligent Design because it doesn't have all the answers.
That's what we have here from these defenders of Evolution posters.
Originally posted by Penguin++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think we have [b]always distanced ourselves from extending the scope of the theory over the problem of the origin of life (the first self-replicators). So the initial challenge still stands.
I think I need to see the full context of that Hoyle quote (was he a biologist?). You could use it to discredit most of science: "gravitational theories lack a ...[text shortened]... tly how that happened, we should throw out all of science. Does that sound like a good idea?[/b]
You could use it to discredit most of science: "gravitational theories lack a proper foundation because we don't know what causes mass". In the end, everything we know is based on the assumption that the universe came into existance and, since we don't know exactly how that happened, we should throw out all of science. Does that sound like a good idea?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Does it sound like a good idea to throw out Intelligent Design because it leaves some matters still to be researched and explained?
How come you Evos want more and more and more time, but don't want to give some moments to ID, or Abrupt Appearance, or Creation Science ?
You want ALL the lattitude and want to give non to others. Evolve already !
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillThere isn't a gap unexplained in the Theory. We have explained and explained and explained that to you and you still repeat the lie. The gap you are referring to is OUTSIDE the theory.
So Don't Scrap Evolution because there is a gap unexplained in the theory.
But [b]Intellgent Design SCRAP to the ground and shout about the "god of the gaps". Discard it. Nip it in the bud before the divine foot gets in the door. Shield our public school children even from exposure to it in the classroom (USA). Be fair with Evolution and reject unscientific Intelligent Design because it doesn't have all the answers.
That's what we have here from these defenders of Evolution posters.[/b]
Intelligent Design doesn't need to be scrapped because it isn't a scientific theory in the first place and never has been.
Intelligent Design as far as I know doesn't have any answers, claims not to have any answers and further more has failed to show that there is even a question that requires an answer.
It seems your only real answer to the thread title of "Evolutions' fatal flaw" is "the problem with evolution is that its supporters don't like Intelligent Design".
[edit] Do you think Scientology should also be taught in the class room?
Originally posted by jaywillPossibly because none of those things are science.
[b]++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You could use it to discredit most of science: "gravitational theories lack a proper foundation because we don't know what causes mass". In the end, everything we know is based on the assumption that the universe came into existance and, since we don't know exactly how that happened, we should throw out all of science. D ...[text shortened]... cience ?
You want ALL the lattitude and want to give non to others. Evolve already !
2 edits
Now let's be realistic.
Suppose tomorrow some laboratory somewhere announces that they have conclusively been successful in producing organic life from lifeless material.
In the subsquent news paper articles and discussions to circle the globe excitedly, how MANY do you think will make no mention of the word - "EVOLUTION?"
Come on now. Who do you think is going to be dancing in the streets at MIT, Harvard, Oxford, NASA, etc?
Do you think Evo's will be yawning "Big deal. Has nothing to do with Darwinism or Evolution?"
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillAnd who has denied any of that or are you incapable of comprehending basic English?
Now let's be realistic.
Suppose tomorrow some laboratory somewhere announces that they have conclusively been successful in producing organic life from lifeless material.
In the subsquent news paper articles and discussions to circle the globe excitedly, how MANY do you think will make no mention of the word - [b]"EVOLUTION?"
Come on now. Who do ...[text shortened]... nk Evo's will be yawning "Big deal. Has nothing to do with Darwinism or Evolution?"[/b]
Maybe you should be realistic and either admit that you are wrong, stupid or intentionally not reading what we post.
3 edits
Originally posted by Jake Ellison+++++++++++++++++++++
Possibly because none of those things are science.
Possibly because none of those things are science.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Darwin didn't know anything about genetics. Why don't you throw out his theory because of this lack of scientific knowledge on his part of genetics?
"In Darwin's day the science of genetics had not yet been born. The discrete units of heredity called genes were first identified by Gregor Mendel in Darwin's lifetime but did not become widely known until the 20th century. Darwin's vague but prescient notion of random fluctuations in the hereditary material nonetheless turned out to be an
approxomation of Mendel's more precise concept of genetic variation, and so Mendelian genetics could be incorporated into the theory of natural selection without too much difficulty. The fusion of the two disciplines from the early 1920's through the late 1950's is often referred to as Neo-Darwinism or the modern synthisis."
[Franscisco J. Ayala, "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, Sept, 1978. pg 56]
Do you throw out his theory with the same rigor?
Why throw out ID as non-science today when future disciplines may be brought into bear upon its authenticity?
You allowed Darwinism time. You don't want to allow ID the same kind of time.
Originally posted by jaywillDarwin was a scientist and his ideas were scientific. His theories have been allowed to mature into a fully fledged scientific Theory.
Darwin didn't know anything about genetics. Why don't you throw out his theory because of this lack of scientific knowledge on his part of genetics?
Why throw out ID as non-science today when future disciplines may be brought into bear upon its authenticity?
You allowed Darwinism time. You don't want to allow ID the same kind of time.
ID is not science nor authentic.
At best it could be called an unproven hypothesis. All the evidence put forward so far for the hypothesis has been shown to be invalid so it is basically a hypothesis without any foundation.
You want it taught to school children in the classroom as science when it is no such thing.
For example I could state a hypothesis that maybe there is an alien spacecraft on the other side of the sun. Should we teach that as science in school too? Should we also lie to the children that we have evidence for the spacecraft when that is clearly not the case?
ID supporters make two basic claims:
1. It might be possible to show that current life forms could not have got to where from simpler life forms solely via the process of evolution.
2. There is scientific evidence to support such a claim.
No 1. is a hypothesis.
No 2. is false.
I would not object strongly to 1. being taught in the classroom alongside my spaceship hypothesis but what they wanted to teach was 2. which is basically a lie.
Originally posted by jaywillThats ridiculous. Darwin was using scientific knowleage avaliable at the time. ID is not, and is not science. It is religion.
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++
Possibly because none of those things are science.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Darwin didn't know anything about genetics. Why don't you throw out his theory because of this lack of scientific knowledge on his part of genetics?
"In Darwin's day the science of genetics had not yet been born. The discrete units of h ...[text shortened]...
You allowed Darwinism time. You don't want to allow ID the same kind of time.
5 edits
Intelligent Design doesn't need to be scrapped because it isn't a scientific theory in the first place and never has been.
These are good assertions. It has a kind of authoritative tone to it too.
I think you're a Pseudo Buddhist. The appearance of a design is an illusion.
Your boy Dawkins writes in page one of The Blind Watchmaker - "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
At least some intelligent scientist are going to explore "Just maybe they WERE designed." Just that much they want to explore.
Fortunately some intelligent people are not going to swallow this religious view of yours and pass it on as the only viable scientific attitude.
Originally posted by jaywillAnd I would have no problem with scientists doing just that. But that is not what supporters of ID are doing.
At least some intelligent scientist are going to explore "Just maybe they WERE designed." Just that much they want to explore.
What ID supporters are doing is attempting to discredit evolution using non-scientific methods including faked results and other lies, for religious reasons.
You for example want it taught in school before the 'investigation' has even started.