1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhoa, Scott!
Kelly,
I was lying in bed last night thinking about this. Please, answer me this question.
Based upon the fact that you believe in biblical creationism, and have absolutely no regard for the contradictory scientific evidence (creationists (or any deeply religious person) believe irrespective of evidence, correct?), what, precisely, is wrong with ...[text shortened]... of life on earth. So what's so wrong with it other than that [b]you don't believe in it?[/b]
I consider myself to be a “deeply religious person”—though some would no doubt exclude me because I am a monist, and not a supernatural theist (or a creationist)—and I don’t have any problem with science in general or evolution in particular. None. Zip.
I won’t go into a lengthy dissertation—suffice it to say that, for me (as you might recall), science is no more a challenge to my religious aesthetic (because that’s what it is) than it is to my enjoyment of Beethoven, or my doing tai chi... They are in no way contradictory.
Just challenging that “any deeply religious person” thingy... Sorry for the interruption.
EDIT: Maybe subconsciously I just wanted to get one post in, on this thread I've been reading for how many months now?
Originally posted by vistesdSorry, I didn't have you in mind. I guess, I was meaning any deeply religious person which believes in a literal interpretation of their creation story, whether that is the Christian story, or the Maori one, or the Aboriginal "dreamtime", or pagan, or norse, or whatever. The would not endorse the scientific evidence of the planets antiquity, evolution etc, if it did not correspond to their particular creation story.
Whoa, Scott!
I consider myself to be a “deeply religious person”—though some would no doubt exclude me because I am a monist, and not a supernatural theist (or a creationist)—and I don’t have any problem with science in general or evolution in particular. None. Zip.
I won’t go into a lengthy dissertation—suffice it to say that, for me (as you might r ...[text shortened]... y.
Just challenging that “any deeply religious person” thingy... Sorry for the interruption.
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo prob, man. There was no ire in my post. 🙂
Sorry, I didn't have you in mind. I guess, I was meaning any deeply religious person which believes in a literal interpretation of their creation story, whether that is the Christian story, or the Maori one, or the Aboriginal "dreamtime", or pagan, or norse, or whatever. The would not endorse the scientific evidence of the planets antiquity, evolution etc, if it did not correspond to their particular creation story.
Originally posted by KellyJayOk so we have space aliens planting the seeds of life (a bit like the monolith in 2001 planting the seeds of intelligence). That's quite feasible but surely the space aliens are another form of life. So we're back to the same issue. The only way to avoid going round in circles is to either posit a something outside nature (surely this is a good definition of a god) or to see whether nature itself can blindly do the job. It turns out that it can so why bother invoking a god?
You have a strong argument, and it is one I'd almost agree with, but
there is enough wiggle room for me to say no, you cannot say that.
Life requiring a designer does not speaks to how the universe came
into being, it does not require any god, only something able to design
and set in motion the life cycle at some state. This is like going to
a we ...[text shortened]... am responding to key words, a conversation is taking
place, but not between two people.
Kelly[/b]
Penguin.
Kelly said:
==========================================
You predicted the eyes forming before they formed, or are you
claiming you would have before they did? Creationism isn't science
it is a story about a special event, predictions within Christianity if
you settle on its creation story, there are predictions th ...[text shortened]... does what you
want it gets the job done, and if it doesn't break it is good code.
Kelly
===========================================
and I replied:
===========================================
You don't have to predict the feature before it occurs, or even before it is discovered. Einsteins theories of relativity (or one of them at least) was strengthened by observations of starlight during a solar eclipse. However, if the eclipse had happened and observations made before Einstein came up with relativity, the observations would still reinforce relativity and relativity could still be said to predict them. If the stars hadn't appeared to shift their positions, that would have discredited relativity irrespective of when the observations were taken.
===========================================
So I think you were arguing that evolution can't predict because we tend to see the results and then fit evolution to them and I have responded that as we discover new phenomena, we see whether the existing theory can explain them. If it can't be explained through evolution then evolution does not predict it. This can be done after the event without any sleight of hand. So far, in last 150 years, many novel phenomena have been found and Evolution has been found to explain them every time without resorting to the supernatural.
You have then gone on to other topics so I'd like to drag you back and see whether you concede this point.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinI think I'd have to say that evolutionary theory could predict eyes before they evolved, provided that we had knowledge of the presence of light, and we could infer how helpful it would be to see your predators or prey. Ask any evolutionary biologist worth his (or her) salt what's going to happen with antibiotics, and they'll tell you that further MRSA type bacteria are inevitable. We will lose the antibiotic race here, no doubts. Of course, creationists would lead us to believe that God created all species immutable and in their present form - thus MRSA doesn't exist.
Kelly said:
==========================================
You predicted the eyes forming before they formed, or are you
claiming you would have before they did? Creationism isn't science
it is a story about a special event, predictions within Christianity if
you settle on its creation story, there are predictions th does what you
want it gets the job do ...[text shortened]... pics so I'd like to drag you back and see whether you concede this point.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhere do you get this, "Of course, creationists would lead us to believe that God created all species immutable and in their present form - thus MRSA doesn't exist."
I think I'd have to say that evolutionary theory could predict eyes before they evolved, provided that we had knowledge of the presence of light, and we could infer how helpful it would be to see your predators or prey. Ask any evolutionary biologist worth his (or her) salt what's going to happen with antibiotics, and they'll tell you tha ...[text shortened]... that God created all species immutable and in their present form - thus MRSA doesn't exist.
Do you see that in any of my posts, or you have found a verse of
scripture that says "...God created all species immutable..." or are
you just putting words out there and claiming it is a creationist
position so you can beat it down, what is that called what that occurs?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou say that species are immutable whenever you claim that Evolution isn't true.
Where do you get this, "Of course, creationists would lead us to believe that God created all species immutable and in their present form - thus MRSA doesn't exist."
Do you see that in any of my posts, or you have found a verse of
scripture that says "...God created all species immutable..." or are
you just putting words out there and claiming it is a creationist
position so you can beat it down, what is that called what that occurs?
Kelly
Originally posted by PenguinNo, it only means that that ID people do not accept it just 'happened'
Ok so we have space aliens planting the seeds of life (a bit like the monolith in 2001 planting the seeds of intelligence). That's quite feasible but surely the space aliens are another form of life. So we're back to the same issue. The only way to avoid going round in circles is to either posit a something outside nature (surely this is a good definition of ...[text shortened]... elf can blindly do the job. It turns out that it can so why bother invoking a god?
Penguin.
who designed it is another topic of discussion. My point to you was that
simply seeing something that we know was designed does not mean
that we know the designer, only that it just didn't happen. Some
animal nests could be another good example.
Kelly
Originally posted by XanthosNZYou spend a lot of time putting words in my mouth to claim what I
You say that species are immutable whenever you claim that Evolution isn't true.
say isn't true, you should try reading what I write from time to time
as well. I have never claimed that change isn't taking place, you
must have blinders on as much as we have debated this to not
grasp where I have been drawing the lines.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo change happens but Evolution doesn't?
You spend a lot of time putting words in my mouth to claim what I
say isn't true, you should try reading what I write from time to time
as well. I have never claimed that change isn't taking place, you
must have blinders on as much as we have debated this to not
grasp where I have been drawing the lines.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzNOTHING IS WRONG WITH EVOLUTION AS A THEORY!
Kelly,
I was lying in bed last night thinking about this. Please, answer me this question.
Based upon the fact that you believe in biblical creationism, and have absolutely no regard for the contradictory scientific evidence (creationists (or any deeply religious person) believe irrespective of evidence, correct?), what, precisely, is wrong with ...[text shortened]... of life on earth. So what's so wrong with it other than that [b]you don't believe in it?[/b]
Gheesh, my complaint isn't with changes taking place within species
or kinds. I have been saying the same thing forever, the part where
I draw the line isn't small changes, but where it all began. If you
believe in abiogensis where life sprang from non-life and through time
evolution took life from there to here; I have an issue with that. If
you accept life started fully developed in a special event like creation,
the changes still occur. One from what I will refer to as the simple cell
beginning has life getting more and more complex, more cells, new
systems an so on, where there were none before. If life started as
in the creation model, changes still occur, but it is more of a breaking
down splitting into species not a building up into new ones. As
someone reminded me before, evolution does not have direction
where it is moving in a better way, it is only doing what best suits the
conditions of life and the environment. It is easier to modify existing
code that to write a program from scratch which is what we are talking
about when we look at the two different starting points.
Kelly