dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (06/25/85)
Distribution: In article <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> derrick@ut-sally.UUCP (Derrick Hartsock) writes: > >I am interested in ONE piece of evidence that even suggests that Creationism >could have possibly happened. If anybody posts instead something that >knocks evolution and doesn't defend creationism they can be sure of being >Flamed. Now come on, just ONE (1) , that's all I want. Now don't just jump >for the first thing that comes to mind, think awhile. > Any evidence against Evolution is evidence for Creation and vice versa. This point is discussed in depth by the notable evolutionist scholar, Douglas J. Futuyma. "Science On Trial", chapter 11, page 1 "Creation and Evolution, between the two, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not! If they did not, they must have developed from some preexisting species by some process of modification." If you find this difficult to accept, please state the alternative to Creation/Evolution! But since you asked for evidence for Creation, I will just give you Kukuk/Brown's latest evidence which is similar to a past posting of mine. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of energy in the universe, or in any isolated part of it, remains constant. This law states that although energy (or its mass equivalent) can change form, it is not now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have verified this. A corollary of the First Law is that natural processes cannot create energy. Consequently, energy must have been created by some agency or power outside of and independent of the natural universe. If the entire universe is an isolated system, then according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the energy in the universe that is available for useful work has always been decreasing. But as one goes back further in time, the amount of energy available for useful work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe that, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition. It therefore implies that the universe had a beginning. [END Derrick, you are not the first one to ask such a question. What if I were to ask you to give me one piece of evidence that life arose by chance. Would you talk about the Urey/ Miller experiments. Those experiments could just as easily be cited as reasons to believe in special creation. I was flamed for saying that design is evidence of a designer. The replies were filled with the idea that design is a totally subjective description and all existance could just as easily be attributed to chance and natural processes. I did not reply to those arguments, but I believe that now is the time to do so. Sure, design is subjective. But subjectivity is not akin to irrational. I can't believe that a scientist who prides himself in being rational, intelligent, and objective can look at a world that behaves according to certain laws of nature and mathematics, at a race of individuals who can reason, learn, experience a myriad of emotions and argue that all of this can just as reasonably be explained by chance. And, in light of this, you have the gall to ask for a reason to believe in Creation. Please, Derrick, give me one reason to believe in Evolution. Be careful now. Don't give me any subjective answers like commonality of species which can either imply common ancestor or common design. Give me a real solid concrete reason to believe that you and I are accidents and serve no real purpose. Dan
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (06/26/85)
> I did not reply to those arguments, but I believe that now is > the time to do so. Sure, design is subjective. But subjectivity > is not akin to irrational. I can't believe that a scientist > who prides himself in being rational, intelligent, and > objective can look at a world that behaves according to certain > laws of nature and mathematics, at a race of individuals who > can reason, learn, experience a myriad of emotions and argue > that all of this can just as reasonably be explained by chance. > > And, in light of this, you have the gall to ask for a reason > to believe in Creation. Please, Derrick, give me one reason > to believe in Evolution. Be careful now. Don't give me any > subjective answers like commonality of species which can either > imply common ancestor or common design. Give me a real solid > concrete reason to believe that you and I are accidents and > serve no real purpose. > > Dan Evolution does not necessarily imply that `you are an accident' nor does not imply that `you have no purpose'. Nor does it imply that `there was no designer'. Those are metaphysical statements by definition offlimits to science. Would you have things otherwise? Evolution only attempts to describe as much of the mechanism by which the current complexity of life came about as is scientifically possible. Please note that, if evolution is true [I believe it has much essential truth], then the present complexity was there from the beginning, only it was dormant -- exactly like a seed. Science only describes objective mechanisms, not subjective things like `purpose' or `meaning'. As such, it will always be soulless, and its descriptions incomplete. But that does not mean that is wrong -- except when science declares itself to be All That Is. If your difficulty with evolution is that the theory lacks some essential element, then we concur on this point. An independent consciousness can only appear to act as if by chance when scrutinized by a purely objective viewpoint. Why evolution cannot be seen, by Christians, as a description of part of the mechanism God used to make the present complexity, is beyond me. Fundamentalist Christians and Scientific Materialists are so much alike. Tweedledum or Tweedledee? SMASH CAUSALITY!!! -michael
fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) (06/27/85)
> And, in light of this, you have the gall to ask for a reason > to believe in Creation. Please, Derrick, give me one reason > to believe in Evolution. Be careful now. Don't give me any > subjective answers like commonality of species which can either > imply common ancestor or common design. Give me a real solid > concrete reason to believe that you and I are accidents and > serve no real purpose. > > > Dan Dan; I sounds to me that what you are saying is "I believe in creation because I want to, and am now looking for evidence to support what I believe." This ain't the way science works!!! I believe in evolution precisely because it best explains such things as the commonality of features among species. Therefore, I am not looking for "A REASON" to believe in evolutionary theory. Dave Fritzinger PHRI NYC allegra!phri!fritz
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (06/27/85)
>>[derrick@ut-sally.UUCP (Derrick Hartsock)] >> >>I am interested in ONE piece of evidence that even suggests that Creationism >>could have possibly happened. If anybody posts instead something that >>knocks evolution and doesn't defend creationism they can be sure of being >>Flamed. Now come on, just ONE (1) , that's all I want. Now don't just jump >>for the first thing that comes to mind, think awhile. >[dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)] > > Any evidence against Evolution is evidence for Creation and vice > versa. This point is discussed in depth by the notable evolutionist > scholar, Douglas J. Futuyma. > > "Science On Trial", chapter 11, page 1 "Creation and Evolution, > between the two, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin > of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully > developed or they did not! If they did not, they must have developed > from some preexisting species by some process of modification." Futuyma is *wrong*. Just being an evolutionist is not, after all, proof of infallability. > If you find this difficult to accept, please state the alternative > to Creation/Evolution! Ok, here's Davisson's first origins theory -- steady-state nonexpanding universe with multiple advanced abiogeneses: The universe is finite and uniform (on a large scale) in all dimensions, both spatial and temporal. It appears to be expanding, perhaps because light from distant sources loses energy as it travels (the tired light theory). Some of the planets making up this universe are capable of supporting large, self-replicating systems, or what we would call life. Statistically, we would expect to see such life arising occasionally by accidental combination of atoms, and once they had arisen, they would tend to reproduce themselves and thus stick around (most become extinct eventually, though). We and all of the species we see around us are the products of such accidents. Uh, before someone takes this the wrong way, maybe I'd better explain that I don't claim that there is any evidence supporting the above theory, or even that there isn't a lot of evidence against it. If it were a good theory, people would be considering it seriously alongside evolution. But it's possible (barely -- the second law of thermo would have to be in error for it to work, and it requires a *lot* of infinitessimally likely events), and it involves neither creation nor evolution. > But since you asked for evidence for Creation, I will just give > you Kukuk/Brown's latest evidence which is similar to a past posting > of mine. > > The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total > amount of energy in the universe, or in any isolated part > of it, remains constant. This law states that although > energy (or its mass equivalent) can change form, it is not > now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have > verified this. A corollary of the First Law is that > natural processes cannot create energy. Consequently, > energy must have been created by some agency or power > outside of and independent of the natural universe. Wait a minute... Energy cannot be created, therefore it must have been created? Sounds like you're arguing *against* creation here. > If the entire universe is an isolated system, then > according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the energy > in the universe that is available for useful work has > always been decreasing. But as one goes back further in > time, the amount of energy available for useful work would > eventually exceed the total energy in the universe that, > according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, remains > constant. This is an impossible condition. It therefore > implies that the universe had a beginning. I have a number of objections to this, some of which are minor and at least one is major. Let's start off small. The second law of thermodynamics doesn't say that entropy will increase, just that it won't decrease, and it certainly doesn't give a (finite) minimum rate of decrease. This essentially means that the universe could have existed forever in a low-entropy state, with nothing much happening. Things gradually got unstable and entropy started rising fast (the current situation). Eventually, things will level out again with a very high entropy value, and get very boring (heat death). The second law of thermodynamics may not be correct; like most (all?) other physical laws, it may (correction: *is*. See below) be only an approximation that is very close to correct under the circumstances it has been tested under (e.g. it's never been tested anywhere the gravitational field wasn't very close to 32 feet per second squared), but may not be at all close under radically different circumstances (e.g. the vicinity of the big bang). Since the universe is expanding (excuse me, *appears* to be expanding), its phase space is changing, and the second law *is* only an approximation that holds for small systems. The entire universe is clearly not such a system. Actually (I don't want to go into the reasoning here), I would expect that a corrected version of the second law would say that in a closed, expanding universe, entropy will go up, at at least some finite rate (exactly what I said the second law doesn't say earlier). But for a closed, contracting universe, it would allow entropy to decrease at a bounded rate. Thus, in a cyclical universe (an infinite series of big bangs alternating with big collapses), entropy could increase, then decrease, then increase, then... All of this trying to generalize entropy to expanding and contracting universes is pure speculation on my part, of course. If anyone out there knows of anyone who has actually done the math, I'd be interested in hearing about it. The universe may not be closed. Creationists argue that it is open to the influence of God. The steady-state universe theory (no longer popular) suggests that matter is created by the tension in space. Finally, and most importantly, the universe may be infinite. What, you ask, has this got to do with anything? Well, if the universe is infinite, its entropy is almost certainly infinite, so no matter whether it increases or decreases, it always stays the same (infinity plus or minus just about anything is infinity). Perhaps a better way of putting this is that the universe cannot be (well, is very unlikely to be) both infinite and closed. Your argument for a finite age of the universe based only on the second law of thermodynamics is suggestive, but on the whole rather weak. I think you could have put forward a much stronger case by including the evidence (collected by astronomers over the last few years) which suggests that the universe was created suddenly about 15 billion years ago, in what they refer to as the big bang. (Derrick: will you accept this as evidence for "creationism"? Or did you mean creationism as including the origin of life?) Incidentally, most of the (religious) astronomers (and laymen) who believe in the divine creation by big bang also believe that the species originated through evolution. Creation and evolution are not only not the only possibilities, they are not mutually exclusive. > Derrick, you are not the first one to ask such a question. > What if I were to ask you to give me one piece of evidence > that life arose by chance. Would you talk about the Urey/ > Miller experiments. I don't know about Derrick, but I wouldn't. Those experiments only suggest a possible explanation for the origin of life, they don't give direct evidence. Incidentally, what do you mean by "by chance"? Is it chance that if you flip a (fair) coin a large number of times you will tend to get nearly equal numbers of heads and tails? Is it chance that if you distill salty water, the salt left behind tends to be in regular crystalline structures? If you (or perhaps God) were to design an experiment which had a number of possible outcomes, one of which was much more likely than the others, and that outcome occured, would you say that it happened by chance? > Those experiments could just as easily > be cited as reasons to believe in special creation. How so? > I was flamed for saying that design is evidence of a designer. > The replies were filled with the idea that design is a totally > subjective description and all existance could just as easily > be attributed to chance and natural processes. > > I did not reply to those arguments, but I believe that now is > the time to do so. Sure, design is subjective. But subjectivity > is not akin to irrational. I can't believe that a scientist > who prides himself in being rational, intelligent, and > objective can look at a world that behaves according to certain > laws of nature and mathematics, at a race of individuals who > can reason, learn, experience a myriad of emotions and argue > that all of this can just as reasonably be explained by chance. Again, what do you mean "by chance"? Consider, if you will, Davisson's second origins theory -- John Horton Conway, Creator: Once upon a time, God got bored with consideration of Himself and His glory, so he decided to try messing about in his workshop and see what he could come up with. He invented a set of rules which a universe could be made to follow, which he figured would tend to lead to some very interesting results, and then made a number of universes along these lines. Most of them did indeed have very interesting results, not the least of which was the one in which we evolved. God has since derived great entertainment from watching our various follies. This theory is, in large part, based on John Conway and his invention of a "game" he calls life (which is why I call it what I did at the top). It is played in a two-dimensional, square-grid universe (graph paper was originally used, but computer simulation has become more popular lately), each square of which, at each generation, either contains a cell or doesn't. He gave rules for which squares had cells in them at generation n as a function of the pattern at generation n-1. People have since created many interesting "life organisms", including some that move, some that produce offspring (though the offspring are not like their parent), and some which simply sit in one place and look busy. Nobody (as far as I know) has invented a self-replicating life form, but then, Conway's life is much simpler than our universe. If you want to know more about this (highly interesting) game, look in the Scientific American, Mathematical Games column, October 1970 and following. Or ask me. > And, in light of this, you have the gall to ask for a reason > to believe in Creation. I have a tendency to think that there *is* a creator, for approximately the same reasons. On the other hand, this doesn't prevent me from believing in evolution. It also doesn't keep me from considering the possibility of the nonexistance of a creator. I just don't have absolute faith in my own intuition. Do you? > Please, Derrick, give me one reason > to believe in Evolution. Be careful now. Don't give me any > subjective answers like commonality of species which can either > imply common ancestor or common design. I'm not Derrick, but I'd like to respond anyway: You should believe in evolution because it has been observed. Many times. Moths turning dark for camouflage when pollution darkens trees, then back when pollution is restricted. Insects developing resistance to DDT and other insecticides. Flies developing stub wings in high-wind conditions. And, in one of the longest-running and least-well-recorded experiments ever done, dogs diversifying into hundreds of separate breeds. Standard objections to these observations include that they only show selection, not beneficial mutations (but the Flies definitely got their stub wings by mutation, and the dogs almost certainly got a lot of their diversity through mutations [not necessarily beneficial mutations, but not harmful either]), and that there are limits to "microevolution" (I have yet to see any evidence for these limits. Creationists can't even agree on where they are!). > Give me a real solid > concrete reason to believe that you and I are accidents and > serve no real purpose. No thanks. I don't believe it myself, and anyway, it's a religious question, and this is (supposed to be) a scientific forum. -- Human: Gordon Davisson ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon ATT: (206) 527-0832 USnail: 5008 12th NE, Seattle, WA, 98105 Earth: 47 39' 55" N, 122 18' 46" W
stro@ur-univax.UUCP (06/28/85)
> The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total > amount of energy in the universe, or in any isolated part > of it, remains constant. This law states that although > energy (or its mass equivalent) can change form, it is not > now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have > verified this. A corollary of the First Law is that > natural processes cannot create energy. Consequently, > energy must have been created by some agency or power > outside of and independent of the natural universe. first of all, the First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the extremely unusually conditions during the first seconds after the big bang. Even if this wasn't the case, why can't one say that the universe was always here. If you say that God created it, then when and where was God created? whatever your anwser is, it can just as easily be applied to the universe. One theory of the universe is that the big bang was not the begining of all matter and energy, but that it has existed for all time, and that it either remained in that state until the big bang, or there existed another universe before ours, which eventually collapsed into the black hole from which all matter emerged during the big bang. > If the entire universe is an isolated system, then > according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the energy > in the universe that is available for useful work has > always been decreasing. But as one goes back further in > time, the amount of energy available for useful work would > eventually exceed the total energy in the universe that, > according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, remains > constant. This is an impossible condition. It therefore > implies that the universe had a beginning. I'm not quite sure how you got this out of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As the first law states, the total amount of matter and energy in the universe ALWAYS remains constant ( some matter may be converted to energy, or vice versa but the total is always constant). In any closed system when work is being done, no energy is lost - ever. Take a car for example, the fuel burned in the engine releases a gas which expands and pushes pistons which transfer their energy to moving the car. The system is very inefficient becuase much of the heat generated by the engine is wasted - it just radiates into the air, the rest of car, etc. None of the parts are completely frictionless, they are transfering some of the kenetic energy they recieve into heat, etc. However, still, even if the universe did have a begining, this does not refute the theory of evolution. > ... I can't believe that a scientist > who prides himself in being rational, intelligent, and > objective can look at a world that behaves according to certain > laws of nature and mathematics, at a race of individuals who > can reason, learn, experience a myriad of emotions and argue > that all of this can just as reasonably be explained by chance. part of the problem with creationists, is that they fail to understand exactly what evolution and nature selection imply. Natural selection does not state that "all this" was acheived by chance - far from it. The big 'chance' factor was the creation of the first self reproducing amino acid (which, considering the millions of years of during which billions of non-reproducing amino acids could have been modified by a chance (lightning, radiation, etc) is not unlikely ). All the rest of evolution was a process of natural selection over a billion years of it ( that's quite a long time, by the way ) in which entities which had a superior trait which allowed them to live longer and have offspring with the same trait continued to exist. These traits which were produced by random (chance, if like) scramblings of the genetic code also produced many, many more mutations which did not survive, which were in fact worse off than there ancestors. This still happens to this day. It is the rare occurence where a trait which is helpful occurs, and then, becuase it is helpful, allows that entity to live and reproduce. > .... give me one reason > to believe in Evolution. Be careful now. Don't give me any > subjective answers like commonality of species which can either > imply common ancestor or common design. Give me a real solid > concrete reason to believe that you and I are accidents and > serve no real purpose. Well, how about the millions of years of fosil evidence which outlines the developement of life on Earth. I might add that all this is hard physical scientific proof, it is consistant and repeatable. It makes sense. What proof do you have? One book that was written over two thousand years ago by people who thought the Earth was flat, that stars were pinpoints of light shining through from heaven, etc. Come on, when the bible was written, it was the only way to explain the way they thought the world was. They were wrong, that's all. - Steve Robiner University of Rochester { allegra | seismo | decvax }!rochester!ur-univax!stro
derrick@ut-sally.UUCP (Derrick Hartsock) (06/28/85)
I'd like to thank Steve Robiner for his reply to Dan's posting. He hit a lot of things I was going say, so I will just add a few necessary remarks. > But since you asked for evidence for Creation, I will just give > you Kukuk/Brown's latest evidence which is similar to a past posting ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ evidence? What you mean is that these guys changed their sentence structures and republished it. > of mine. > > The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total > amount of energy in the universe, or in any isolated part > of it, remains constant. This law states that although > energy (or its mass equivalent) can change form, it is not > now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have > verified this. A corollary of the First Law is that > natural processes cannot create energy. Consequently, > energy must have been created by some agency or power > outside of and independent of the natural universe. OK. All the F.L.T. says is that energy cannot be created/destroyed. The energy content of our universe is believed to be constant,so the only question that this brings up is where did the original energy come from? This is not for scientists to answer. If the big bang occured, then any knowledge of what happened before is completely unattainable. ALL science can do is trace back as accurrately as possible to that point. By concluding that energy must have been CREATED by an outside force is not necessarily true(however in all fairness of what I said above, must remain a possibility). And besides, how do you conclude that outside force in the one Christian God in all his glory?(Please respond directly to this point Dan). > If the entire universe is an isolated system, then > according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the energy > in the universe that is available for useful work has > always been decreasing. But as one goes back further in > time, the amount of energy available for useful work would > eventually exceed the total energy in the universe that, > according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, remains > constant. This is an impossible condition. It therefore > implies that the universe had a beginning. Steve's reply to this seems to be satisfactory. But again I will restate: The fact that we can trace the universe back to a "beginning" is in no way inconsistant with evolution, in fact evolution requires this to be true. > I did not reply to those arguments, but I believe that now is > the time to do so. Sure, design is subjective. But subjectivity > is not akin to irrational. I can't believe that a scientist > who prides himself in being rational, intelligent, and > objective can look at a world that behaves according to certain > laws of nature and mathematics, at a race of individuals who > can reason, learn, experience a myriad of emotions and argue > that all of this can just as reasonably be explained by chance. I've been anxiously awaiting this one. I can see your race of individuals who can reason, learn, experience a myriad of emotions, but I also see a race of individuals who can persecute, war and kill. Actually, putting it down on your level of interpretation of chance, I think we could have gotten a much roll on the cosmic dice. (It could have been worse I suppose. :-) ) > And, in light of this, you have the gall to ask for a reason > to believe in Creation. Please, Derrick, give me one reason > to believe in Evolution. Be careful now. Don't give me any > subjective answers like commonality of species which can either > imply common ancestor or common design. Give me a real solid > concrete reason to believe that you and I are accidents and > serve no real purpose. > > Dan Steve answered this one wonderfully. I'd like to ditto it here for the record. Alas, since this was directed at me personally, however, I feel I must respond to you myself. I don't know exactly which of the Creationist faction you align yourself with, so please excuse me if I assume wrong. First of all, I don't understand why you creationists find it so Ego-shattering to think that you might have come out of the sea. I feel secure enough to see the process of evolution and see its beauty instead of mistaking it as an enemy. I feel I must elaborate on what Steve said simply because the fossil record is the really big hint. YOU JUST DON'T FIND THE THE FOSSILS OUT OF PLACE RELATIVE TO WHERE EVOLUTION SAYS THEY SHOULD BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (except near a fault line perhaps). Now, If you believe in a 6000 year old earth then all I have to say is goodbye. If you believe in an old earth then why weren't advanced species that we see today showing up in the fossil record??? Oh, that reminds me of a show I saw on PBS a couple of years ago. They showed a classroom of kids(approx. 6th grade) in a creationist school. When asked why man is found in the upper strata of the earth, a girl replied "Well, when the big flood came the other animals sank but since man could swim, he drowned last after the others were covered up.(I swear this is true. I don't know about you, but I think that anybody who can support this kind of "education" , or even keep from getting sick when thinking about it, is not only a danger to society, but an enemy of truth and a corrupter of knowledge). And BTW, if you're wondering what type of religious beliefs I might hold, all I can say is the closest that I can get to telling you is to say: Listen to "Days of Future Passed" by the Moody Blues. Carefully. I think if I ever saw someone throw this album in a fire at an album burning, they would be the next on top. [How can we understand Riots by the people for the people Who are only destroying themselves And when you see a frightened Person who is frightened by the People who are scorching this earth?] -The Moody Blues off Seventh Sojourn -- Derrick Hartsock - CS DEept. University of Texas at Austin {seismo, ihnp4}!ut-sally!derrick : derrick@ut-sally.{ARPA, UUCP}
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (06/28/85)
> [Steve Robiner] > part of the problem with creationists, is that they fail to understand > exactly what evolution and nature selection imply. Natural selection > does not state that "all this" was acheived by chance - far from it. > The big 'chance' factor was the creation of the first self reproducing > amino acid (which, considering the millions of years of during which > billions of non-reproducing amino acids could have been modified by a > chance (lightning, radiation, etc) is not unlikely ). All the rest of > evolution was a process of natural selection over a billion years of it > ( that's quite a long time, by the way ) in which entities which had a > superior trait which allowed them to live longer and have offspring > with the same trait continued to exist. These traits which were > produced by random (chance, if like) scramblings of the genetic code > also produced many, many more mutations which did not survive, which > were in fact worse off than there ancestors. This still happens to > this day. It is the rare occurence where a trait which is helpful > occurs, and then, becuase it is helpful, allows that entity to live and > reproduce. Sez you. (With apologies to Keith Doyle) Part of the problem with a number of evolutionists is that they seem to have uncritically swallowed the Darwinian line they were taught in their open-minded biology classes hook, line, and sinker, and regurgitate it verbatim, and, worse yet, seemingly expect us dopey creationists to *believe* it, when even their more informed evolutionary colleagues hestitate to do so wholeheartedly. "For shame." --- It is too much of a temptation for me, to resist the next comment: > The big 'chance' factor was the creation of the first self reproducing > amino acid (which, considering the millions of years of during which > billions of non-reproducing amino acids could have been modified by a > chance (lightning, radiation, etc) is not unlikely ). This, as is well-attested by numerous personages on the net, has nothing to do with evolution. (Actually, I still maintain that the dichotomy between chemical and biological evolution is false. So my sympathies lie more with Mr. Robiner on this point.) back to work... -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Photoplankton" |
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (06/29/85)
In article <368@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > > Science only describes objective mechanisms, not subjective things like > `purpose' or `meaning'. As such, it will always be soulless, and its > descriptions incomplete. But that does not mean that is wrong -- > except when science declares itself to be All That Is. Too bad it hasn't been able to describe a reasonable mechanism for Evolution. > If your difficulty with evolution is that the theory lacks some > essential element, then we concur on this point. An independent > consciousness can only appear to act as if by chance when scrutinized > by a purely objective viewpoint. > My difficulty with Evolution is that it is nothing more than a theory yet many treat it as fact. > Why evolution cannot be seen, by Christians, as a description of part > of the mechanism God used to make the present complexity, is beyond me. I asked for a reason to believe in Evolution. You did not give me one! Perhaps if you had, I COULD see it! Dan
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (07/01/85)
> My difficulty with Evolution is that it is nothing more than a > theory yet many treat it as fact. A common Creationst misconception. It confuses THEORIES of evolution (Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, Punctuationalism, ...) with the FACT of evolution (attested to by the overwhelming evidence in the fossil and geological record). In the words of Francis Hitching, whose book *The Neck of the Giraffe* is much loved by Creationists because they do not understand its plain words, "Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two centuries from geology, paleontology (the study of fossils), molecular biology and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many believers in Divine creation who dispute this (including about half the population of the United States, according to some polls), the probability that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms. "We can be as sure about this as we are sure that ancient civilizations once existed on Earth but no longer function. The archaeological record tells us about these relatively recent times, and the fossil record about earlier ones. If you walk along the trails leading down to the depths of a great fissure such as the Grand Canyon, you can see some of the stages of evolution illustrated by the fossils in front of your eyes. The Earth is old, belongs to an even older universe, and life forms have been upon it for about three quarters of its existence. "On the other hand Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism, its modern version) is a theory that seeks to explain evolution. It has not, contrary to general belief, and despite very great efforts, been proved." > I asked for a reason to believe in Evolution. You did not give me one! > Perhaps if you had, I COULD see it! There is plenty of evidence, if you would only ALLOW yourself to see it. Go to the Grand Canyon. Read Scientific American every month. Read Nature every week. Read a good book about evolutionary biology, or paleontology. Take a course on the subject. It's all there. But, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Creationists seem to have two standards of truth. The evidence that evolution happened is overwhelming, and almost everyone who has studied it deeply agrees. Yet Creationists reject the plainly obvious conclusion that evolution happened. On the other hand, they will grasp at any straw, even patently wrong or ludicrous ones, to maintain their preconceived, narrow, literal interpretation of a religious work that was written thousands of years ago by people who, wise as they may have been in their understanding of human nature and the relationship of Mankind to the Divine, were nevertheless scientifically illiterate. Well that is their privilege. But please don't try to call it scientific. Nor open-minded. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) (07/01/85)
> > I asked for a reason to believe in Evolution. You did not give me one! > Perhaps if you had, I COULD see it! > > > Dan The reason to believe in evolution is simple-IT BEST EXPLAINS THE FACTS!!! Dave Fritzinger PHRI NYC allegra!phri!fritz
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL) (07/01/85)
> My difficulty with Evolution is that it is nothing more than a > theory yet many treat it as fact.[BOSKOVICH] Gee, Dan. I have the same difficulty with Gravity.-) -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/02/85)
In article <349@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > My difficulty with Evolution is that it is nothing more than a > theory yet many treat it as fact. > "Only a theory"!! Good grief, I thought that the people on this net were intelligent to recognise this fallacy! It is based on a confusion between the colloquial and scientific meanings of the word "theory". In scientific parlance calling something a theory is almost the most definate statement that can be made, it requires *much* evidence to raiese a model from the level of a detail hypothesis to the level of an accepted theory! Please remember, also, that science, by its very nature is contigent, that is *no* absolute statements can be made other than "under such and such conditions, X was observed" (i.e raw observational facts). *Everything* else is interpretation of the data, and its acceptance remains contingent upon new data. Thus, a theory is as close to absolute as is possible while remaining contingent on further observations. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (07/02/85)
In article <300@azure.UUCP> chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) writes: > >First of all, Evolution isn't just one theory. It's a large collection >of theories all of which are based on a central hypothesis (that life evolved >from lower life forms by means of mutation and natural selection). The >point at which these theories disagree with each other is when they try to >pinpoint the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection are, and then try to >figure out in what way did they affect the evolution of life on earth (ie we >know the ingredients, now how do we mix them?). The supposed proofs against >evolution that have been batted about in this newsgroup seem to dwell on how >each theory presents the mechanisms, but they never actually assault the >central hypothesis itself. Someone may say that some evidence shows that such >and such theory about how life evolved is wrong, but that does not mean that >life didn't evolve. > This is just not so! The central hypothesis has been attacked over and over. When it is, however, netters change their tune and claim that evidence against evolution is NOT evidence for creation. Mutation has been shown to be a poor mechanism for Evolution. Transmutation has never been observed and most all mutations have proven harmful. The variations within species are predicted by the creation model. Even Evolutionists have admitted the problems involved with Evolution occuring by chance mutation. Natural selection has serious problems as well. It has been stated that N.S. predicts everything, therefore it predicts nothing. Evolution really has more problems than you are willing to believe. Dan
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (07/03/85)
> > OK. All the F.L.T. says is that energy cannot be created/destroyed. > The energy content of our universe is believed to be constant,so the > only question that this brings up is where did the original energy > come from? This is not for scientists to answer. If the big bang > occured, then any knowledge of what happened before is completely > unattainable. ALL science can do is trace back as accurrately as > possible to that point. By concluding that energy must have been > CREATED by an outside force is not necessarily true(however in > all fairness of what I said above, must remain a possibility). > And besides, how do you conclude that outside force in the one > Christian God in all his glory?(Please respond directly to this > point Dan). The point here is that the Universe had a non-natural beginning. Since matter is not being created today, natural processes can not explain the origin of the Universe. For the big bang to occur there first had to be something to explode! All of this points to a supernatural beginning. It does not mean that it was the Christian God who did it. Creation science is not interested in naming the creative force, just showing that there was a creation. > > Steve's reply to this seems to be satisfactory. But again I will > restate: The fact that we can trace the universe back to a > "beginning" is in no way inconsistant with evolution, in fact > evolution requires this to be true. > Yes, but it requires a beginning that can be attributed to natural processes since it rules out the supernatural. Dan
chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (07/03/85)
In article <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > Any evidence against Evolution is evidence for Creation and vice > versa. This point is discussed in depth by the notable evolutionist > scholar, Douglas J. Futuyma. > > "Science On Trial", chapter 11, page 1 "Creation and Evolution, > between the two, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin > of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully > developed or they did not! If they did not, they must have developed > from some preexisting species by some process of modification." > > If you find this difficult to accept, please state the alternative > to Creation/Evolution! First of all, Evolution isn't just one theory. It's a large collection of theories all of which are based on a central hypothesis (that life evolved from lower life forms by means of mutation and natural selection). The point at which these theories disagree with each other is when they try to pinpoint the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection are, and then try to figure out in what way did they affect the evolution of life on earth (ie we know the ingredients, now how do we mix them?). The supposed proofs against evolution that have been batted about in this newsgroup seem to dwell on how each theory presents the mechanisms, but they never actually assault the central hypothesis itself. Someone may say that some evidence shows that such and such theory about how life evolved is wrong, but that does not mean that life didn't evolve. > > But since you asked for evidence for Creation, I will just give > you Kukuk/Brown's latest evidence which is similar to a past posting > of mine. > > The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total > amount of energy in the universe, or in any isolated part > of it, remains constant. This law states that although > energy (or its mass equivalent) can change form, it is not > now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have > verified this. A corollary of the First Law is that > natural processes cannot create energy. Consequently, > energy must have been created by some agency or power > outside of and independent of the natural universe. > > If the entire universe is an isolated system, then > according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the energy > in the universe that is available for useful work has > always been decreasing. But as one goes back further in > time, the amount of energy available for useful work would > eventually exceed the total energy in the universe that, > according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, remains > constant. This is an impossible condition. It therefore > implies that the universe had a beginning. > [END Big deal, so fifteen(?) billion years ago there was a big bang, how does this prove creation? > I was flamed for saying that design is evidence of a designer. > The replies were filled with the idea that design is a totally > subjective description and all existance could just as easily > be attributed to chance and natural processes. > > I did not reply to those arguments, but I believe that now is > the time to do so. Sure, design is subjective. But subjectivity > is not akin to irrational. I can't believe that a scientist > who prides himself in being rational, intelligent, and > objective can look at a world that behaves according to certain > laws of nature and mathematics, at a race of individuals who > can reason, learn, experience a myriad of emotions and argue > that all of this can just as reasonably be explained by chance. Perhaps you just have a homocentric viewpoint. Somehow, perhaps because you yourself are human, you find it difficult to believe that humans are not inherently more important then the rest of "creation". Therefore you find it difficult to understand those who say differently. On the other hand, the evolutionists may be uncomfortable with the idea that humans are more important then the rest of the universe, because logic seems to imply that we have no more significance to the scheme of things then a housefly. > > And, in light of this, you have the gall to ask for a reason > to believe in Creation. Please, Derrick, give me one reason > to believe in Evolution. Be careful now. Don't give me any > subjective answers like commonality of species which can either > imply common ancestor or common design. Give me a real solid > concrete reason to believe that you and I are accidents and > serve no real purpose. I can give my own personal reason for believing in evolution over creation (that is creation as presented by the creationists). It makes sense. Note that this is a purely personal opinion having no scientific basis, but when it comes to matters like this that strike so deep at the heart of existance itself, all one really has *is* personal opinion. Chris Andersen
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (07/04/85)
In article <81@rtp47.UUCP> throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes: >> Too bad it hasn't been able to describe a reasonable mechanism for >> Evolution. > >Nor has anyone been able to describe a reasonable mechanism for creation. >Note that I don't mean a *description of* creation, but a *mechanism for* >creation, that is, (for Biblical creationism) *how* God did it. >All in all, the mechanisms proposed for evolution, which you call >"[not] reasonable", are far more convincing to me than the total lack >of explaination on the part of the creationists. > There is a huge difference here! Creationism allows for a supernatural act to start things off. Evolution holds that the same processes that got us here are still taking place (speciation) at a rate to slow to observe. Nevertheless, since the processes are still occuring, it should be possible to discover the mechanism behind it. "How God did it" can not be ascertained using present scientific methods. We can not use physical observations to discover how the creative force made something out of nothing. Your first reaction will be to say, "AHHAA, so that means that creationism is not science, since it deals with the metaphysical!" But, my answer is not necessarily so. Science is interested in truth and evidence of such truth. If science rules out anything that is related to the metaphysical, Evolution must also be ruled out. Why? Because even Evolution had to have a beginning. (ala Big Bang) Where did the gasses come from?? If you say that the Universe is eternal, than your opening the door to all sorts of metaphysical questions! Finally, since the origin of matter and life can not be adequately explained by known physical laws, why rule out a meta- physical origin. This is not being objective! >> I asked for a reason to believe in Evolution. You did not give me one! >> Perhaps if you had, I COULD see it! >> Dan > >The posting I am responding to was not directed to me, but I would like to >restate my own reasons for finding evolution more reasonable than creation. >Evolution explains more facts using fewer assumptions. This is the reason >it has become the prefered theory in the scientific community. >I would be interested in hearing about facts that creation explains "better" >than evolution, but I have yet to see any posted in net.origins. For as many facts as Evolution can explain, it leaves some very difficult problems behind. For example, the ability to reason and sexual organs (male and female) are very hardpressed to be explained by Evolution. Creationism explains to me why I can think about the past, reason through the present, and wonder about the future. It explains why I am so different from the animal kingdom and why there are two of every animal species and two of the human species. It explains why the dog in all its variation is still a dog after years of artificial breeding. It explains why the fruitfly still remains a fruitfly after inducing mutations at an incredible rate. It explains why the fossils have been unable to confirm Darwinist gradualism but rather support creationist claims. >Evolution explains more facts using fewer assumptions. You have got to be kidding! Confirming the age of strata by the fossils found within it is NOT an assumption? Most of the dating methods for the age of the earth are based on assumptions! For all practical purposes, Evolution is used to prove Evolution. Here is a quote from A.E. Wilder Smith. "A formation undisturbed as far as we can see does not need to be geologically old. If it contains trilobites it is old and if it contains mammals it is young. Neither the physical form of the formation nor its sequential position with respect to other formations is reckoned as being important." from Man's Origin, Man's Destiny;page 130 Dan
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (07/04/85)
> This is just not so! The central hypothesis has been attacked over and > over. When it is, however, netters change their tune and claim that > evidence against evolution is NOT evidence for creation. > > Mutation has been shown to be a poor mechanism for Evolution. Transmutation > has never been observed and most all mutations have proven harmful. The > variations within species are predicted by the creation model. Even > Evolutionists have admitted the problems involved with Evolution occuring > by chance mutation. Natural selection has serious problems as well. As a biologist I find these objections ridiculous. Looking at the the second paragraph: 1) WHO has shown that mutation is a poor mechanism for GENERATING DIVERSITY (no one ever said mutation=evolution). HOW was it shown? 2) That 99.999999...% of mutations are harmful is both expected and appreciated by current evolution theory. This property is often useful in the laboratory, where a desired mutation can be obtained by generating random mutations and setting up conditions where only certain mutants will survive. The original strain and most other mutants die. 3) WHAT creation theory predicts current diversity and relatedness and accounts for all the extinct (also related) species of the past? 4) Once again, no one ever said that mutation and evolution are the same thing. > It has been stated that N.S. predicts everything, therefore it predicts > nothing. 5) Those who believe that natural selection is a tautology are treating biology as a mathmatical discipline. Close reading of the theory and thought about the CONCEPT will evaporate those objections. Biology is an essentially historical discipline. Often things could have happenned several ways, but only one of them actually occurred. Why? Good question! If you just apply natural sel- ection you say "There must have been some advantage to having things happen this way." This is tautological. It also ignores the fact that the organism in question was chugging along just fine up to this point and had a lot in- vested in keeping things as close to the same as possible. Just because the amateur evolutionist on this net don't have a full understanding of the theory and mechanisms of natural selection (and complementary but less well understood means of change, such as genetic drift) does not make the concept irrelevent. > Evolution really has more problems than you are willing to believe. > Dan Creation really has more problems than you are willing to believe. -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto PHRI NYC (allegra!phri!lonetto) Do you think it's REAL?
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (07/04/85)
> > Steve's reply to this seems to be satisfactory. But again I will > > restate: The fact that we can trace the universe back to a > > "beginning" is in no way inconsistant with evolution, in fact > > evolution requires this to be true. > > > Yes, but it requires a beginning that can be attributed to > natural processes since it rules out the supernatural. > > Dan Evolution rules out the supernatural only as applied to the origin and diversification of life on earth. Go argue with a physisist. -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto PHRI NYC (allegra!phri!lonetto) Do you think it's REAL?
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/05/85)
In article <350@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovitch) writes: > This is just not so! The central hypothesis has been attacked over and > over. When it is, however, netters change their tune and claim that > evidence against evolution is NOT evidence for creation. > > Mutation has been shown to be a poor mechanism for Evolution. Transmutation > has never been observed and most all mutations have proven harmful. The > variations within species are predicted by the creation model. Even > Evolutionists have admitted the problems involved with Evolution occuring > by chance mutation. Natural selection has serious problems as well. > It has been stated that N.S. predicts everything, therefore it predicts > nothing. > > Evolution really has more problems than you are willing to believe. I've seen convincing refutations of almost every attack you and others have presented on the net, with hardly any rebuttal on the part of creationists or apology by creationists for grossly fraudulent attacks. Almost every citation used by creationists is quoted out of context or has been rebutted in the scientific literature: if you don't believe me, choose a citation from Science, Nature, or any non-creationist science publication that is used in one of Kulak's upty-zillion reasons not to believe in evolution. Read it, or look it up in the scientific citations index (a wonderful tool that lists papers citing works by each individual author. Then look up those responses, and read them.) I've followed up several examples, and the duplicity of creationists shocks me. Evolution is far more convincing than your theology can tolerate. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/05/85)
In article <351@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > > The point here is that the Universe had a non-natural beginning. > Since matter is not being created today, natural processes can > not explain the origin of the Universe. First off, your second sentence is blatantly wrong on several counts. 1) It is generally accepted that particle-antiparticle pairs can be created. 2) You are merely assuming that matter is not being created today. There is still much debate (though some of the older theories have fallen by the wayside.) 3) Bubble theories of the universe are of natural processes. New bubbles that we cannot currently observe may be springing up right now. > For the big bang to occur there first had to be something to explode! This reminds me of Lord Kelvin's conclusive proof that the sun was recently created: even if the sun was made of coal, he calculated that it would burn out to a cinder in too little time for gradualism to shape the earth. Obviously he didn't know about radioactivity or fusion. Likewise, you disregard the possibility that we might yet discover unknown natural forces, and prefer your superstitious beliefs. > All of this points to a supernatural beginning. At the most this points to some ignorance and (on your part) alot of wishful thinking. > It does not mean that it was the Christian > God who did it. Creation science is not interested in naming the > creative force, just showing that there was a creation. You will also find it hard to persuade me that the goals of creationists are anything so innocuous. Most major creationist publishers and organizations have clearly stated their political and religious agenda. > > Steve's reply to this seems to be satisfactory. But again I will > > restate: The fact that we can trace the universe back to a > > "beginning" is in no way inconsistant with evolution, in fact > > evolution requires this to be true. > > > Yes, but it requires a beginning that can be attributed to > natural processes since it rules out the supernatural. Cosmogeny -> abiogenesis -> evolution. Even if somehow the first two of the sequence were shown to be due to a hypothetical creator, evolution could still be the true explanation of how the variety of life came about on our planet. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/06/85)
In article <350@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan) writes: > > This is just not so! The central hypothesis has been attacked over and > over. When it is, however, netters change their tune and claim that > evidence against evolution is NOT evidence for creation. > > Mutation has been shown to be a poor mechanism for Evolution. Transmutation > has never been observed and most all mutations have proven harmful. The > variations within species are predicted by the creation model. Even > Evolutionists have admitted the problems involved with Evolution occuring > by chance mutation. Natural selection has serious problems as well. > It has been stated that N.S. predicts everything, therefore it predicts > nothing. > Actually, the central bases of evoluyionary theory have never been *successfuully* attacked. The attracks you present are either invalid or inappropriate! Certainly mutation *by* *itself* is a poor mechanism for evolutiopn, BUT the proposed mechanism is a small bit of mutation *plus* natural selection, which is quite different. So *most*, mutations are "harmful", this is where N.S. comes in, it amplifies the few "beneficial" ones that do occur. Also the you are treating the life value(harmful/beneficial) of a mutation as an intrinsic property of the mutation. This is not so, the value of an allele is a property of its interactions with the *environment*(including other genes), and is thus *variable* under varying environment. What is harmful in one situation may well be necessary for survival in another! Your last attack is simply false, it has no bearing on the actual theory of evolution since the real theory *does* make predictions that are verifyable. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/06/85)
In article <352@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > There is a huge difference here! Creationism allows for a supernatural > act to start things off. Evolution holds that the same processes that > got us here are still taking place (speciation) at a rate to slow to > observe. Nevertheless, since the processes are still occuring, it should > be possible to discover the mechanism behind it. It is, and we are well on our way to doing just that, tho we may not be quite there yet. > > Your first reaction will be to say, "AHHAA, so that means that creationism > is not science, since it deals with the metaphysical!" But, my answer is > not necessarily so. Science is interested in truth and evidence of such > truth. If science rules out anything that is related to the metaphysical, > Evolution must also be ruled out. Why? Because even Evolution had to have > a beginning. (ala Big Bang) Where did the gasses come from?? If you say > that the Universe is eternal, than your opening the door to all sorts of > metaphysical questions! Finally, since the origin of matter and life can > not be adequately explained by known physical laws, why rule out a meta- > physical origin. This is not being objective! > This is a bogus argument. The theory of *biological* evolution does not *care* about how matter got here in the first place, or even how life originated, it is just a model of what happens *given* that life exists. The theory of abiogenesis deals with the origin of life, and the origin of matter and planets and such is a branch of cosmology! Please keep in mind that a theory is only valid *within* the framework of its area of application! The Creationist position os an attempt to replace at least three seperate, and *independent* theories with one expalnation. When I say independent, I mean that each of the theories could be true or false without implying anything about the truth or falsity of any of the others. Thus you *cannot* try to tie them together in a single basket. > > For as many facts as Evolution can explain, it leaves some very difficult > problems behind. For example, the ability to reason and sexual organs (male > and female) are very hardpressed to be explained by Evolution. > Here you are confusing two different levels of explanation, the *general* overview presented by basic evolutionary theory, and specific hypotheses about how a particular feature came about. The staement is totally false at the general level, that is there is no problem with regard to the general theory, since both features mentioned provide a clear reproductive advantage! In fact the ability to reason is the *ultimate* adaption, since it essentially subsumes all other adaptions, plus a few extras. However, even at the level of phylogenetic hypotheses this statement is misleading since a number of (admittedly incomplete) reasonable hypotheses exist as to the origin of such structures, and they are being improved upon all the time! > Creationism explains to me why I can think about the past, reason through > the present, and wonder about the future. It explains why I am so different > from the animal kingdom and why there are two of every animal species and > two of the human species. It explains why the dog in all its variation is > still a dog after years of artificial breeding. It explains why the > fruitfly still remains a fruitfly after inducing mutations at an incredible > rate. It explains why the fossils have been unable to confirm Darwinist > gradualism but rather support creationist claims. > Actually, evolutionary theory, as it currently exists, *also* explains all these things! That i sexcept the last, which is essentially untrue, the fossil record is quite consistent with gradulaism, it simply does not have the granularity to distinguish rates sufficiently to distinguish between "pure" gradualism" and the Punctuated Equilibrium concept of "stepped" gradualism. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (07/06/85)
> Too bad it hasn't been able to describe a reasonable mechanism for > Evolution. Nor has anyone been able to describe a reasonable mechanism for creation. Note that I don't mean a *description of* creation, but a *mechanism for* creation, that is, (for Biblical creationism) *how* God did it. All in all, the mechanisms proposed for evolution, which you call "[not] reasonable", are far more convincing to me than the total lack of explaination on the part of the creationists. > I asked for a reason to believe in Evolution. You did not give me one! > Perhaps if you had, I COULD see it! > Dan The posting I am responding to was not directed to me, but I would like to restate my own reasons for finding evolution more reasonable than creation. Evolution explains more facts using fewer assumptions. This is the reason it has become the prefered theory in the scientific community. I would be interested in hearing about facts that creation explains "better" than evolution, but I have yet to see any posted in net.origins. -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/06/85)
> There is a huge difference here! Creationism allows for a supernatural > act to start things off. [DAN BOSKOVICH] ALLOWS for???? Don't you mean "assumes a priori in order to reach a desired assumed conclusion"????????????????? -- Like a vermin (HEY!), shot for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (07/09/85)
In article <536@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: > This is a bogus argument. The theory of *biological* evolution >does not *care* about how matter got here in the first place, or even >how life originated, it is just a model of what happens *given* that >life exists. The theory of abiogenesis deals with the origin of life, >and the origin of matter and planets and such is a branch of cosmology! >Please keep in mind that a theory is only valid *within* the framework >of its area of application! The Creationist position os an attempt to >replace at least three seperate, and *independent* theories with one >expalnation. When I say independent, I mean that each of the theories >could be true or false without implying anything about the truth or >falsity of any of the others. Thus you *cannot* try to tie them >together in a single basket. The three theories may be independant of one another, but that does not mean that they are not related or can not be tied together. This is net.origins not net.evolution. In this newsgroup all of these theories ARE tied together. The creationist position is an attempt to replace three interrelated theories with a single multi-phase theory. Matter, planets, simple and complex life can be attributed to a super-natural origin, or a naturalistic origin. Either way you are tieing the three together. Dan
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/09/85)
In article <357@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >In article <536@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >>Please keep in mind that a theory is only valid *within* the framework >>of its area of application! The Creationist position os an attempt to >>replace at least three seperate, and *independent* theories with one >>expalnation. When I say independent, I mean that each of the theories >>could be true or false without implying anything about the truth or >>falsity of any of the others. Thus you *cannot* try to tie them >>together in a single basket. > > The three theories may be independant of one another, but that does not > mean that they are not related or can not be tied together. This is > net.origins not net.evolution. In this newsgroup all of these theories > ARE tied together. > > The creationist position is an attempt to replace three interrelated > theories with a single multi-phase theory. Matter, planets, simple and > complex life can be attributed to a super-natural origin, or a naturalistic > origin. Either way you are tieing the three together. > What I was trying to say was that evidence/arguments against one of the three is *not* evidence against any of the others, they must be dismantled seperately! I was certainly *not* trying to say that they are not (distantly) related, or that they do not all belong in net.origins! My main concern is to keep the arguments valid, and the argument I was addessing most certainly was not valid due to an invalid form of crossover argumentation. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (07/10/85)
[...........] > The creationist position is an attempt to replace three interrelated > theories with a single multi-phase theory. Matter, planets, simple and > complex life can be attributed to a super-natural origin, or a naturalistic > origin. Either way you are tieing the three together. > > Dan What about a theory where matter came initially from super-natural origin, but was then left to it's own devices to 'evolve' over umpteen million years? Again, there is no reason that evolution is in conflict with 'supernatural origins'. Evolution is only in conflict with certain literal interpretations of the Bible. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (07/11/85)
In article <285@phri.UUCP> fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) writes: > >Dan; > >I sounds to me that what you are saying is "I believe in creation because >I want to, and am now looking for evidence to support what I believe." >This ain't the way science works!!! I believe in evolution precisely >because it best explains such things as the commonality of features >among species. Therefore, I am not looking for "A REASON" to believe >in evolutionary theory. I can just as easily say that I believe in creation because species seem to have a common design. This best explains the existance of such complex structures as a brain, heart, and sexual reproduction organs. Biological evolution seems inadequate for the development of emotions and the ability to reason. In fact, a metaphysical explanation for them is required. Can you describe the physical development of love, hate, or joy? What were these emotions before they evolved into the present ones? Did man "reason" just a little at first, than "reason" a lot later? Yes, evolution has it's answers to these questions. But, are they more or less reasonable? More or less rational or logical? I believe they are not. In fact, they are very incomplete. Is any naturalistic hypothesis superior than a supernatural one just because it is naturalistic? Sounds to me like you want to believe in Evolution! I guess that makes us the same! Dan
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (07/12/85)
Excuse me, I seem to be losing my patience. >>[Stanley Friesen] >> This is a bogus argument. The theory of *biological* evolution >>does not *care* about how matter got here in the first place, or even >>how life originated, it is just a model of what happens *given* that >>life exists. The theory of abiogenesis deals with the origin of life, >>and the origin of matter and planets and such is a branch of cosmology! >>Please keep in mind that a theory is only valid *within* the framework >>of its area of application! The Creationist position os an attempt to >>replace at least three seperate, and *independent* theories with one >>expalnation. When I say independent, I mean that each of the theories >>could be true or false without implying anything about the truth or >>falsity of any of the others. Thus you *cannot* try to tie them >>together in a single basket. >[Dan Boskovich] >The three theories may be independant of one another, but that does not >mean that they are not related or can not be tied together. This is >net.origins not net.evolution. In this newsgroup all of these theories >ARE tied together. Argh! I just get through telling you that creation and evolution are not polar opposites or the only two possibilities, and you go and claim that the definition of this newsgroup limits descussion to only those two positions. It does *not*! This is net.origins, not net.creation-vs- evolution. It is for discussion about origins, and the possibilities include subsets of the evolution group of theories, theories that involve neither evolution nor creation, and theories that involve both. Biblical creation and big-bang/abiogenesis/evolution are the most discussed positions because they are the most popularly held. Arbitrarily limiting discussion to only two possibilities is stupid! Tell me, when one tosses a coin, which way up does it land? (the only two possibilities I am willing to consider are heads and tails. Well, which is it? Surely those *are* the only possibilities.) >The creationist position is an attempt to replace three interrelated >theories with a single multi-phase theory. Matter, planets, simple and >complex life can be attributed to a super-natural origin, or a naturalistic >origin. Either way you are tieing the three together. I have always thought this natural/supernatural distinction rather bogus. Evolution is not the only naturalistic theory (one could, for instance, have theories about *naturalistic* creation), and Biblical creation is not the only supernatural theory (by a long shot! How many religions are there in the world? And then there's theistic evolution...) Actually, one can think of a dichotomy among origins theories: did something always exist, or did things suddenly come into being? Note that biblical creation probably falls ino the first category, since people tend to think of God as eternal. Big-bang/abiogenesis/evolution, on the other hand, can fit into either category: cyclic universe, or big bang out of nothing. (that's right, nothing. No creator.) The scientific answer to this ultimate question is that we don't know; there just isn't (anywhere near) enough evidence. -- Human: Gordon Davisson ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (07/12/85)
>[Dan Boskovich] >The variations within species are predicted by the creation model. Not in its orignal form. They've been kluged in by borrowing from evolutionary theory so as to allow horizontal evolution, like moth wings changing color to adapt to trees darkened by pollution, but not (for some reason) vertical evolution. Also, the distinction between the two seems to be clear only to creationists, and even they disagree about where the boundary is. What is really strange is that the one thing a lot of creationists do agree on here is that vertical evolution involves mutations acted on by natural selection, but horizontal evolution is just natural selection acting on pre-existing genetic variation. Then Dan (and he's not the only one) goes on to say: >It has been stated that N.S. predicts everything, therefore it predicts >nothing. Which, of course, means that creation doesn't predict that moths will adapt to dark wood, or that insects will develop immunities to insecticides, or that dogs will develop so much in-species variation. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Of course, after however many thousands of years it's been, dogs are still dogs. And after 20 million years, all of the apes are still apes, right? And after (what is it, 100?) million years, all the mammals are still mammals, right? And after... Anyway, you get the idea. And ah, where to draw the line... -- Human: Gordon Davisson ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon
fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) (07/12/85)
> > I can just as easily say that I believe in creation because species > seem to have a common design. This best explains the existance of such > complex structures as a brain, heart, and sexual reproduction organs. > Biological evolution seems inadequate for the development of emotions > and the ability to reason. In fact, a metaphysical explanation for them > is required. Can you describe the physical development of love, hate, or > joy? What were these emotions before they evolved into the present ones? > Did man "reason" just a little at first, than "reason" a lot later? > Yes, evolution has it's answers to these questions. But, are they more > or less reasonable? More or less rational or logical? I believe they are > not. In fact, they are very incomplete. Is any naturalistic hypothesis > superior than a supernatural one just because it is naturalistic? > > Sounds to me like you want to believe in Evolution! I guess that makes > us the same! > > Dan Okay, let's talk about "common design" then. If you look at the skeletons of various mammals, they show quite a bit of similarity. Now, this is quite amazing when you consider animals as diverse as a mouse and an elephant. But let's look at another class of mammals-whales. What I find most amazing, and I might add, extremely good evidence for evolution, is the rear leg bones of the whales. Even though they serve no purpose, and cannot be seen from the outside, WHALES HAVE LEGS!!! Now, this is easily explained by evolution, since you can say that, of course they have the leg bones since whales are related to the other mammals. It is just that they have degenerated, since they are not selected for-stream- lining being a more important advantage to mammals that live in the sea. However, I fail to see an explanation for this phenomenon in creationism. I guess that you could say that the creator made a mistake, and gave whales something they didn't need, but that certainly isn't very satisfying. Any other explanations for this, Dan? By the way, this is not the only example of this happening. One other example that comes to mind is the evolution of horses hooves, where you can see the gradual loss of toes until things reached the current state Dave Fritzinger Public Health Research Institute NY,NY allegra!phri!fritz
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (07/14/85)
>>[Stanley Friesen] >> This is a bogus argument. The theory of *biological* evolution >>does not *care* about how matter got here in the first place, or even >>how life originated, it is just a model of what happens *given* that >>life exists. The theory of abiogenesis deals with the origin of life, >>and the origin of matter and planets and such is a branch of cosmology! >>Please keep in mind that a theory is only valid *within* the framework >>of its area of application! The Creationist position os an attempt to >>replace at least three seperate, and *independent* theories with one >>expalnation. When I say independent, I mean that each of the theories >>could be true or false without implying anything about the truth or >>falsity of any of the others. Thus you *cannot* try to tie them >>together in a single basket. >[Dan Boskovich] >The three theories may be independant of one another, but that does not >mean that they are not related or can not be tied together. This is >net.origins not net.evolution. In this newsgroup all of these theories >ARE tied together. This statement, that they are independent (although related), is just a round about way of agreeing that it is not an either/or problem. Let's hope that this issue is done with for a while. Padraig Houlahan.
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (07/15/85)
> Dan > Biological evolution seems inadequate for the development of emotions > and the ability to reason. In fact, a metaphysical explanation for them > is required. Can you describe the physical development of love, hate, or > joy? What were these emotions before they evolved into the present ones? > Did man "reason" just a little at first, than "reason" a lot later? More subjective emotionalizing from the lips (fingers) of Dan B. The offending word in this article is "seems". Dan, haven't you ever owned a dog, trained a horse, watched a chimp, etc? Permit me to be equally subjective for a moment. I think dogs have partially developed emotions, including love, loyalty, sorrow, etc. The partial linguistic abilities of primates and dolphins, and the trainability of dogs and horses indicates (to me) that biological evolution is consistent with the development of emotions, reason, and intelligence. They are simply products of neural networks of ever increasing complexity, and their precursors all have selective advantages. Since neither of us can quantify emotions, nothing is proved, so again I entreat, please keep the subjective emotionalizing down to a reasonable level. > Is any naturalistic hypothesis > superior than a supernatural one just because it is naturalistic? Concerning naturalistic explanations, the answer to your question is a resounding "YES". Until proven otherwise, natural explanations *are* superior to supernatural explanations. Any reputable scientist will tell you this. There are several reasons for this, primarily Occum's (sp) razor. Occum's rule of adopting theories that explain the most facts with the fewest assumptions is a *proven* technique that leads to right answers more often than not. Any time you adopt a supernatural explanation, you now must postulate, and justify the existence of supernatural forces. Since there has never been evidence, or mechanisms for this postulate, Occum (and I) would (and should) be biased against such theories. In addition, history tells us that reliance on supernatural explanations has been consistently *wrong*!! We used god(s) to explain earthquakes, circular orbits, weather, diseases, rainbows, volcanos, etc etc etc. Each time, we were wrong. It is illogical to assume that, this one time, there is an exception to the rule. The burden of proof is on you, not us. This concept is called induction, and it is another cornerstone of science. If something happens repeatedly, it is reasonable to assume, until proven otherwise, that it will continue to occur. The combination of Occum's razor and induction makes natural explanations superior. This is not subjective emotionalizing on the part of scientists, it is just *good* science. This will undoubtedly disturb you, but it is reality. This points out (to me) a serious deficiency in our educational system. We teach and stress scientific facts, without teaching the techniques. I have no answers, but this problem must be solved. -- Three of the most brilliant concepts are very counterintuitive: evolution, capitalism, and relativity. Despite our intuitions and biases, the evidence supports all three. Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/15/85)
In article <358@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > >I believe in evolution precisely > >because it best explains such things as the commonality of features > >among species. Therefore, I am not looking for "A REASON" to believe > >in evolutionary theory. > > I can just as easily say that I believe in creation because species > seem to have a common design. You can say it. But that doesn't make it valid reasoning. > This best explains the existance of such > complex structures as a brain, heart, and sexual reproduction organs. Once again, a bald statement, with no reasoning. (And where you have presented a case in the past, it has been shown to be bad, if not dishonest.) > Biological evolution seems inadequate for the development of emotions > and the ability to reason. In fact, a metaphysical explanation for them > is required. Can you describe the physical development of love, hate, or > joy? What were these emotions before they evolved into the present ones? > Did man "reason" just a little at first, than "reason" a lot later? Read "On Human Nature" by E. O. Wilson for some contemorary thought on these matters. Already we can envision evolutionary origins for emotions and reasoning: rigor will probably follow in the future. > Yes, evolution has it's answers to these questions. But, are they more > or less reasonable? More or less rational or logical? I believe they are > not. In fact, they are very incomplete. Is any naturalistic hypothesis > superior than a supernatural one just because it is naturalistic? Yes. Because a supernatural "hypothesis" cannot be improved. You're stuck with it, unchanging, hampering efforts to find naturalistic hypotheses. > Sounds to me like you want to believe in Evolution! I guess that makes > us the same! These two sentences show how complete your ignorance of science really is, and thus how truely different we are. You, a twentieth century equivalent of a superstitious peasant claiming to be just like the learned men at the universities. Because of your (scientific) illiteracy, you don't understand the differences. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
seshadri@t12tst.UUCP (Raghavan Seshadri) (07/17/85)
> first of all, the First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the extremely > unusually conditions during the first seconds after the big bang. > Even if this wasn't the case, why can't one say that the universe was always > here. If you say that God created it, then when and where was God created? > whatever your anwser is, it can just as easily be applied to the universe. I have a real problem understanding this reasoning.By saying that God created it,the religionists are essentially taking the picture out of the known conundrum of physical laws.Even if it looks like a copout,it cannot be disprovedOn the other hand,whatever you say about God cannot be applied to the universe which has "got to" obey the laws of physics.I am surprised that even Bertrand Russell subscribed to this flawed comparison. -- Raghu Seshadri
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (07/24/85)
In article <358@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > > I can just as easily say that I believe in creation because species > seem to have a common design. This best explains the existance of such > complex structures as a brain, heart, and sexual reproduction organs. You could say that by assuming that a creator would make his designs reasonably similar. But there's no reason to promote this view about that of eveolution. What's more... the evolutionary model seems to be supported by the facts. Your thesis has no support or evidence other than what you would like to be. > Biological evolution seems inadequate for the development of emotions > and the ability to reason. In fact, a metaphysical explanation for them > is required. Can you describe the physical development of love, hate, or > joy? What were these emotions before they evolved into the present ones? No metaphysical explanation is required. We simply don't know yet what these things we call emotions et al really are. And if you are claiming that since we cannot explain these emotions there must therefore have been a creator, well how did HIS emotions and existance develop? You can't prove the creation model by "debunking" the evolutionary one. > Did man "reason" just a little at first, than "reason" a lot later? > Yes, evolution has it's answers to these questions. But, are they more > or less reasonable? More or less rational or logical? I believe they are > not. In fact, they are very incomplete. Is any naturalistic hypothesis > superior than a supernatural one just because it is naturalistic? No... it's superior because any 5-year old can hypothesis a supernatural explanation and he will most likely be wrong. The tooth fairy cannot endur the test of science no matter how strongly he believes in it. SO the most obvious and appealing explanation isn't always the right one. > Sounds to me like you want to believe in Evolution! I guess that makes > us the same! If you want to believe in the truth or in the best-fit model that's probably a reasonable statement. There's a difference between wanting to believe in something because it is the truth, and believing in something only because you want something to be true. Evolution was derived from facts. "Creation science" was not. Simple as that. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "Ahhhhhh... the smell of cuprinol and mahogany. It excites me to... acts of passion... acts of... ineptitude."
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (07/24/85)
In article <617@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <358@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes: >>>I believe in evolution precisely >>>because it best explains such things as the commonality of features >>>among species. Therefore, I am not looking for "A REASON" to believe >>>in evolutionary theory. >> >> I can just as easily say that I believe in creation because species >> seem to have a common design. > >You can say it. But that doesn't make it valid reasoning. Why isn't it valid reasoning? >> This best explains the existance of such >> complex structures as a brain, heart, and sexual reproduction organs. > >Once again, a bald statement, with no reasoning. (And where you have >presented a case in the past, it has been shown to be bad, if not >dishonest.) Once again, an attack on my reasoning, with no explanation! Again, why isn't it valid reasoning? Dishonest? Please explain! >> Biological evolution seems inadequate for the development of emotions >> and the ability to reason. In fact, a metaphysical explanation for them >> is required. Can you describe the physical development of love, hate, or >> joy? What were these emotions before they evolved into the present ones? >> Did man "reason" just a little at first, than "reason" a lot later? > >Read "On Human Nature" by E. O. Wilson for some contemorary thought on these >matters. Already we can envision evolutionary origins for emotions and >reasoning: rigor will probably follow in the future. Ahhh! Now I understand what valid reasoning is! Quote a book title! >> Yes, evolution has it's answers to these questions. But, are they more >> or less reasonable? More or less rational or logical? I believe they are >> not. In fact, they are very incomplete. Is any naturalistic hypothesis >> superior than a supernatural one just because it is naturalistic? > >Yes. Because a supernatural "hypothesis" cannot be improved. You're stuck >with it, unchanging, hampering efforts to find naturalistic hypotheses. This is invalid reasoning. If you could form an hypothesis that was correct from the very start, would this make it inferior since you couldn't improve it? Why must a supernatural hypothesis hamper efforts to find a naturalistic one. That is your idea, not mine. A supernatural hypothesis can be considered as long as naturalistic ones are not yet perfect. I would think that this would promote more research into the naturalistic ones. In the meantime, supernatural explanations can be considered and evidence could be gathered to support them or invalidate them. >> Sounds to me like you want to believe in Evolution! I guess that makes >> us the same! > >These two sentences show how complete your ignorance of science really is, >and thus how truely different we are. You, a twentieth century equivalent >of a superstitious peasant claiming to be just like the learned men at >the universities. Because of your (scientific) illiteracy, you don't >understand the differences. > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh This last paragraph shows how bad you really need to believe in naturalistic explanations! The thought of considering the supernatural as a possibility sends you into a fit of arrogant insults! Why does it frighten you so much to consider the possibility of the supernatural? Frightened enough to attack me as a person! Am I a threat to your great ascent into perfected humanity? Do I remind you of the fears and apprehensions of the unknown that you have buried beneath your degree? What about those learned men of the universities that agree with me? In essence, you are saying that we are different because I don't agree with you! Dan
fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) (07/29/85)
> > Why does it frighten you so much to consider the possibility of > the supernatural? Frightened enough to attack me as a person! > > Am I a threat to your great ascent into perfected humanity? Do I remind > you of the fears and apprehensions of the unknown that you have buried > beneath your degree? > > What about those learned men of the universities that agree with me? > In essence, you are saying that we are different because I don't > agree with you! > > > Dan Two points, Dan. First, from what I've seen, none of those "learned men" appear to be biologists. Second, Why are you so frightened by the possibility of a naturalistic explanation. Are you scared that man may not be so perfect after all? After all, if you accept evolution, then you have to accept the possibility that man is related to "lower" forms of life, and was not created in the image of a god. Does this scare you? -- Dave Fritzinger Public Health Research Institute NY,NY {allegra!phri!fritz} "Blasting, billowing, bursting forth with the power of 10 billion butterfly sneezes..." Moody Blues
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (08/01/85)
In article <354@phri.UUCP> fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) writes: >> >> Why does it frighten you so much to consider the possibility of >> the supernatural? Frightened enough to attack me as a person! >> >> Am I a threat to your great ascent into perfected humanity? Do I remind >> you of the fears and apprehensions of the unknown that you have buried >> beneath your degree? >> >> What about those learned men of the universities that agree with me? >> In essence, you are saying that we are different because I don't >> agree with you! >> >> >> Dan > >Two points, Dan. First, from what I've seen, none of those "learned men" >appear to be biologists. Second, Why are you so frightened by the >possibility of a naturalistic explanation. Are you scared that man may >not be so perfect after all? After all, if you accept evolution, then >you have to accept the possibility that man is related to "lower" forms >of life, and was not created in the image of a god. Does this scare you? >-- >Dave Fritzinger No! I am not scared in the least. That is why I do not stoop to such depths as Huybenz (sp), Hua, and the latest addition to the insult club, Matt Crawford. I try to discuss the issues rather than attack the person. This is because I am confident about what I believe. And, if I am wrong than I have nothing to lose. I wonder if all you gutter mouths out there would be so quick to insult me if we were standing face to face! It is sure easy to call someone stupid, or an ignorant peasant, or even tell someone to F.O.A.D., through a machine, isn't it! If your out there, Keebler, I haven't forgotten your new name for me a while back! Dan Bullshitvich, I believe you called me! Ha! And you call us pseudoscientists! Such professionalism among evolutionists is to be admired! Dan
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/02/85)
In article <368@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > > Ha! And you call us pseudoscientists! Such professionalism among > evolutionists is to be admired! > > Dan I will stop calling Creationists pseudo-scientists when I see that they are maintaining the same standards of evidence and reasoning that are prevalent among scientists and they are able to provide even a *little* evidence meeting those standards which tends to support the Creationist position. I have seen niether as of this time. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (08/04/85)
> I haven't forgotten your new name for me > a while back! Dan Bullshitvich, I believe you called me! I agree with Dan, personal insults are inappropriate. We should all refrain from such activity. > Ha! And you call us pseudoscientists! Such professionalism among > evolutionists is to be admired! Creationists are pseudoscientists!!! A comprehensive discussion of pseudoscience and creationism has been given in one of the recent Creation/Evolution issues. The recent Kukuk/Brown posting are a good example of the pseudoscience approach. They attack evolution by picking bits and pieces of data which they perceive to be contradicting evolution. But the big fun starts when they actually discuss the creationism theory of the Noachian Ark. This is a typical pseudoscience theory which one is likely to find in the National Enquirer. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/13/85)
In article <368@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > I wonder if all you gutter > mouths out there would be so quick to insult me if we were standing > face to face! I'd be happy to, especially in front of an audience. Or were you planning on argument by intimidation? The fact is that you've shown us only evidence of your scientific ignorance. I stand by my description of you as the twentieth century equivalent of a superstitious and ignorant peasant, who (because of his ignorance) doesn't understand the difference between himself and men of learning. I think the facts bear me out. > Ha! And you call us pseudoscientists! Such professionalism among > evolutionists is to be admired! It's no more inappropriate for us to call you pseudoscientists than for doctors to call snake-oil vendors and psychic surgeons quacks and charletains. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (08/14/85)
> The fact is that you've shown us only evidence of your scientific ignorance. > I stand by my description of you as the twentieth century equivalent of > a superstitious and ignorant peasant, who (because of his ignorance) > doesn't understand the difference between himself and men of learning. > I think the facts bear me out. > > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Whether or not the facts bear you out is beside the point. I think vitriolic comments should be avoided, especially when they are unprovoked. Whether you agree with Dan, or not, he must be credited with having the sincerity to defend his point of view, and discuss it openly. Padraig Houlahan.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/15/85)
In article <543@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: > > The fact is that you've shown us only evidence of your scientific ignorance. > > I stand by my description of you as the twentieth century equivalent of > > a superstitious and ignorant peasant, who (because of his ignorance) > > doesn't understand the difference between himself and men of learning. > > I think the facts bear me out. > > > > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh > > Whether or not the facts bear you out is beside the point. I think vitriolic > comments should be avoided, especially when they are unprovoked. Whether > you agree with Dan, or not, he must be credited with having the sincerity > to defend his point of view, and discuss it openly. > > Padraig Houlahan. Very seldom do I resort to attacks which could be interpreted as ad-hominem; however there are situations where in order to combat fallacies of argument, it is appropriate. My source for the following argument is "How To Think Straight", by Robert H. Thouless. If someone would like to dig up my original criticism, you should see that the context is some claim to prestige such as "I'm as good a man as you", or "I know about science." I don't remember the exact circumstance, and it is gone from my system, else I would reproduce it. In the chapter titled "Thirty-Four Dishonest Tricks" (of HTTS), some basic fallacies of argument (and ways of dealing with them) are summarized. Number 15 is "prestige by false credentials". "The obvious remedy for this is... to expose the falsity of the [credentials]. The prestige then collapses." -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh