[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Evolution vs Creation

(skip five pages or so now if you don't want to see this)

>Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 17:00:15 EDT
>From: AquaServe at aol_com

>The key phrase here is "when measured by scientific criteria"  A young boy
>cannot understand many things his father may try to teach him...the boy is
>not equipped to understand these things fully until he matures...the same
>could be said here.   Can we get back to aquarium plants now?


often, the boy outgrows the father in the end. Sometimes the old ways have
to be let go, superceded.

>Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 19:13:25 -0400
>From: "Raymond A. Pollett" <112221.73 at compuserve_com>

>I figure evolution goes a long way past "theory" or "hypothesis" and
>gets full status as a "postulate". Some would even grant it the status
>of "scientific law". Creationism doesn't rank as even "wild conjecture"
>when measured by scientific criteria.
>
>Steve Pushak                              Vancouver, BC, CANADA ""
>
>But Steve you have that backwards my friend. Evolution is is just a
>philosophy, not even close to science. Well maybe bad science. An
>intelligent person like yourself should want facts, not a philosophy that
>is unproven after over 100 years with thousands tring desperately to make
>it fact.


So you're suggesting that we stick with a story that is unproven after 1000s
of years with thousands trying desperately to make it fact.

>Mutation yes, we see it all the time , but one species producing a new
>species of a different kind?

That's because the likelyhood of a harmful mutation is so much greater than
that of a useful mutation. You can have some individuals of every generation
for thousands of years born with mutations only to die off because of
handicaps. They will only prosper if their mutation is somehow helpful.

 Not since shortly after God created the world
>have we seen a new kind of animal. ( New types of dogs are still dogs, by
>the way)


Of course, the possibility of an 'intelligent designer' or 'director' is a
little harder to discount than the possibility of the judeo-christian god.

Afterall, let's say that evolution is too unlikely to happen by itself (but
a Supreme Being just happened by itself). That doesn't make either of the
accounts of genesis or the flood in the bible, torah, or koran, correct.
Maybe some other religion got it right? I don't know of one but that doesn't
mean there isn't one.

If the judeo-christian god is the real God, then somewhere along the line he
has delibrately tried to mislead us. He gives us a story on one hand and
facts that don't agree on the other. He also created us with the capacity to
understand both versions. He then claims to be a loving god (no, wait, it
was a vengeful god. no maybe it was jealous). Sounds more like malicious to
me.

>Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 21:21:53 EDT
>From: IDMiamiBob at aol_com

>Elvis writes:
>
>>  figure evolution goes a long way past "theory" or "hypothesis" and
>>  gets full status as a "postulate". Some would even grant it the status
>>  of "scientific law". Creationism doesn't rank as even "wild conjecture"
>>  when measured by scientific criteria.
>
>Steve- Go back and read the last chapter of "Origin of the Species".  You
>know the one by Darwin.  It lists specific fossil evidence that needs to be
>found in order to substantiate the theory.

things that Darwin *believed* needed to be found. People seem to think that
for Darwin to have been right, he must also be infallible.

>Since the substantiating evidence is still missing, Darwin went, and I will
>go, into the next life as Creationists.


Darwin believed in God at first. Later in life he became agnostic. He wanted
to believe but couldn't (some say because of the death of his daughter). He
was without faith right to the end.

>As for evolution as a currently ongoing event, I don't know of any
variation
>of Creationism that denies it.

well that's because the creationists keep relaxing their requirements
everytime they lose a legal or scientific argument.

  Creationism simply requires the existance of
>a Supreme Being to control, direct, force, etc the emergence of new
>biological stuff, like eys, ears, etc.  The existence of misquitos
>demonstrates to me that there must be a controlling hand.  How else would a
>proboscis that sucks blood from vertebrates come into existence through
slow
>gradual changes?

It probably existed first for sucking nectar. An individual (or more likely,
group of siblings) who didn't detect flower smells properly sucked blood
instead of nectar and her offspring (with the same 'detect blood instead of
nectar' mutation) prospered. Just one of many possible explantations.

  Think about it really hard, and with an open mind.  I think
>you will realize the foolishness of such concept.


No matter what holes you pick in evolution theory, you always end up with,
'where did the supreme being come from' on the creationism side. No matter
how unlikely evolution (and the first, spontaneously reproducing life) is, a
supreme being is more unlikely.

Shannon