Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678
Results 141 to 152 of 152
  1. #141  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I just asked a question. Thanx for the links. Your commentary is an example of the dogmaticism that detractors claim.
    What was dogmatic about my post? Here's another link from an earlier post, with more examples of speciation in progress: http://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowe...ationmode.html
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  2. #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    How about the absence of an "hard evidence" of an actual species change?
    Plenty of "hard evidence" exists of species change for asexually reproducing organisms (such as micro-organisms) - there is tons of experimental laboratory data (which can be reproduced_ showing clear change of species as a result of small mutations.
    You're probably refering to sexual reproduction - where the organisms typically have much much more complex genomes and longer lives (typically several years, as compared to minutes or hours for microorganisms). However the "hard evidence" is there - in the field of genetic analysis. The evolution of several species (e.g. fruit flies) have been clearly mapped out by DNA analysis to show the divergence of species and the inter-relatedness of species at the genetic level. In addition there are several projects underway to do field-testing of evolution - i.e. to show that evolution can be observed within our lifetimes.

    Knowing who created something does not preculde you from learning how it functions.
    Agreed. So why do creationists have to muddle the science about how life arose on this planet with who created it? Evolution science deals with the how question only.

    I don't think I stated such an assumption. I did state that I do not question the mathematics behind the theory, because I have seen the predictions borne out. That does not mean that the mathematics are exhaustive or comprehensive, only predictive.
    So if you see an instance where the theory of gravitation is no longer predictive, would you still "believe" in it blindly?

    Understood. However, in absence of direct evidence of the links, the theory should be discussed as a hypothetical rather than dogmatically declared to me so.
    I'm afraid that I'm totally clueless here - what do you mean by "direct evidence of links"? Are you referring to "connecting the dots" for each and every theory? Do you not accept the concepts of inductive and deductive logic? If you don't, then you're rejecting almost all of modern science, including physics and chemistry.

    There is a secondary philosophical divergence between us. Where we probvably diverge in our views is that I don't equate the ability to understand a phenomenon as the proof that a divine being was not involved. I know that there are christians who declare that "the Lord works in mysterious ways." But, that does not mean His ways are undiscernable. It means that they are not always logical from our frame of reference.
    Again I'm confused - do you mean that natural phenomenon (such as gravity or evolution) can or cannot be intrepreted without calling upon divine? Does that mean we should or should not use logic and science to deduce these phenomenon? Or should we stick to a divine interpretation because it appeals to us as a simpler explanation, even when a logical and scientific explanation (which may be difficult to comprehend easily) is available to explain a phenomenon?
    You are right about the philosophical difference between us - you seem to prefer "explanations" that fit within your comfort zone of fundamentalist Old Testament theology, whereas I prefer to look to science as way to understand and appreciate the wonderful universe that was created by God, not as a way to question him.

    For example, it does not seem logical on the surface that to grow a plant, you first have to "kill" the seed. It would seem logical that the seed would need to be "alive" in order to bring forth life. But the function is quite the opposite. That is "mysterious" but not beyond finding out
    Again I've no idea what you're talking about? What is so "mysterious" about a dormant (not truly dead) seed sprouting forth under the right conditions? The concept of dormant life was understood going back to ancient Greek times - so what is counter-intuitive about it?
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  3. #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I just asked a question. Thanx for the links. Your commentary is an example of the dogmaticism that detractors claim.
    you know shopharim - that was really a cheap shot!

    Somebody provides you with links that answer your questions and and you accuse him of being dogmatic??? How low can you go?
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  4. #144  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I also believe that it is virtually undeniable that many principles of evolution and natural selection played an important role in that creation, though I may disagree on some small and vital points of the theory.
    I would also like to know which points (small and/or vital) you disagree on.

    I was also wondering - what if somebody who isn't a physicist or a mathematician, or any other sort of expert in the field says "I agree the theory of relativity/quantum physics/etc. is correct, though there are some small and vital points where I disagree". That's quite a surprising thing to say for somebody who isn't an expert in the field of relativity/quantum phyiscs/etc., isn't it?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. #145  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    I would say that the opposite - Design "theory" does not allow any further line of inquiry using generally accepted scientific methods. Once you accept Divine guidance as an explanation for any natural phenomenon, then science will grind to a halt, because it cannot presume to understand God. Scientists attack ID precisely because of this - it puts limits on the questions that can be asked - they like to keep asking questions and have an open path (and mind) to possible answers.
    Again, I think this is where you are losing what I have been saying in this and the other thread over and over again.

    Because I have solid and firm belief in God, does not mean that I, or dare I say a vast amount of others who believe in God, do not accept science. In fact, it is that belief that drives me to understanding Science even more. Because I believe he created the world and becasue I believe that he often uses the laws and forces of nature to do his will, I am interested in science to help understand some of the possibilities of how he created it.

    I also recognize that our understanding of how the forces and laws of nature work are always changing and adapting as our knowledge grows and new discoveries are made.
  6. #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I would also like to know which points (small and/or vital) you disagree on.

    I was also wondering - what if somebody who isn't a physicist or a mathematician, or any other sort of expert in the field says "I agree the theory of relativity/quantum physics/etc. is correct, though there are some small and vital points where I disagree". That's quite a surprising thing to say for somebody who isn't an expert in the field of relativity/quantum phyiscs/etc., isn't it?
    Clulup.....this a re-hash of the other thread. I expressed in detail many of my concerns and we discussed them there already in pretty good detail for a format of discussion as these forums offer. That was a comment simply in reference with our fairly lengthly conversation there, many of which I think I linked to above.

    Is there a prerequisite for this thread? I have admitted from the VERY beginning that I am not an expert in the field, but that does not mean that I am not always trying to understand, learn, and grow. That does not mean that I cannot be a meaningful participant in this discussion. That does not mean I am always right, and that does not mean that I am always wrong.
  7. #147  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Again, I think this is where you are losing what I have been saying in this and the other thread over and over again.

    Because I have solid and firm belief in God, does not mean that I, or dare I say a vast amount of others who believe in God, do not accept science. In fact, it is that belief that drives me to understanding Science even more. Because I believe he created the world and becasue I believe that he often uses the laws and forces of nature to do his will, I am interested in science to help understand some of the possibilities of how he created it.

    I also recognize that our understanding of how the forces and laws of nature work are always changing and adapting as our knowledge grows and new discoveries are made.
    I firmly believe in God also, and have spent considerable amount of time studying Christian theology because of my faith and my quest to understand the teachings of Christ (I must admit that I focus almost exclusively on the New Testament). And like you, I am always in wonder of the universe God created and as you say, trying to understand his ways by the study of science. All I'm trying to say is that when you're using scientific methods (regardless of your belief), it makes sense to use the tried-and-tested objective guidelines (not dogma as the detractors would claim) used by the scientific community to try and intrepret the natural laws and phenomenon. Just because a particular phenomenon is difficult to understand or intrepret, with today's knowledge, does not mean that you have to throw your hands up in the air and say that it must be "God's will" or that it is "unknowable". That is an intellectually lazy way to cop-out and does not allow progress. While it is fairly common for scientists to question each others hypotheses of theories, they often put forth alternate credible theories with significant scientific data to back them up. However theories from the lunatic fringe (flat earth theory or the-moon-is-made-of-green-cheese theory) do not get much attention since they are usually short on science and long on wild speculation. Unfortunately, though ID/creationism is no different from those examples, it has taken up enormous amount of attention due to the relentless agenda of the fanatical evalengicals to confuse the general public enough so that it could be taken "seriously".
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  8. #148  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Clulup.....this a re-hash of the other thread. I expressed in detail many of my concerns and we discussed them there already in pretty good detail for a format of discussion as these forums offer. That was a comment simply in reference with our fairly lengthly conversation there, many of which I think I linked to above.
    I did read your posts in this and the other threads, and also re-read the ones you linked to, but there was no indication to what you mean by "small and vital" disagreements with the principles of evolution. You quoted your religious biology teacher who claimed there are "several huge wholes in the theory", and you wrote that an eye cannot develop through evolution. But you never said what those wholes in the theory supposedly consist of, and which data indicate that an eye cannot develop through evolution. There are hundreds of different species with all sorts of eyes and all levels of development (just bright/dark, black and white, color vision, etc.), and also plenty of studies showing how e.g. eyes can/did develop.
    Is there a prerequisite for this thread? I have admitted from the VERY beginning that I am not an expert in the field, but that does not mean that I am not always trying to understand, learn, and grow. That does not mean that I cannot be a meaningful participant in this discussion. That does not mean I am always right, and that does not mean that I am always wrong.
    You certainly are a very meaningful participant in this discussion, and I hope I can still ask you for clarification of some of your statements, or can't I?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9. #149  
    Ok
    Several folks on the creationist side have questions and a lot of opinions about evolution - but almost everyone admits being a "non-expert". Does that mean that evolution cannot be understood by non-scientists? Absolutely not - there are dozens of books out there which can help explain the evolution sciences for the layperson.
    While the web is a great source, if I truly wanted to understand, say Einstein's theory of relativity, I would at least try to read a book or two (Stephen Hawkins "Brief History of Time" is a good start!) before I try to discuss it with others, especially so if I was trying to fault it!

    A few popular books that explain evolution for the layperson:
    Stephen Jay Gould: either Panda's Thumb or Bully for Brontosaurus
    Jay Gould is one of the more controversial and flamboyant scientist who has challenged the mainstream evolutionary scientists in the 80's and 90's.

    Richard Dawkins: either Blind Watchmaker or Selfish Gene
    The problem with Dawkins is that he is little too passionate with his atheistic views and that can put off a lot of people - though he does explain evolution reasonable well.

    Carl Sagan: Garden of Eden
    Carl Sagan - enuff said! His books are a bit dated - but still very relevant.

    Max Delbruck: Mind from Matter?
    Nobel prize winner - but very approachable book (published in the 1970's) with panaromic view on scientific knowledge - and how much more we have to learn.

    Daniel Dennett: Darwin's Dangerous Idea
    Another strongly opinionated and militantly atheistic author - but does have very convincing arguments that he builds up systematically. Hard to disagree with him using logic and reasoning. If you're truly curious about "unknowable" areas such as our mind, then Conciousness Explained is a must-read.

    More academic and "heavier" reading:
    John Maynard Smith: The Theory of Evolution
    Not an easy read, and requires a refresher in undergrad biology. But this is one of the classics (twenty years old!) and is required reading for anyone in the field. Not polemic at all - just states the facts and experiments that back up evolution.

    Ernst Mayr: One Long Argument
    Was one of the leading evolutionary biologists of the last century and the father of the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis. Requires a background in biology to be able to appreciate his classic work. A more approachable book may be What Evolution Is

    Now on the other side of the fence, perhaps the only author to actually have any credibility is:

    Michael Behe: Darwin's Black Box
    I've read it - and it goes into mind-numbing technical detail about cellular systems (immune systems, blood clotting, cell movement etc.). He then uses the argument of "irreducible complexity" to simply state that current science cannot explain these mechanisms (a lot of scientists initially agreed with him) and therefore must be wrong (plenty of rebuttals here of those who disagree). Of course, apart from pointing out what is at yet unknown (which all scientists are aware of) he does not offer any solutions or ideas.

    The question is - is there anyone willing to actually know what they're talking about before they palm off opinions as facts or whine about "dogmatic" supression?
    Last edited by chillig35; 08/08/2005 at 05:06 PM.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  10. #150  
    Would these post not be better suited here:
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...ad.php?t=70817

    We've (rather you guys) have strayed way off topic, and aren't there not one, but two other threads with this same debate?
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  11. #151  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Would these post not be better suited here:
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...ad.php?t=70817

    We've (rather you guys) have strayed way off topic, and aren't there not one, but two other threads with this same debate?
    I agree - but that thread was waterlogged after my waterballoon fight with Hobbes

    And I guess we can't help it - creationism rears it ugly head everywhere and it needs to be beaten back
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  12.    #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Would these post not be better suited here:
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...ad.php?t=70817

    We've (rather you guys) have strayed way off topic, and aren't there not one, but two other threads with this same debate?
    definitely

    Hyperspace Button
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678

Posting Permissions