alwight
New member
Whatever you might think of Darwinian evolution it is nevertheless an explanation of the evidence, not just a bald assertion, so do feel free to falsify it at any time.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
alwight
New member
I'm an agnostic atheist, I don't claim to have any such knowledge while I believe that nor does anyone else.
I might occasionally make an absolute statement or bald assertion but only if it is in response to an absolute statement or bald assertion, so shoot me, it's certainly a whole lot easier than having to support it with real evidence.:idunno:
gcthomas
New member
You are applying Shannon's Noisy Channel Theory outside its area of applicability, since you insist on treating limiting assumptions as truths by definition, thereby destroying any argument you thought you had. If you were one of my students applying the Shannon's excellent theory so carelessly, you'd fail my course.
I'm an evolutionist, why would I falsify it?
the life of a drive-by critic of spirituality on a religious forum is defiantly easier, I will grant you that.
alwight
New member
Good for you then, but weren't you being somewhat critical of Darwin, as if you thought it could be improved?
What exactly was he being vague about? It was the first of its kind what more would you expect?
alwight
New member
Maybe but why should faith be given a free ride?
Cross Reference
New member
I was so spare your "speak down" remarks.
Cross Reference
New member
Is it an explanation as to how life began?
alwight
New member
No, evolution only concerns what came after.
Within individual cells your distinction is meaning less. Evolution does not occure in an individual. Once the individual is born, their genetic code is set. Any mutations in that code tend to be expressed as cancer. Evolution is seen in the progeny so the mutations that matter are the ones that occur in gametes, the sperm and the eggs. These only have half the required genetic code so mutations occur when sperm and egg combine. Mutations also occur as the gametes are formed.
You are arguing against how DNA functions with in a cell and trying to use that to argue against evolution of a species. Your argument is wrong.
This is a meaningless rabbit hole.
alwight
New member
I didn't miss WWII by all that much, but if you want more respect from me in a thread about creation v evolution then I suggest you present something actually worthy of respect.
I'd say you are allowed to belive in a Godless universe without interference or persecution from people of faith in God. That is to say Atheist are allowed the same free ride.
alwight
New member
I at least don't want a free ride, and I want to be shown that I am wrong if that is so, but perhaps for the faithful even considering the possibility of being wrong is just not acceptable?
As finite beings we can only be relatively right about absolutes, a gallon cannot fit into a quart. As people of faith we need to always be open to the consideration of new scientific facts and spiritual revelation. Both science and religion tend to be too dogmatic. While scientific observation about the material can and does change, the material is a constant. By the same token, the associated narratives of religion also change, but spiritual gravity remains the same kind of constant.
Cross Reference
New member
You opinion deserves not respect. Try presenting something someone can work with.
Cross Reference
New member
That shows good thinking, not. So after all is said and done you admit science can only work/deal with what it holds its hand; what can only be supported by laboratory tests of what already exists with no knowledge of how it came into being. Interesting you keep denying that part. .
Jose Fly
New member
I've seen this sort of thing from creationists quite a bit over the years, and it always fascinates me. It goes something like...
Science advocate: Evolutionary theory doesn't seek to explain how the first life on earth came to be, rather it explains how life evolves both in the present and in the past.
Creationist: So you admit scientists don't care about/aren't looking into/can't study the origins of life! Figures!!
Creationist: So you admit scientists don't care about/aren't looking into/can't study the origins of life! Figures!!
The problem here is obvious; the creationist is confusing "origins isn't included in evolutionary theory" with "scientists aren't studying origins", as if whatever lies outside of evolutionary theory also lies outside of science.
I find it fascinating because I see it from creationists so regularly and it always makes me wonder...do they really not understand, or are they so desperate to score points in the debate that they'll grasp at anything, no matter how ridiculous it makes them look?
opcorn:
6days
New member
Nope.... Chemical evolution is still evolution.
G.A. Kerkut, evolutionary physiologist said that evolution is founded upon the belief in life from non-life. “The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred”
Alwight... Its not hard to find many evolutionists who consider stellar evolution, then chemical evolution, then biological evolution, all as part of "evolution". For example you can find articles with titles such as “Cosmic Evolution: From Big Bang to Humankind”
6days
New member
I suppose we find it equally fascinating that that evolutionists often are closet believers in life from non life. Come out of the closet Jose..... don't be shy. I don't know what you really believe but atheistic evolutionists have no choice other than believe life from non life
- Status