The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Two: The Empiricists Strike Back!

[Perfection]

WRT the nylon bug, it is again an issue of differing views because we can say things about it and the Evolutionists could counter that and a cross counter and so on. The problem here is thinking that just because a mutation occurs and it appears to be helpful to the organism, that it is automatically gaining info, whereas it could be losing info that once was there. It is not as cut and dry as some people here think.

As I see it, info can be interpreted in two ways, useful genetic mutations like my example, or just adding more genetic material. That's been empirically proven too. So yes, evolutino can add info.

 

[Perfection]

Actually Evolutions goes further back than you realise. We go back to the Greek who were the first to state the idea of evolution in the now rejected idea of Spontaeous generation. Due the work of Louis Pastuer, one of the men in that list, this theory was rejected but in it's place was put a theory that we came from a chemical soup that we have no idea how it occured, but must have occured, because the alternative is not worth exploring. There are millions of people who view that Creationism is still the best way of explaining how man came to being, over evolution, otherwise we would not be having this arguement.

Those ideas of evolution were unscientific claims with limited evidence and no mechanism. It was the the genius of Darwin and his colleagues to see the underlying causative mechanism behind it that made it a scientifically robust idea.

 

[Meleager]

Those ideas of evolution were unscientific claims with limited evidence and no mechanism. It was the the genius of Darwin and his colleagues to see the underlying causative mechanism behind it that made it a scientifically robust idea.

Isn't creationism also an "unscientific claim"? If so, why didn't they favor the unsientific claim of evolution (for lack of a better word) to the unscientific claim of creationism? (and these people had reason to - the church wasn't always nice to scientists)

 

[Sahkuhnder]

There are millions of people who view that Creationism is still the best way of explaining how man came to being, over evolution, otherwise we would not be having this arguement.

Totally irrelevant. The number of people who believe anything one way or another has absolutely no relationship to if a thing is true and/or with scientific basis or not.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I thought your religion granted you immortality.

Right, so I believe, I just meant 'never dying' and living forever (or a very long time; no one will escape the entropic decay of the universe) on earth.

 

[classical_hero]

Those ideas of evolution were unscientific claims with limited evidence and no mechanism. It was the the genius of Darwin and his colleagues to see the underlying causative mechanism behind it that made it a scientifically robust idea.

I cannot believe you are caling Darwin a genius when in a thread recently, I was able to show that he was a plagiarist and that none of his ideas are new, considering that hi Grandfather put them to papare way before he did.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I cannot believe you are caling Darwin a genius when in a thread recently, I was able to show that he was a plagiarist and that none of his ideas are new, considering that hi Grandfather put them to papare way before he did.

Again, totally irrelevant. Where or from who an idea originated has absolutely no relationship to if a thing is true and/or with scientific basis or not.

 

[Perfection]

Isn't creationism also an "unscientific claim"? If so, why didn't they favor the unsientific claim of evolution (for lack of a better word) to the unscientific claim of creationism? (and these people had reason to - the church wasn't always nice to scientists)

Well creationism is also unscientific, but I'd say less so than early evolutionary theories. Creationism did account for some of the functionining of animal systems. Modern evolutionary theory, of course explains much more.

I cannot believe you are caling Darwin a genius when in a thread recently, I was able to show that he was a plagiarist and that none of his ideas are new, considering that hi Grandfather put them to papare way before he did.

Link?

 

[CurtSibling]

I cannot believe you are caling Darwin a genius when in a thread recently, I was able to show that he was a plagiarist and that none of his ideas are new, considering that hi Grandfather put them to papare way before he did.

But he was a genius.

Hence, why history recalls him. Funny how your religious mania cannot
even allow you to regard a great mind as such. Surely you are blinkered
and misguided in this assessment. Even I can respect great minds that
invented glorious art and literature, inspired by religion.

...

 

[ironduck]

Right, so I believe, I just meant 'never dying' and living forever (or a very long time; no one will escape the entropic decay of the universe) on earth.

I just don't understand why you want to live forever in the afterlife but not for a very long time on earth.. is it because there's too much pain on earth, so that it's not really a nice life, or is it because it would get too boring after a while?

 

[CurtSibling]

Entropy is a certain thing.

All systems lose cohesion and collapse with time.

.

 

[carlosMM]

I cannot believe you are caling Darwin a genius when in a thread recently, I was able to show that he was a plagiarist and that none of his ideas are new, considering that hi Grandfather put them to papare way before he did.

Please, where's that thread?

 

[Sidhe]

Well creationism is also unscientific, but I'd say less so than early evolutionary theories. Creationism did account for some of the functionining of animal systems. Modern evolutionary theory, of course explains much more.



Link?

You could also make a point that Newton got most of his ideas from copernicus and kepler and his disciples and that non of them were his own he just used framed all the laws of planetary motion that already existed into some nice maths. Science is about standing on the shoulders of Giants. Darwin is a genius because he took these ideas, spent a lifetime showing scientifically that evolution happened and bought the theory credence and acceptance at least amognst the non religious. That is not the work of a smart man but of a genius, genius is not necessarily how smart you are as Einstein himself said Genius is 99% prespiration 1% inspiration

I would put Newton, Darwin, Schrodinger and Bach and Beethoven and Escher and Camus and Sartre and Nietzche and Chopenhaur and Socrates and Plank and Bohr and Watson and Crick and Marie Curie and Pele all on my hall of fame of geniuses and frankly so would most people? Where the idea that Darwin is not considered a great thinker of his time comes from is probably the same place creationism does, IE from ignorance and self delusion

 

[CurtSibling]

Please, where's that thread?

God must have hidden it.

 

[Quasar1011]

Entropy is a certain thing.

All systems lose cohesion and collapse with time.

.

If that is true, how did life begin? How did it spring from DNA to single-celled organisms? If we take evolution back to its beginning point, we have to ask these questions.

 

[carlosMM]

If that is true, how did life begin? How did it spring from DNA to single-celled organisms? If we take evolution back to its beginning point, we have to ask these questions.

Think about it! Get a good textbook on it. I recommended a fairly recent one in hte last thread once or twice - seems no evolution-opponent ever read it.

 

[CurtSibling]

If that is true, how did life begin? How did it spring from DNA to single-celled organisms? If we take evolution back to its beginning point, we have to ask these questions.

I am not qualified to make such guesses on a question no man can answer, and neither are you.

Life certainly did not spring from some ancient fairy tale about snakes, and women being made from ribs, etc.

.

 

[Quasar1011]

I am not qualified to make such guesses on a question no man can answer, and neither are you.

Life certainly did not spring from some ancient fairy tale about snakes, and women being made from ribs, etc.

.

Wait a minute. If we follow evolution backwards to its obvious beginning- that single-celled organsims sprang from DNA, there is still nothing better than guesses as to how it happened?

Think about it! Get a good textbook on it. I recommended a fairly recent one in hte last thread once or twice - seems no evolution-opponent ever read it.

So, there are viable theories as to how life made the transition from being just a collection of organic molecules, to becoming sensient organic life?

I mean, one of you 2 is saying no man can answer this, and the other says we can.

 

[carlosMM]

I mean, one of you 2 is saying no man can answer this, and the other says we can.

It is highly improbable that we can find the exact way it happened - for one thing it is very long past, there's hardly any chance at all that anything got fossilized in any way (there's hardly any sediments left from that time to begin with). But, biochemistry gets better and better - we have a good chance to find mechanisms that explain parts of the problem. Like Urey&Miller. Not the whole story, but a tiny part of it. And biology gets better and better - so we from time to time find 'new' primitive organisms (protists, usually) that give a better idea of what way have happened. In the end we will not find out how it happened, but we will find out how it can happen.

I'll give you the title of the book on Monday, if you are interested - it's at the office and I can't remember it of the top of my head.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I just don't understand why you want to live forever in the afterlife but not for a very long time on earth.. is it because there's too much pain on earth, so that it's not really a nice life, or is it because it would get too boring after a while?

Basically, yes. I believe that in the afterlife we will have a greater capacity to experience joy, and that it will be far better (even for those who were bad in this life) than anything we have here. Also it is obvious that we currently have bodies that are suboptimal or imperfect. I believe that that will be improved on in the Resurrection.