Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02/ 5/02 12:00pm
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "Paul needs to back up his assertions" on 02/ 3/02 4:20pm
>Paul,
>
>It really isn't fair for you to continue to assert how
>"stupid" the evolutionary theory is without backing it
>up. To be honest, it makes _you_ look like one of
>those people who just likes to parrot what he has
>heard, but who doesn't have any real working knowledge
>of the issues at hand.
>
>Therefore, I suggest you follow one of these two
>courses of action:
>
>1) stop making assertions that you cannot back up, or
>2) start providing support to your assertions.
I think Ben is right to question Paul on backing up his assertions. However, I think Ozboy is making a similar mistake. For example, I explained that both creation and evolution explain the similarities, and that more work needed to be done to show that evolution is superior to creation on this matter (i.e. justifying evolution as the best explanation, which Ozboy did not do). Ozboy claimed the creation explanation was “absurd” without using any evidential arguments to justify this.
>Typically, when someone uses loaded words like
>"stupid," I assume he really doesn't know much about
>the issues. If you would like to discuss evolutionary
>theory, please do. But if all you want to do is make
>fun of something you obviously don't understand, then
>please stop.
Good advice, but quoting Ozboy from “No Title?????”
>>> I'm simply not well read enough on creation to accept or ridicule its explination on our subject. I will say that I find our creation by god absurd - therefore any explination creation might present must be equally absurd.
Calling it absurd without really understanding it does not seem commendable.
>>Like I said the similarities between
>>ape and men just doesnt constitute scientific
>>proof.
>
>Of course not. You are fighting a straw man.
Not quite. Quoting Ozboy from “Hanumann, the Monkey Temple” after he described some similarities between monkeys and humans:To look at monkeys and say that they are not related to us… seems quite ridiculous!!! So saying that these similarities does not demonstrate common descent is “ridiculous” according to Ozboy. If what Ozboy said is true, this would seem to imply that similarities constitute some sort of proof for common descent. In this case, I don’t think Paul is that far off from his target.
>>And WADE got it right on the virus antibodies
>>they dont evolve at all they adapt,
>
>Maybe you are not aware that adaptation is a form of
>evolution. Evolution just means change (not
>"progress", to be sure), and this type of adaptation
>represents a type of evolution.
If you want define evolution simply as “change,” then creationists accept evolution. But this is not how the term is typically used in creation-evolution discussions (including this one where people focused on similarities supporting common descent for humans and monkeys). Instead, the word “evolution” typically means something like “macroevolution” in such contexts. And the immune system adapting to a virus is not macroevolution.
>It doesn't represent
>an evolution from one "species" to another (I put that
>word in quotes because the whole idea of "species" is
>just a man-made one... it's more like a continuum than
>a bunch of set "species" that are objectively
>determinable). Nevertheless, there are many examples
>of such evolution. The horse is one animal that we
>have the richest history of.
Careful, we haven’t actually seen the evolution of horse. Using them as an example of evolution is debatable because we are interpreting the data to support explanatory theories, and there exists more than one interpretation for the empirical data here. (I’m not, repeat, not saying evolution should be thrown out because of this, I’m just injecting a word of caution and a warning against oversimplifying the issues.)
>I had to ask myself this question at one point: If I
>were wrong, would I want to know? I suggest you pose
>that question to yourself before delving into these
>issues any further.
Good idea.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 