Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02/16/02 9:48pm
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "Agreed" on 02/ 5/02 3:17pm
>>>>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.
>
>My point in saying that Paul was fighting a straw man
>is that ozboy set one up for him to hit. While the
>similarities seem obvious, there are much better
>reasons to think we are closely related to apes. So
>it seemed that Paul was fighting the easiest fight
>available.
That maybe true, but I suggest that we not be too hard on Paul in this case, since he was debating with ozboy and it was ozboy who made the claim.
>>>>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.
>
>The funny thing is that "macroevolution" and
>"microevolution" are just words. "Evolution" as a
>whole is just change in gene pools. There is no
>invisible barrier that I have ever heard of which
>separates "macro" and "micro".
Ben already knows my response to this, but for those who don’t I advise them to check out my post titled “Perhaps” under the main post “A contradiction in Wade's ideas?”
>>>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.
>
>Of course there does, but, as you said, not every
>explanatory theory is equally likely.
Quite correct. However, what I really wanted was for ozboy to provide actual reasons why evolution is more rational explanation than creation. Not doing so in this sort of debate was, I thought, a bit hasty. Hence my “careful” word of caution.
>Although you are right about ozboy's method of
>presentation, I do in some ways agree with him. I
>really have _no_ evidence which indicates to me that
>the Christian God exists.
Hmm, I already provided you with one piece of data that I think theism explains better, but you (for reasons unclear to me) disagree. As this example demonstrates, deciding which theory most rationally explains data can be subjective (even though theories are objectively true/false). In any case, seldom is the evidence so completely one-sided, especially on a controversial issue like this. Trying extremely hard to be as rational and as impartial as I possibly can, I’ve come to the conclusion that a great deal can be said in defense of both theism and atheism. I advise you to reconsider your views on this matter.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 