Originally posted by ushomefree
Please read my post again; I think you misunderstood my point. First and foremost, I presented questions upon the theory of evolution, but I never went out of my way to disprove it. And I never--by attempting to disprove evolution--tried to prove creation science as victor. Surely underlying tones existed, but I was merely asking for people to be honest when debating.
No, I know what you were saying, but I chose to focus on those underlying tones.
You said "Frankly--and I mean no harm--the majority of you are presenting empty/blanket statements--providing zero evidence to support your claims."
I guess I could have worded it different - you are capable of arguing in favor of creationism providing evidence for it that does not solely exist on "holes exist in evolution"?
Certainly people who know evolution do the same - "but there is no evidence for any of creationism", but they could also bring up plenty of evidence that supports evolutionary theory as well as pointing out the holes that exist in creationism.
I was simply wondering that since you are criticising people here for providing "zero evidence" whether you are able to do differently (since previous posts of you have made indicate you stand behind creationist theory).
Originally posted by ushomefree
5) unconsciousness produces consciousness, and6) non-reason produces reason.
both of these things are human constructs to try and explain the mind, and both fail miserably at actually explaining human cognition.
Humans are neither "conscious" or posses "reason" as you imply them here.
Originally posted by RobtardWhat part of the Bible was this Bill Cosby fellow in?
Does it have Bill Cosby's stamp of approval though?
Was he a disciple as well?
I don't believe anything would need his approval b/c the Bible says that Jesus's word is the final word and the only word that matters, whether Bill liked it or not. It just doesn't matter.........according to the bible that is.
Besides, I believe Unjello is in the new Testament anyway so it wouldn't involve Bill.
I'll go check someone's Bible to make sure. Believe it or not, I'm no expert.
Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....
Actually, Cosby references aside, I don't think we've actually answered his questions in an evolutionary sense. The questions or "problems" ushomefree presents display an incomplete view of evolution, and also a slanted view of some issues. But evolutionary theory DOES, in fact, answer most of what he presented.
I'll answer them to the best of ym ability within the quote below.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Evolutionists have problems of their own, and they have yet to explain:[B]1) how nothing produces everything,
- That's not a question for evolution. It's more dealing with the creation of the universe. And your question seems to be a vague allusion to Thomas Aquinas' cosmological "proof" of God's existence, which involves an infinite regress of causal forces, positing that God is the ultimate causal force behind creation. What it doesn't account for is what would cause God. That's not a valid question, Aquinas would argue...God is his own means to existence, but it does nothing but present us with the same problem. And even we assumed that there is a force behind the universe's creation (erroneous, at best), it doesn't prove a Christian God or even a religious deity. If this god-figure can be naturally existent without preexisting causes, how is it so hard to imagine that the universe could do the same?2) non-life produces life:
- You're again going under the assumption that we're fundamentally different than, say, a robot. We're not. We're just infinitely more complex. Most critics of evolution have no concept of the hundreds of millions of years within which life on earth evolved. Given such a timeframe, it would actually be less probable that life wouldn't evolve. Strains of molecules bond together and eventually form Replicators, tiny gene-like structures capable of attracting identical substances to them, effectively making copies of themselves. Occasionally errors occur in the replication process and a mutation occurs. Mutations that are beneficial to the Replicator, that help it survive, tend to become dominant and continue to make copies of itself. These random mutations, over thousands of years, eventually lead to even greater complexity, allowing for the Replicators to increase in size, variety, and longevity. DNA is the modern descendant of those original replicating strands that began in our oceans, and is capable of amazingly complex processes as they work together toward survival, both individually and mutually. This is an insanely shortened view of evolutionary theory as we understand it, but I hope it conveys the basic principle.3) randomness produces fine-tuning:
- Dealt with in #2. It's all the same process.4) chaos produces information:
- Not sure I understand this one. Seems like it's a variation on #3. I also touch on this in my answer to #6.5) unconsciousness produces consciousness:
- No one can claim to be an expert on consciousness because even "experts" can't reach a consensus. Some hard materialists claim that what we perceive to be consciousness is nothing but an illusion, a by-product of neural processes that most advanced creatures posess at different levels depending on their complexity. We can be reasonably sure, for example, that many varieties of monkey and ape are self-aware, a form of consciousness. But if God blessed us solely with this amazing gift, how is it that other species possess it? And even if consciousness is in fact seperate from the material world and is something that emerges as a transcendant experience of our sensory input, it still does nothing to invalidate evolutionary theory. "I have consciousness" isn't a refutation of evolution, nor is it evidence of a creator-deity.6) non-reason produces reason:
- I don't see what this has to do with evolution. It's a process of natural selection that has led to life on earth as we know it today. Part of the complexity of many creatures is the ability to process information from the world around them and use that information to make informed decisions about their welfare and survival. The eyeball, for example, evolved independantly in many strains of creatures as a survival mechanism. Not everything is solely in regards to survival, but the continuous complexification of life has produced what we call intelligence and reason as a by-product.[/B]
Hope that's more to your liking. I'm assuming you'll pick out one or two things to counter rather than the main body of it, and find some other questions to pose, but I felt like you at least deserved a straight response.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Yeah, honestly, Catholics are pretty decent with changing their stance when they're about to be embarassed by science. Smart people can find justifications for lots of things, and meshing belief with science isn't hard for most people. You'll find some Catholic proponents of various levels of ID, but very few are adamate literal creationists.Personally, I'm glad that the Pope is helping Catholics move on with scientific discovery, even if it does nothing toward correcting the various other flaws inherent within most religious belief.
At this point, evolution is accepted in most circles as scientific fact, so it only makes sense for religious institutions to fall in line. If you want to nitpick and say that even "facts" in science are nothing but probable hypotheses, not 100% certainties, then you'd be right. But it's that important distinction that seperates it from the dangerous dogma of fundamentalist religion.
I think you are have a little misunderstanding. Catholics have accepted a long time ago, that the Bible is not a book of science or a book of history, regardless that it has many scientific and historical verifiable data in it.
Bible is a book of faith, and the truth contained in it is all about the progressive revelation of the love of God for mankind.
-Truth of Faith of the Genesis: God created everything, including man.
-How did he do it? Well scientists has to the task to find out and teach us. By now, the evolution theories have a long way to go, and a lot to investigate since the "missing links" have not appeared yet and new discoveries tear appart some long-accepted evolution models.
-Why does the Bible describe the creation in 7 days, etc? Because of the poetic genre used in some books of the Bible, to illustrate, teach about a truth of faith, that the ancient writers of course knew as truth, but were not able to understand, describe or know in detail, as as scientific or historical fact.
Originally posted by darkfan76
I think you are have a little misunderstanding. Catholics have accepted a long time ago, that the Bible is not a book of science or a book of history, regardless that it has many scientific and historical verifiable data in it.Bible is a book of faith, and the truth contained in it is all about the progressive revelation of the love of God for mankind.
-Truth of Faith of the Genesis: God created everything, including man.
-How did he do it? Well scientists has to the task to find out and teach us. By now, the evolution theories have a long way to go, and a lot to investigate since the [B]"missing links" have not appeared yet
and new discoveries tear appart some long-accepted evolution models.-Why does the Bible describe the creation in 7 days, etc? Because of the poetic genre used in some books of the Bible, to illustrate, teach about a truth of faith, that the ancient writers of course knew as truth, but were not able to understand, describe or know in detail, as as scientific or historical fact. [/B]
ARCHAEOPTERYX
Originally posted by Jbill311
[B]ARCHAEOPTERYX [/B]
R U Yelling at me? 😮
ha ha, anyway
Evolution as a whole is proven scientific fact, but it is also a fact that the theoritical models set for explaining the evolution of most species still lack of most of the "missing links", especially for human beings, because as you know, the recent discovery of some fossils has torn appart a long time accepted evolution model. Anyway, the fact that the studies are still incomplete and the theories come and go more easily than scientists would like to admit, doen't mean that evolution is false.
Originally posted by ushomefree
[B]1) how nothing produces everything,2) non-life produces life,
3) randomness produces fine-tuning,
4) chaos produces information,
5) unconsciousness produces consciousness, and
6) non-reason produces reason.
[/B]
Evolution is a biological scentific model, and most if not all those questions do not even pertain to biology.
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
How?
You see. Still a long way to go for evolution. The fact hat certain things are not known right now or cannot be explained in detail, doesn't mean it is false or could not be explained in the future, just as gravity, eectricity or magnetism in the past.
What is a proven fact is that the "Creationism" as understood by Bible fundamentalist is wrong. That doesn't mean that evolution model is completely right either.