|
Post by The Jacket on Feb 14, 2003 16:56:39 GMT -5
Sim's use of this is is your standard variation of Paley's Teleological argument. Unless very much mistaken, he's supposed to, at this point, point out that my skepticism in his claim is no different than his skepticism in evolution as an explanation of life and its diversity, oblivious to the differences in his analogy than cause the connection to fail. I suspected someone would get it eventually. Now, would you mind pointing out, in plain english what the differences that cause the connection to fail?
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Feb 14, 2003 18:10:15 GMT -5
Apparently my Sherlock Holmes-esque abduction was correction. That, and my "Fundie sense" was tingling...
This belongs in debates, for one. CSC, if you could kindly move this there, it would be appreciated. Second, since you've proven yourself incapable of debate (see my response to you in the "Atheists" thread), is there any point to myself explaining evolutionary theory to you when you will just resort to preaching, and automatically rule any possibility of yourself being wrong? I have plenty to do without wasting my time to educate the willfully ignorant.
Regardless, I'll continue giving you the benefit of the doubt that you'll produce something meaningful in your next post.
First, there's the time objection. In case you've forgotten, the earth is 4.5 billion years, and the earliest fossils of life go back to 3.5 billion years. That amount of time allows for far more changes and adaptation to occur than a paltry three hours. Secondly, depending upon whether organisms have R or K-life histories, genetic change within a population may occur more frequently or less frequently. To put it in simpler terms, R-selected life histories have short life spans but reproduce in many numbers that require little or no parental care that mature quickly. K-selected life histories have longer life spans, have few offspring that require more parental care and mature slower. Organisms with R-selected life histories will allow for faster genetic change, whereas such is slower in organisms with K-selected life histories.
Next, there is the objection of not understanding the makeup of organisms and how changes occur. Unlike inorganic matter, organisms are made up of DNA, which has genes which determine the biological makeup of organisms. As changes occur (via mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow), the genetic code becomes different. I'll assume you understand the basic mechanisms of evolution to understand how that relates to populations for sake of brevity, although I'm not holding my breath as for I disagreeumption being justified.
Third, people have knowledge of statues resulting from design because they know beforehand that people make statues. If I design a rock that looks identical in all respects to a rock found in nature, you'd be unaware that I designed it unless you knew already that I had done so. Hence, the Teleological argument is circular. The only way you can claim design is if you first prove the designer.
|
|
|
Post by PaulC on Feb 14, 2003 19:28:43 GMT -5
Ah. Now I get it. I can't consider that a valid analogy at all. You're assuming that water's non-existant sculpting ability is somehow no less proven than the ability of organisms to evolve new characteristics based on environmental pressures over millions of years, and that's just ludicrous. There is no evidence whatsoever that water is capable of changing the form of metal sthingys in such a short period of time, unlike the enormous body of evidence supporting the idea that the passing-down of genetic information can result in the development of new traits and the loss of others, so the analogy is flawed on the most basic level: is it plausible that any change whatsoever would take place? Even if water was able to change the physical shape of metal objects in such a small amount of time, it is equally flawed to suggest that the random re-shaping of a sthingy into a perfect statue is comparable to the gradual development of organisms based on the process of natural selection. Evolution is anything but random. The entire point is not that a human developed by a trillion utterly random genetic mutations that somehow resulted in a functional being, as you seem to suggest by this comparison. Beneficial traits and mutations ensure higher reproduction rates of the organisms that carry them, and these traits therefore are slowly integrated throughout the species. Every step in the process is tiny but entirely logical and not 'random' in the least. The analogy is once again severely flawed. Honestly, this entire attempt at an attack on science is fundamentally useless. You seem caught up in the notion that somehow disproving a popular scientific theory proves science is useless, when in reality all it would prove if you managed to do so is that a new hypothesis must be formed to explain the situation. The entire strategy of trying to prove through 'logical' (if utterly flawed) arguments that logical thought (i.e. 'science', as all science is is the application of logical thought to the world around us) is worthless is inherently ridiculous. If you honestly want to change my mind, or anyone else's, try providing a reason for us to believe you instead of attacking the very concept of empirical reasoning itself.
|
|
|
Post by Gimdin7 on Feb 14, 2003 20:35:20 GMT -5
All of you forget: "there is no sthingy!" *rimshot*
|
|
|
Post by The~Inquisitor on Feb 15, 2003 9:00:20 GMT -5
SimFreeze, in this world we obey the rules of science!
|
|
Fredbez
RPG Townie
Satanist 0wnage
Posts: 694
|
Post by Fredbez on Feb 15, 2003 18:13:02 GMT -5
gimdin- what sthingy?
|
|
|
Post by Gimdin7 on Feb 15, 2003 20:02:08 GMT -5
exactly!
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Feb 16, 2003 16:05:20 GMT -5
My response is as follows: www.biblepreaching.com/If you've really given me the benefit of the doubt that I could bring up something against you - you will go down to "The Creation Series." Listen to each of the recordings and let me know what you think. __________ Quick Story: Sir Isaac Newton was sitting in his study one day. In the middle of his study he had a model of our Solar System. This model had the sun in the middle, with all of the planets orbiting around it. A scientist entered his study one day and said "My, what an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?" "Nobody!" was Newton's reply. "You must think me a fool. Of course somebody made it and he is a genius." said the scientist. Isaac put the book he was reading aside and arose, placing his hand on his friend's shoulder. He said "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you and I know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer or maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which this design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker. Now tell me, by what sort of reasoning do you reach such incongruous conclusions?"
|
|
Pat
RPG Townie
Posts: 254
|
Post by Pat on Feb 16, 2003 18:14:26 GMT -5
Let me get this stait there was never a sthingy in the first place? You were just tying to get us to belive in god?
|
|
|
Post by Gimdin7 on Feb 16, 2003 19:24:25 GMT -5
Well, I was just quoting The Matrix... but I think thats what Jacket had in mind.
|
|
Pat
RPG Townie
Posts: 254
|
Post by Pat on Feb 16, 2003 19:27:14 GMT -5
so confused.... *head explodes*
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Feb 16, 2003 21:55:23 GMT -5
I'll give it a look tommorrow night. I have a psychology test to study for tommorrow. Oh, and regarding the story. I wonder how many times I'll have to repeat this to you: REALITY IS NOT DETERMINED BY WHAT ONE BELIEVES, BUT BY THE EVIDENCE. As I pointed out in my objections, you must first prove the designer before claiming design, otherwise the argument is circular. I hope in the future you'll READ my posts, and try dealing with the points raised... EDIT: Since I took a chance to look at the link and find exactly what you're alluding to, I was amused and surprised to find what I saw. I'll still listen to it, mostly since I've been trying to find some of his stuff, so I thank you in that respect. However, you have sunk to new lows in using Kent Hovind. The fellow is ignorant on many, many accounts (this is from reading quite a bit about the fellow and touring his site). I would have at *LEAST* expected AnswersInGenesis. Anyhow, perhaps you might try taking a look at www.geocities.com/kenthovind/ , which has a very thorough examination of Hovind, and point out the problems on the site? Something tells me I'll have to become a science teacher... DOUBLE EDIT: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Evolution started by Satan? Evolution a massive conspiracy? And the foundation of Communism? d**n, I knew Hovind was off his rocker, but that takes the cake.
|
|