| Subject: Agreed |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02/ 5/02 3:17pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "True, but so does Ozboy." on 02/ 5/02 12:00pm
>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.
I agree. Simply using loaded words like "stupid" and "absurd" does not help an argument. Emotional appeals don't solve problems.
>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.
Agreed again. Ozboy finds creation by god absurd, then builds on that assumption, which itself could be flawed.
>>>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.
>>>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". For some reason, creationists seem to think that what we can observe is the only thing that science is capable of finding out. The immune system adapting is an example of evolution. So is an ape-like creature eventually evolving into a homo sapien. I think the whole focus on "micro" and "macro" is more of a creationist thing anyway.
>>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. The evolutionary theory explains it in a coherent, likely way. Are you telling me you honestly think God created these many, many different kinds of horses, and then most of them died out over the past few thousand years? Or do you, like some creationists, prefer to trust evolution to be capable of massive change over a short time? What is the explanatory theory which you feel rivals the evolutionary theory's explanation of our data on horses?
You see, Wade, although you constantly assure us all that you do not think we should throw out the evolutionary theory, it sometimes seems that this is exactly what you would like. By saying, "Careful," you keep yourself out of the line of fire. I could say, "Careful" about anything anyone was saying because there are always dangers in our lines of reasoning. But the question is... do you think there is a better explanatory theory of horse evolution than the evolutionary theory?
As is often the case, it is easy to cast doubt on any theory. The real problem is presenting an alternate and _better_ theory. If you have one, tell us what it is. If you don't, then you are forced to trust the evolutionary theory until something better comes along.
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. Therefore, why should I believe in him? I think that the many, many people who have believed in him throughout history have influenced our thinking to the point that we think the idea of a Christian God is a logical one, but why should it be? I continue to find his existence no more likely than the invisible dragon in my garage. I can see things which I might interpret as proof of that dragon, but nothing independently and objectively verifiable. Although I would not call the idea of the Christian God "absurd," you might freely call my invisible dragon "absurd." I prefer, unlike ozboy, to preserve the feelings of the people I am writing to and not use such loaded words. But in many ways I agree with him on the utter absurdity of people's claims about the Christian God's existence.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 