Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 07/15/04 10:11pm
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "I don't think that" on 07/15/04 12:57am
>>True, but ID doesn't look nearly as implausible to me
>>as an orange instantly turning into an ape.
>
>Obviously not, but it is not the _most likely_
>explanation of the data.
That's open to debate.
>>>As we've gone over and over on this
>>>board, our common ancestry with apes is supported by
>>>various branches of science, and is by far the best
>>>interpretation of the evidence as a whole.
>>
>>That's a bit open to debate. Note, for instance, the
>>apparently dismal track record regarding fossils and
>>human evolution.
>
>I haven't heard any dismal scientists in this regard.
I was talking about the track record, not the scientists.
>Apart from Chick Tracts, where are you getting your
>information?
I read books now and then. Don't tell me you've never heard of Piltdown man or think that it's a creationist conspiracy. Or Nebraska man, Neanderthal man, Cro-Magnon man...
>>>So you can think that an invisible creator created all
>>>these things with the _appearance_ of being related to
>>>each other when they actually aren't
>>
>>And you can think that nature using invisible and
>>unknown processes created life with the _appearance_
>>of being designed when they actually aren't.
>
>Slow down, there. I thought we were talking about
>human evolution and the common ancestry of humans and
>apes.
We were. I extended it a little bit in attempts to see the creationist's point of view. Bottom line: a lot of would-be intermediates have been discarded. Piltdown man was a hoax (a somewhat obvious one) and yet persisted for decades. Nebraska man was a pig's tooth. Neanderthal man and Cro-Magnon man are almost universally acknowledged to be homo sapiens currently. Again, if this was really a hard science, I think these kinds of mistakes wouldn't have persisted this long. A mixed skullcap and jawbone of a human and an ape for over forty years? You have to admit that's not a good sign. Now maybe the current collection of bones (which is not very much) is different, but given the track record I have yet to be convinced. I think it's only a matter of time before the current accepted versions are abandoned.
>I said nothing about how life began, and that
>is still not the topic under discussion. Basically,
>you can simply look at apes and humans and see that
>there is very likely relatedness. Then you can take
>DNA tests and discover that we are more related to
>apes, according to DNA, than we are to any other
>creature on earth. Coincidence?
Not according to DNA, but to an interpretation of the DNA. The DNA itself only reveals similarities, which I acknowledge exist. But they are still some differences. A tomato and a pool of water are 95% identical chemical composition (both water). Coincidence?
>Again, if we are not
>related to apes, then someone or something has gone to
>great lengths to make us think that we are.
If the tomato is not related to a pool of water, then someone or something has gone to great lengths to make me think that they are. Could it be me misinterpreting the data? That's ridiculous.
But parodies aside, similarities by themselves don't cut it. Creationists argue on a variety levels; no adequate mechanisms etc.
But long story short, the track record leaves me unconvinced. Do apes and people have a common ancestor? Not sure, but I doubt it.
>>You see, I can play the same game too. Who
>>said the creator was invisible anyway?
>
>Christians generally do.
Ah, but modern ID theory...
>>Modern ID
>>theory does not make any claims about the designer.
>>We can tell if something is designed even if we don't
>>know by whom.
>
>Oh, can we? So if you happened to look at the quantum
>world, full of uncertainty, would you assert the
>opposite... that we can tell when something _isn't_
>designed?
Quantum mechanics, with all its Heisenberg uncertainty principles and the existence of true randomness (which is still disputed) is, after all, highly mathematical in nature, still leaving an intricate mathematical order in the universe and orderly physical laws. If the universe where highly chaotic, possessing no order, then your claims might have some merit. Still, the fact remains that whatever caused the universe to exist imprinted a sophisticated mathematical order to it that only the most educated mathematicians can fully comprehend.
Coincidence?
Ah, but I'm babbling. Bottom line: track record leaves me (and creationists) understandably unconvinced, especially with claims of "We got it wrong then, but we got the real fossils now." The old saying comes to mind of "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice..." Well, you get the idea. That's the point of view.
Your point of view: we got it right now. This time we have legitimate hominid fossils. The similarities between apes and people confirm it. ID is not as good as an explanation for the similarities.
Why the difference in interpretation? Possibly it has something to do with the mechanism. Some believe there is one; I and a number of others are skeptical that one exists. We don't have any currently observable mechanism to cause large-scale changes. Yes, there are mutations and extrapolations, but with no observable vertical changes there doesn't seem to be anything to extrapolate for creationists (whereas evolutionists claim it's happening too slowly). What would be an example of an observable vertical change? One example: pointing to organs that are now gradually developing. But, curiously, we've only been able to point to a number of organs that have deteriorated and become vestigial; and zero when it comes to new, incipient organs.
Coincidence?
Now I don't expect to convince you, only to illustrate one point of view, one that I have come to (partially) accept. I think the creationists (at least the lower-tier ones, like in chick publications) are wrong about a great many things. But I also think that some good points are raised (to be fair, evolution also has some good points).
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 