Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution of creationism: Pseudoscience doesn't stand up to natural selection
Daytona Beach News-Journal ^ | 29 November 2004 | Editorial (unsigned)

Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,201-1,2201,221-1,2401,241-1,260 ... 1,841-1,857 next last
To: shubi

To cover Everest @ 19357 cubits with rainwater would require a rainfall rate of about 20 cubits/hour, unless of course, one doesn't trust the laws of physics continue to perform as God established them from the beginning.


1,221 posted on 12/03/2004 7:10:08 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1195 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

ummm...uhhhh

I know!

maybe mt everest didnt exist during the flood and was magicked there after the flood to trick scientists.


1,222 posted on 12/03/2004 7:18:00 AM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1221 | View Replies]

To: stremba
Couldn't God have made a flood in which everything died, but then "cleaned up the mess" afterward so that there weren't any fossils?

Sure He could have. But as far as I know He's allowed His laws of nature to have their way throughout recorded history, although records also indicate He has intervened on our behalf from time to time in a way that contradicts what we perceive to be those laws.

1,223 posted on 12/03/2004 7:38:48 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1220 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
To cover Everest @ 19357 cubits with rainwater would require a rainfall rate of about 20 cubits/hour . . .

That is an interesting figure. Of course, to apply this to the Great Flood one would have to assume Mt. Everest was there to begin with.

1,224 posted on 12/03/2004 7:43:29 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1221 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
You could if your theory had so much as a hint of recollection on the part of humankind, let alone the capcity for direct observation. As it stands, you don't even have a case.

Say it loud and say it often, and the same people that believe in homeopathy and astrology will drift over to your tent. If I don't have a case, than neither do astronomers and physicists, who also depend on induction about a tiny franction of the universe they can touch to make sweeping generalizations about the known universe and its history. That's not bad company to be in.

1,225 posted on 12/03/2004 9:21:54 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1175 | View Replies]

To: shubi

You mean there's no evidence that breeding fruit flies for generation after generation leads only to more fruit flies? What else has ever come from such breeding?


1,226 posted on 12/03/2004 9:22:31 AM PST by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1197 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
What else has ever come from such breeding?

Fruit flies that play hard to get. *rimshot*

1,227 posted on 12/03/2004 9:29:30 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo (The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1226 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
You mean there's no evidence that breeding fruit flies for generation after generation leads only to more fruit flies? What else has ever come from such breeding?

If speciation in multicellulars doesn't mean "can't breed together", than what does it mean. It this an new creationist micro-macro theory: all multicellulars are one species?

1,228 posted on 12/03/2004 9:35:29 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1226 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

LOL!


1,229 posted on 12/03/2004 9:37:38 AM PST by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1227 | View Replies]

To: donh

So what else has come from breeding fruit flies besides fruit flies?


1,230 posted on 12/03/2004 9:40:06 AM PST by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1228 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

The point is, that if you actually observed that there is no fossil record, you wouldn't abandon the flood "theory". There is nothing that would make you do so. That's why it's not science.


1,231 posted on 12/03/2004 10:04:13 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1223 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

The point is, that if you actually observed that there is no fossil record, you wouldn't abandon the flood "theory". There is nothing that would make you do so. That's why it's not science.


1,232 posted on 12/03/2004 10:06:49 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1223 | View Replies]

To: stremba

I never knew that a requirement of science is that one must postulate some reason to abandon a theory before good reason occurs to do so.


1,233 posted on 12/03/2004 10:28:48 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1231 | View Replies]

To: stremba

And why did you ask me to propose evidence that would cause me to abandon a theory, all the while "knowing" I would not abandon it if the evidence were presented?


1,234 posted on 12/03/2004 10:31:05 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1232 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Yes, because my point about your idea was that it isn't science. That's the defining characteristic of a scientific idea, namely that there is some observation that would cause you to abandon that idea.


1,235 posted on 12/03/2004 10:49:11 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1234 | View Replies]

To: donh
. . . induction about a tiny franction of the universe they can touch to make sweeping generalizations . . .

That fairly well sums it up for both sides of the coin.

1,236 posted on 12/03/2004 10:50:15 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1225 | View Replies]

To: stremba

Sure, but stating that a few fossils out of place would cause evolutionist's to abandon their theory is equally absurd, therefore it is equally "not science."


1,237 posted on 12/03/2004 10:52:04 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1235 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
So what else has come from breeding fruit flies besides fruit flies?

So....all fruit flies are really the same species...because they are called fruit flies by humans?

Are all things we call pets the same species? Are all things we call vermin the same species? Do you have a claim about what a species is--such that it can or can't speciate--here, or not? If so, what is it?

1,238 posted on 12/03/2004 11:13:23 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1230 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
. . . induction about a tiny franction of the universe they can touch to make sweeping generalizations . . .

That fairly well sums it up for both sides of the coin.

No, it doesn't "sum it up" for both sides. What you just suggested, regarding the flood was that evidence you can't see would controvert the evidence of the geological column in the Grand Canyon. That is not an inductive argument. An inductive argument extrapolates behavior we can see in small subset of a statespace onto the entire statespace. Yours is an anti-induction but not atypical of the kinds of arguments creationists rely on. Darwinian theory might be wrong, and it's legs of reasoning might be knocked out from under it, as is the case with all scientific theories, but at least it stands up to be knocked down.

1,239 posted on 12/03/2004 11:20:51 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1236 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Sure, but stating that a few fossils out of place would cause evolutionist's to abandon their theory is equally absurd, therefore it is equally "not science."

That is not correct. A few fossils out of place does not stand up against a few 100,000 in place. This isn't mathematics, and piles of rock cannot be expected to lay out like grids on graph paper. The compelling evidence lies in the weight of statistical preponderance. You don't see stellar astronomers abandoning the main story of the Hartzspring-Russell diagram because of the occasional star off the chart, do you? You don't see zoologists abandoning the taxonomic system when they discover playpuses, do you?

And...even if all this wwren't so, how can you stand there without turning beet red after presenting arguments for the flood, expecting they'd be responded to, and then pulling this kind of bait and switch? We've seen a lot of liars for God around here, but you're my first experience with contemptuously fatuous for God. Since no argument or evidence can change your mind, and since this is, by my lights, a place to argue, I am at a loss as to why this discussion should continue.

1,240 posted on 12/03/2004 11:40:31 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1237 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,201-1,2201,221-1,2401,241-1,260 ... 1,841-1,857 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson