Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
Not to make a "late hit," but I should have pointed out something earlier. Colbert's 1953 lament about the lack of any sign of fossil history for whales stems from the necessary prediction of evolutionary theory that intermediate forms must once have lived. They may not have been preserved in the fossil record, but they must have once lived. The lack of any such finding to Colbert's day and into the late 1970s thus amounted to an unfulfilled prediction. (There were fossil whales, some of which had features such as vestigial hind legs marking them as more primitive than modern whales. All were clearly completely aquatic, however.)
The finding of Pakicetus (terrestrial) and Ambulocetus (about as aquatic as a crocodile) in the Tethys Sea fossil beds of Pakistan and India fulfilled the prediction for such forms. Just another case of a pattern of events often observed by now.
For more fulfilled predictions, check Is Evolution Science?
Perhaps we should give equal consideration to all theories -- that the earth once revolved around Saturn, for example.
I personally think a good approach would be to present the evidence in a historical context and present the thinking of the original people who found the evidence.
There are those in science who seem to have an engineering temperament -- let's get directly to the formulas and the cookboks -- and who see little value in arguing about belief systems. Then there are those who have no use for formulas and want to engage in storytelling. We have both types, and more, right here on this thread.
"Abandon all hope, ye who enter here." -Dante
There is currently no evidence for any other point of view (note: arguments from astonishment do not constitute evidence).
One glance at a Picasso should be sufficient to disabuse anyone of the notion that "design" necessarily implies "order," while natural formations like "The Old Man in the Mountain" and the "Giant's Causeway" should suffice to show that "order" can arise in the absence of "design."
The biggest -- and to me the best -- example is the hoary old claim of the creationists: "You haven't found the missing link!" This is important for two reasons: (a) creationists made their one big prediction that no intermediate (sub-human) species existed; and (b) evolution predicted that such must have existed, and that perhaps one day their fossils would be found. A perfect setup for the creationists to test their "scientific" theory.
But now that this one crucial cornerstone of creationism has been shattered (i.e. special creation of man with no intermediate species), they still won't give up. They never do; they never will. And they never make predictions any more -- except for one, which is technically outside of evolution theory, but not "creation science." They all predict that life can never be generated from non-living material. If that little trick ever gets accomplished, and the creationists are then batting 0 for 2, they still won't give up (that's my prediction).
There are only 4 possible answers to the origins of the universe: It sprang from NOTHING (impossible since nothing cannot produce anything); it has existed eternally (impossible because of the dimension of "time" and "entropy" - the universe cannot "wind down" forever); it is an illusion (let's not even go there since this is an indefensible position); or, it was created by a creator out of nothing. Take your pick. Which is it?
If X is similar to Y in Z, then it is possible that X and Y came from similar origins. Not definite, but most definitely possible. It is a theory which holds a good amount of credibility, but is by no means certain.
I already pointed out that this is a fallacy in logic (law of the excluded middle). The conclusion has nothing to do with the premise. (By the way, you and Donh need to get together - he said no evolutionist ever made such a suggestion as this).
Yes, and I'll bet these finds are absolutely conclusive, no possiblity of misinterpreting or reading into the find!
We've been over this ground with g3k, among others. They have already moved the barracades in anticipation of laboratory created life. It will, you see, be the product of design.
In war this is known as a pre-emptive counterattack.
If it is not certain (and logically it is erroneous), then you take it on faith. So much for your statements about science...REAL science is about observation and repeatability, is it not? Based on the pathetic conclusion in the statement X and Y have a common ancestor, or X evolved from Y, I could just as easily conclude from the similarity that chimps evolved from humans!
Why do you get to make the answers to this multiple choice test? Your refutation of the first option (cannot spring from nothing) is also a refutation of the fourth option which you believe to be true. If nothing cannot produce anything, why does that theory go out the window for God? What did God spring out from? Why is it easier to assume that it is impossible that the universe came into being without the need for a God but it is possible that a God sprang out of nowhere without the need for a precursor? What was God doing before-hand?
I agree with you however that the third option should not even be included, as it gets us nowhere...
I'm sorry it has taken so long to get back to you, but I have been reading reviews on the book and it is clearly a "must read" for me because I am one of those who are drawn to the harmonics.
Again, that depends as to how the phrase is being used and to which "theory of evolution" one is referring. The "theory of evolution" is commonly used as an all encompassing explanation of the developement of the universe and that use is one of the dictionary definitions of evolution.
I'm not sure what you're saying, here, but I read it as, "the fact that nature operates according to inviolable principles is proof of design."
It seems that the creationists want to eat their cake and have it, too. It used to be that everything required the active hand of God: even the planets were moved in their courses by teams of angels pushing them by hand. Then the Enlightenment came, which allowed men to see that much of nature was "a machine that would go of itself", and the faithful had to content themselves with a "God of the gaps". Now that the most cherished gaps are closing, all they will ultimately have left to say is, "See? I told you: the lack of gaps is proof of God."
That suits me just fine. That was my starting point, as a Deist. The universe--creation, if you will--is seamless. God or no God, the universe will admit of a self-consistent, self-sufficient, self-contained, natural, materialistic, and simple explanation right down to its very core. It could not have been otherwise: if it hadn't "simply existed" that way, a truly omnipotent God would necessarily have done it that way. Anything less would have been an imperfect failure.
I already pointed out that this is a fallacy in logic (law of the excluded middle). The conclusion has nothing to do with the premise. (By the way, you and Donh need to get together - he said no evolutionist ever made such a suggestion as this).
This has not been refuted. Using only the mathematics of the above, it is not unreasonable to see a possible connection of origin between X and Y. It is not proof, as you say, but there is a possibility. Explain where your "theory of the excluded middle" is located on a prominent science page so that I can see for myself whether it applies.
If you have another possibility for the origin of the universe, let's have it.
God isn't nothing - He is something and someone - the causative agent (remember cause and effect?). How do you figure God is nothing? He is nothing because you refuse to admit his existence! It is a personal philosophical belief on your part - you presuppose God's non-existence, and then assume everything came from natural and material causes. But no matter how many times you state it, the fact will remain that "God" and "Nothing" are not synonymous. On the other hand, nothing is really nothing - it is not anything at all. Since nothing is not anything at all, it cannot produce anything. (simple logic).
Your misunderstand the nature of God. God didn't spring from anything. He is the creator - self-existent and eternal, outside of time. Your refusal to consider that possibility simply shows that you have a bias against God. If God created all natural laws, that makes God lead scientist.
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.