click here to get Adobe Acrobat Reader which reads PDF files
Posted on 05/06/2003 11:22:05 AM PDT by \/\/ayne
9:00 AM “Origins of Life and the Universe” . . . . .Hank Giesecke
10:00 AM “Fifty Facts Why Evolution Doesn’t Work” . . . .Russell Miller
11:00 AM Lunch
1:00 PM “Age of the Earth, and Intelligent Design” . . . .Hank Hiesecke
2:00 PM “Data from Mt. Saint Helens” . . . . .Russell Miller
3:00 PM Break
4:30 PM Dinner available at U of A’s McKale Center
6:00 PM Debate at University of Arizona McKale Center “Alternative World Views: Evolution and Creation”
Dr. Duane Gish and Professor Peter Sherman
Sunday May 11, 2003
Calvary Tucson East Campus
8:00 and 10:20 AM “Take Creation Captive”.......Hank Giesecke
Calvary Tucson West Campus
9:10 and 11:30 AM “Creation or Chaos”......Dr. John Meyer
Calvary Tucson East Campus
6:00 PM “Why 600 Scientists Reject Evolution” ......Dr. John Meyer
I think non-scientists in general have a poor understanding of what science is and what it claims. Science is not all knowledge. And it will never explain everything.
Evolution to the non-scientist then turns into a kind of philosophy of everything that they project onto their opponents. That's why they keep mixing it up with Cosmology, Physics, Geology, other branches of Biology, etc. Evolution is just a theory in Biology. That there are atheists in science is a fact. And there are atheists who aren't scientists.
So I offer my favorite quote from Einstein,"We know less than 1/1,000,000th percent of anything."
I thought it was a pretty vicious attack on copier repairmen myself.
Gee, maybe you boys should have thought about that before you started dishing it out. Of course, consistency, reason, and a tendency to refrain from hyperbole is not something I generally associate with the creationist viewpoint, so I can't say I'm surprised.
Because evolution claims, via "natural selection" (in deliberate contrast to God's choice) to account for the development and characteristics of all kinds of life, including humans, it claims to account for the character traits that recognize beauty, love, morality and the like. So to be a viable system, evolution must either explain how these things evolved or, alternatively, why they're just fancies in our heads, having no correspondence with objective reality.
If you'll read my post again you'll see I ackowledged that evolution could explain the perception of beauty in members of the opposite sex. What evolution can't explain (because there is no connection to procreation or survival) is why other things, such as flowers, sunsets, mountains, trees, forests, oceans, beaches, etc. appear beautiful to people. Yet they are beautiful, sometimes achingly so.
Care to show us the implied logical argument?
This is the schematic--
A = Beauty is divine
B = Evolution is true
C = God lies(essentially your statement, I believe)
If A and not B then C
One of the young geology professors at the college I attended is a rising star nationally. He keeps coming up with new perspectives that better explain geologic phenomena than the standard model. When by a student asked the source of his inspiration he free acknowledged that it was often his creationist relative, who, although a non-scientist by profession, was so effective in exposing the holes in traditional evolutionary views of geology that the young professor had been compelled by some sense of academic integrity to go back to the drawing board. That has led to some (otherwise) surprisingly creationist theories.
You're begging several questions here. The first one is that beauty, love and morality are entirely consequences of the biological structure of humans. That is certainly unproven; many would argue they're cultural constructs. Morevoer, once humans started to become capable of a culture, sometime in the evolution of the primates, the culture itself affected their evolution. For example, it's entirely likely once we started singing, women started having inordinate amounts of sex with musicians (still happens). Thence developed a dynamic whereby ever more complex musical abilities were selected for. Even without human intelligence, the same sort of evolution of complex 'aesthetic' behavior is seen in songbirds.
Fidelity, kindness etc. may similarly have been selected for as being more favorable to the raising of children. Those may be universal and innate human traits. If you can find a universal moral code that goes beyond very simple ideas such as 'thou shalt not kill', 'thou shalt not steal', you've certainly found something that's escaped the anthropological community.
Interesting theory. But not persuasive to me. Sex with musicians is no doubt at an all-time high today, but the quality of music composed may be at an all time low. At any rate, music was much more beautiful in the days of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart & Co., when there was considerably less sexual promiscuity and the object of most then-new compositions was the glory of God, not the glory of man (or woman or sex).
Interesting theory. But not persuasive to me. Sex with musicians is no doubt at an all-time high today, but the quality of music composed may be at an all time low. At any rate, music was much more beautiful in the days of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart & Co., when there was considerably less sexual promiscuity and the object of most then-new compositions was the glory of God, not the glory of man (or woman or sex).
No doubt. Many do so argue -- or at least assert. But the beauty of a rose is no cultural construct; it's objectively true in all times, places, and cultures. And any "culture" that claims otherwise is barbaric.
What the blazes are you talking about? I saw an implied argument hanging in the air and asked the originator how he got there.
These ideas aren't simple at all. They're profound. They certainly don't occur to animals. Yet evolutionists claim that our ancestors were animals. If that's so, then this allegedly basic morality must have evolved. If so, let's hear how. If evolution is correct, it shouldn't be that hard to postulate a reasonable account.
But there is none, because evolutionary pressures would always favor the guy who promoted reality in public but privately took whichever woman he fancied. (e.g. "Religion [and its morality] is the opiate of the masses.") If morality had evolved, humans should accept this hypocracy as ethical, but the vast majority of us is repulsed by it.
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.