The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[Arthur McGowan]

BTW: Parents don't create their children.

[jennyp]

From my limited knowledge, I could refer to the 2nd Law of Termodynamics, but I'm sure that is to inferrential for you. So I'll just say, "no" and ask you to show me where you can demonstrate that it has happened.

No, the 2LoT might be persuasive to me if the linkage between it and information weren't so fallacious.

Macroevolution. Gene duplication, hijacking of function of the duplicates, unequal crossover, & other mechanisms have been seen in the lab; and their occurrence throughout evolutionary history is supported by a mountain of genetic evidence. Here's an interesting article that shows just how pervasive it's been.

[Man of the Right]

Asimov can point to one set of good works: putting his readers to sleep for these many years without a narcotic.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Asimov was always way too wordy.

I don't think his tendency towards "wordy-ness" is anything close to Piers Anthony's. Some of his stuff I like but Good Gravy...that man could never describe anything in 20 words when 120 would do just as well.

[jennyp]

A human parent gives birth to a five-pound baby. The baby grows into a 260 lbs. football star. You will note that baby eats a considerable quantity of food in the meantime. You will note also that the baby is never more or less a human at one time of its life than another.

That's true. But what's the point? Are you trying to make some kind of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument here? Because you know that doesn't fly.

There are certain qualities or quantities that we get from our parents, and there are certain others that we develop on our own, or get from other influences.

True again, as far as it goes. But we do not simply regurgitate words we hear from others. Otherwise nobody'd ever come up with a new idea. Even if you believe in creationism, you have to admit that people think up things today that were inconceivable 100 years ago. IOW, people regularly create innovative ideas all the time.

In your questions, you deliberately jumble all these things together, and seem to think you are scoring points.

All I said, really, is that something cannot arise from nothing. I never said all the silly things you are talking about. Look up "straw man."

Ah, well if that's all you're saying, then that's different. But you were referring to "greatness" & "perfection", as if you were referring to something more than matter arising out of nothing. Since you had earlier said "And yes, there IS a reason to conclude that the First Cause is a person--because WE are persons. Nothing can give what it does not have."

BTW, matter arising out of nothing is a mind-blower for me. So is matter/energy having always existed, and so is the notion of time itself having a definite beginning. So actually none of the competing Theories of the Universe are all that satisfying. It's this notion that complexity can't grow from lesser complexity I don't buy.

So, are you merely referring to matter arising out of nothingness, or are you also referring to complex entities arising out of simpler ones?

[jennyp]

BTW: Parents don't create their children.

They don't??? Then, ah, how does it happen?

[unspun]

Macroevolution. Gene duplication, hijacking of function of the duplicates, unequal crossover, & other mechanisms have been seen in the lab; and their occurrence throughout evolutionary history is supported by a mountain of genetic evidence. Here's an interesting article that shows just how pervasive it's been.

Looks like an interesting article, all-right. You realize, of course, that my response to anything as wondrous as what this would demonstrate, is that it is self-evidently miraculous.

[Arthur McGowan]

They procreate. That's not at all the same thing creation.

That's why you need to study philosophical issues and terminology. As it is, you are simply taking random potshots from a position of ignorance.

[unspun]

create

\Cre*ate"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Created; p. pr. & vb. n. Creating.]

1. To bring into being; to form out of nothing; to cause to exist.
In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. --Gen. i. 1.

2. To effect by the agency, and under the laws, of causation; to be the occasion of; to cause; to produce; to form or fashion; to renew.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

[balrog666]

A fool will always be a fool.

I think you just proved that - how responsive and forthright for your side.

[balrog666]

I don't see creationists trying to keep study from happening.

Then you aren't looking. The entire Luddite anti-evolutionist movement is intended to stop scientists from studying fossils and DNA, reconstructing the biological development and history of our planet, and passing that knowledge on to our children.

[Arthur McGowan]

Webster's is useless when one is using terms of art. Webster's documents the normal, non-technical meanings of words. In ontology, "to create" and "to procreate" are quite distinct concepts. No knowledgeable person pulls out the Webster's in a philosophical discussion, or a discussion of a legal term, etc.

[unspun]

Webster's is useless when one is using terms of art. Webster's documents the normal, non-technical meanings of words. In ontology, "to create" and "to procreate" are quite distinct concepts. No knowledgeable person pulls out the Webster's in a philosophical discussion, or a discussion of a legal term, etc.

---chuckles---

And here I thought I knew something.

Funny, how a source so discredited by you as meaningless would agree with you, yet

Hint: humility is appealing.

[unspun]

I don't see creationists trying to keep study from happening.

Then you aren't looking. The entire Luddite anti-evolutionist movement is intended to stop scientists from studying fossils and DNA, reconstructing the biological development and history of our planet, and passing that knowledge on to our children.

Try to take your battle armour off and look again. Creationists aren't seeking to keep people from either doing research or from teaching. The Scopes trial was early in the last centurty. It is evolution-from-nothing adherents who are seeking to keep ideas of creation from being taught, like any good "Inquisitors."

[Arthur McGowan]

Of course Webster's definition in part is the same as the use of the term in philosophy. But Webster's doesn't specify the distinction between creation in the loose sense and creation ex nihilo.

Why be humble? This is the internet.

[balrog666]

Creationists aren't seeking to keep people from either doing research or from teaching.

Most Creationists can see evolution as God's method of Creation. However, (let me quote from a post YOU had pulled)...

... there's kind of a Darwinian filtering system at work -- the most dedicated creationists are the survivors, and they're the ones who give us our impression of all the rest.

[Lev]

You can help. Just leave your computer turned on, with no software running on it at all, and let me know what programs form accidentally over time.

Can I ask you why you are setting the bar so high? You know that unless a computer is broken nothing should happen on it accidentally, right?

[PatrickHenry]

Darwinian filtering system

Nice phrase.

[balrog666]

Nice phrase.

Wasn't mine!? :^)

See y'all tomorrow.

[gitmo]

OK. I concede I should have been using the phrase "finite age of the universe" rather than "Big Bang". I was using the term to refer to a specific event creating the Universe.

But my original thesis still stands: it is the scientific community that has continually modified its theories rather than the creationists.

And, as I stated in my original post (#233) that is the nature of the scientific process and is no surprise. The fact that the Big Bang has been around a shorter time than I stated further bolsters that assertion. It also highlights the fact that I'm not a physicist, but a biologist. :o)