|
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
The one problem "Natural selection" has as an evolution theory is how to explain how different species came to be.
Take birds for example: Evolution seems to be a slow and linear process. Most probably (but not necessarily) there wasn't a 4-legged-animal and the next breed had wings. So we need to have some steps in between the 4-legged-animal and a flying creature with wings. But now we have the problem why a creature, no more 4-legged but no bird either, is more fit to survive then the extreme ones (legged/flying). As far as I know we still have to find a fossil that shows us such a creature. Note, this does not say that "Natural Selection" isn't working or in effect. It just points out that it has a hard time to explain why, when you optimise your sun watch, you get a digital watch and not an optimised sun watch. |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
Of course a true theory is better than a false one! However, you are not going to find absolute truth in this life. - "No theory" does squat by definition. - "No theory" is not being advocated because we have something BETTER. - Newton's laws are false. They explain a bunch of things with varying degrees of accuracy. They are better than the previous theories. They are vastly better than no theory. - Evolution is false. It explains a bunch of things with varying degrees of accuracy. It works better than the previous ideas in the area, and is easily better than no theory. What I'm trying to say is: a) Absolute truth is not nessesary. b) Rome was not built in a day. Better and better theories have and will continue to be thought up and replace the old. |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
I'm looking for the title/author info for a book on scientific creationism. I think the theory is called Progressive Creationism. It was a fairly interesting theory in that it tries to allow for Creationism while at the same time allowing for and Old Earth.
It's unfortunate that separation of Church and State prevents schools from teaching Creationism. As theories go, Evolution vs. Creationism both seem equally plausible. What about seeding by aliens? That doesn't mention religion. I think it is an equally plausible theory. Granted, I don't believe in aliens. But that's no more a major hole for this theory as any in Evolution. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
Creationism can't be proved scientifically, unless you say God does not have to respect scientific law making any analisys invalid. Evolution fits most scientific data, Finding a supposed incinsistency in evolution (seems the argument creationists use all the time), that can be easily explained does not prove creationism is correct. It's a good thing that only religious schools can teach religion. What creationists want is an excuse to introduce children to religion in public schools. [ March 17, 2003, 04:26: Message edited by: Andrés Lescano ] |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
Of course, life on earth having been seeded by aliens is preposterous. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
[quote]Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
[quote]Originally posted by raynor:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Imperator Fyron: Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
The main porblem with the alien theory is that it does not explain the origin of life.
It at best moves its origin to somewhere beyond earth. Where did the aliens come from? Or is alien just another euphemism to refer to God without naming Him? |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
And please repeat what is supposed to be the major hole in the theory of evolution, so we can cut and paste the correct scientific explanation to that lie, since you're obviously not reading the pages we link to.
[ March 17, 2003, 05:05: Message edited by: Andrés Lescano ] |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
The major problem with evolution is that the fossil record doesn't support it. At best, you can support micro-evolution--changes within one species. But there just isn't satisfactory fossil evidence to support the supposed transitional species. Without any evidence for macro evolution, you are left with waiting a million years. With a whole this large in evolution, creationism is equally valid.
|
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
What do you say of the fossils that are of dinosaurs with half-evolved (I would have used developed, but that word does not fit very well in this sense) wings?
Pure creationism has no valid evidence at all. Evolution has some valid evidence. Your distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution does not show the theory of evolution to be false. "Micro" evolution is actually good evidence supporting the theory of "macro" evolution, because it is one of the things necessary for "macro" evolution to be possible. A theory is, after all, the best available model that explains the evidence at hand. As I have stated repeatedly, the current theory of evolution is undergoing re-evaluation, and could be not 100% accurate. This does not prove that evolution is wholely wrong, only that our current model is flawed. Once all of the evidence can be taken into account, the theory will be adjusted to fit. This happens in science constantly, and will happen with the theory of evolution. The evidence we have supports evolution, and not pure creationism. Please stop just saying "evolution vs. creation". That is a bad distinction to make, because the two do not actually speak of the same events. Creation is a hypothesis about what happened at the beginning of the universe. Evolution is a theory that _does not_ make any conjectures as to what happened at the beginning of the universe. If you refuse to believe this, I am sure I can find you an exact quote on the theory of evolution to prove that it does not speak of the beginning, only what happens now, and in the distant past. They are not actually mutually exclusive, because they do not address the same issues. It is hypothetically possible that both are true. I think you are making the same mistake that a lot of people do in associating evolution with an anti-thesis of creation. |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Very simply, the fossil record does not support macro evolution. In order for macro evolution to hold water, there must be an equal or greater number of fossils showing intermediate-species transition steps. This evidence just doesn't exist.
|
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
General: Archeopteryx: This fossil is exactly NOT an indication how reptiles become birds. It is already a creature able to fly and hence is subject to natural selection in his “habitat”, i.e. will be improved to a better bird. It doesn’t show us what gain a creature without usable forelegs and not able to fly had above birds and hence why wings were invented. We can guess but have no fossil prove for it up to now. Look here: “On the whole, though, this is still a gappy transition, consisting of a very large-scale series of "cousin" fossils.” and “GAP: The exact reptilian ancestor of Archeopteryx, and the first development of feathers, are unknown. Early bird evolution seems to have involved little forest climbers and then little forest fliers, both of which are guaranteed to leave very bad fossil records (little animal + acidic forest soil = no remains). Archeopteryx itself is really about the best we could ask for: several specimens has superb feather impressions, it is clearly related to both reptiles and birds, and it clearly shows that the transition is feasible”. (from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...rt1b.html#bird ) People, not everyone that points out weak spots in the „natural selection“ theory is a creationist. I’m not, for all it matters. It just means that there may be other “forces” that drive evolution that we have not yet discovered. Maybe nature likes to jump every now and then with the gene pool and new species evolve. We don’t now. But keep asking and thinking of other possibilities! That’s what science is all about. |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
I agree there might be some missing factors in evolution and a few little details that might need to be fixed or filled up. But overall the theory proves to be consistent with current knowledge.
Unless you are a fanatic believer, (claiming creation must be literally as it is written in Genesis or whatever religious text you beileve in) there's nothing wrong in considering that God might be one of the missing factors and that this was just the mechanism He used to create the modern shape of life. Up no now I haven't heard of a 3rd theory. The only alternative theory I've heard from people who deny evolution is creationism or some attempts to make a compromise between evolution and creationism. Nothing that does not involve some kind of divine intervention. Let's face it there is no solid argument to suggest it might be wrong, there is no better theory, and no evidence at all to support an alternative theory, so evolution remains the best fitting theory that exists today. Archeopteryx is an excellent example of a transitional fossil. It resembles both, reptiles and birds. Some scientists argue it could not have flown, others that it must have been a bad flier, limited to flap from tree to tree. I don't have time to search now, but there are some examples of non-flying dinosaurs with feathers, that apparently were first developed for heat insulation. The main answer of the "lack of transitional fossils" argument is here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...l#transitional And the explanation of rarity of these fossils and more details. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
And again, Archeopteryx is not a good example because it has already fully developed wings. The missing link would be a creature in between legs and wings. And such a fossil we have never found up to now. Archeopteryx shows us, that reptils and birds are related to each other but Archeopteryx is already quite on the "bird" site. |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
I'm getting the feeling that what we are arguing about is not really evolution. No one seems to be arguing for a set creation date and no change thereafter (as was argued in the Medieval period). It seems we'd all agree that species have changed over time. I think what we're really arguing about is natural selection (by random variation) versus guided selection (by God or some other Designer - alien or god-like).
The whole evolution versus creationism debate, in my view, is cultural. As Andres has pointed out, the issue that gets most people fired up about this is what to teach in school. Since the Scopes trial, it has been portrayed as a stark dichotomy between religion and science. As we have noted here in this forum, this is a false distiction. I think what we are arguing about is which epistemology should be primary in our cultures: scientific or religious. In other words, when trying to answer the ultimate question of life the universe and everything, do we use the scientific method (of course we know the answer is 42 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) or do we consult the Bible, Koran, Sutras, Zen masters or other spiritual/religious sources? I, personally, think the two sources can be complementary - especially in one's own personal, individual journey through life. But what is being contested in our culture is which has the authority to define truth, science or Christianity (in the USA anyway - I doubt this is much of an issue in Japan). So, there is a lot at stake, and it's no wonder that sometimes the relative merits of a theory that we know is incomplete have been exaggerated to the point where it has become a secular religion. For our purposes, then, I would propose that we stop emphasizing the evolution versus creation argument, and start defining our positions along the lines of natural selection versus intelligent design (or whichever theory applies). |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
Overall, we should cosider ourselves lucky that we have the fossils that we do. It is ludicrous to expect a member of every species to kindly travel to a mudpatch and drown itself so we can fill out our historical record. We work with what we have. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Another way to get fossils is for the animal to get trapped in a tar pit. But, that is even less likely to happen than mud. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
Since my world view includes God, I cannot accept an account of how things came to be as they are that doesn't include His involvement. This could mean instantaneous creation, guided evolution or something of both, but cannot in my view be entirely a result of random chance. For the person whose world view does not allow for the supernatural, the only possible explanation is some variant of random chance. There may be a variety of possibilities there, as well, but in the end, it had to be random chance. Thus both sides of the debate are locked by their world view. Neither can be convinced unless they are convinced to change their position on the unprovable fundamental assumption -- the existence or non-existence of a supernatural power. |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Well said, Alpha Kodiak, that does seem to sum it all up.
Personally, I cannot accept a Christian god, but I recognize that there is more to the universe than we perceive. I think that perhaps there is some room in the middle if one's spiritual leanings are more Eastern. I think it is possible to conceive of a universe that is directed by the Tao (or some such path, way, energy, or universal harmony) that does not necessarily involve the Supernatural with a capital S. Perhaps nature itself is directing the process? But I digress. In our American culture, dominated by Christianity and secular science, the debate is just as you've described it. |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
The creation of the universe, the formation of our galaxy, our sun and our planet, the geological age of earth, the origin of life are all theories that are no part, and not necessary for the theory of evolution. As a matter of fact many of those were already accepted theories in the times of Darwin, not made to afterwards to support his theory.
The only reason they are all put in the same bag, is that creation explains all of them at once. Anyway I agree that no one here seems to be defending pure creationism. We all seem to agree that there were species that disappeared to be replaced by more "evolved" species. So as Alpha Kodiak suggested, let's discuss the mechanic of that "evolution". Saying evolution is based on "random chance" is a simplification that might be misinterpreted. Yes, evolution requires random variation, genetic drift, some modern theories even include an eventual hopeful mutation. But the base of evolution is not that randomness, its the natural selection that happens next, a cruel method that separates good changes from bad changes, by their chances of surviving and if applicable their chances when contending for a mate. If you're a believer I see no problem why you cannot accept that God is pulling the strings behind random variation + natural selection. Then perhaps you want to call them God's variation + God's selection, but you'd be basically talking of the same concept. Just the same way that human conception is considered a miracle of God, even if it's been explained in detail from a biological/medical point of view. |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
For those who don't know, game theory can be broken down into two parts, zero sum and non-zero sum. Zero sum games (or anything else) occur when the success of one side equals the failure of the other (eg. sports, wars, etc.). Non-zero sum is when the victory for one side is a victory for all (eg. the astronauts on Apollo 13 were playing a very non-zero sum game when they were trying to figure out how to get back to earth alive). His premise is that all things tend toward greater and greater complexity and that those complex systems that operate in a non-zero sum capacity are the ones that survive and prosper (in the long term). He applies this concept to evolution, cultural development, etc., showing a fascinating trend in all complex systems. He does a very good job of showing that life itself has a direction though not necessarily a divine one. Its a suprisingly good read. Wright has a conversational writing style that conveys what might otherwise be dry material. |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
I would agree that all of us seem to accept some degree of change--i.e., the flora and fauna we see today are not necessarily identical to their predecessors. Such an idea isn't contrary to Biblical creationism, either; the Bible only says things would bring forth after their "kind." As taxonomy isn't a natural science, but a man-made classification, it's rather hard to say exactly where the line would be drawn. I would say that "kind" demands similarity. *bum bum bum* "Which one of these things doesn't belong..." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Out of a dog, a wolf, a coyote, and a cat, I think the cat would be a different kind. Except maybe in some sort of metaphysical way, the same way we all are manifestations of Puke.
Following the same line of thought, then, the usual "cheap" reply to the intelligent design argument doesn't hold water--the "there's all sorts of systems that any freshman engineering student could design better" line of thinking. If things are quite possibly different from how they were originally, we don't know what the originals were. It also makes sense to design something which can continue to work even after some loss of functionality. Along the same lines, the apparent old age of the earth may either be actual, or the result of conditions at the creation. For one, Biblical creation requires a mature creation--trees and plants bearing fruit and seed; man fully grown and able to marry, walk, talk, learn, and work from day one (actually Day 6, if you're picky http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif )... God wouldn't create baby Adam and baby Eve and toss them a sack of seed and some garden tools and say, "Get to work, dinner's in an hour." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif For another, climatic and atmospheric conditions at creation could have been majorly different from how they are now, including "constants" way out of line from today's numbers. From the creationist perspective, macroevolutionists aren't bad scientists--they just are misinterpreting the evidence from their own worldview. No falsehood is accepted without some amount of truth--no thinking person accepts something without rationale. Intra-species change, and to some extent, speciation does occur. From my view, evolution takes that truth and extrapolates it far beyond where it holds true--that all life came from a common ancestor (or two or three, etc.). I also agree that the terms of the debate do come down to one's worldview--either natural force or supernatural force. You may quibble over which natural forces or supernatural forces do the causing, but there isn't an in-between. Put differently, it's a battle between materialism and "spiritualism," for lack of a better word. If you only accept what can be scientifically measured, you will interpret many things differently from one who accepts things out of the realm of science. I cannot accept, based on my worldview, that God would use natural selection as a mechanism to accomplish His creation. 1)There are more efficient means to create, such as creating things the way you want them right off the bat; 2)No God who cares about His creation would use death as a means to accomplish it. That is not the God of the Bible; and if such a God is responsible for creating the world in such a manner, He may as well be a natural force. He is not interested in the plight of the puny inhabitants on the earth; we are no more than pawns to fulfill the designs of creation (and let's not be arrogant and assume we're the culmination of all life). Now for some quotes: Quote:
Quote:
The bottom line is, worldview is the determining factor in how related evidence will be interpreted. |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
Except for fish. Fish did ok... |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
Except for fish. Fish did ok...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Christian God is a very violent one and according to the Bible has killed many, many people to get His points across. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
2) As has been stated before, God can be a mean s.o.b., fully capable of allowing (and instigating) large-scale rape, slaughter, slavery, etc. That is the God of the bible. However, I don't think that that was what you were refering to. I think you meant that you cannot see god as being indifferent to his own creation. Just because he doesn't directly meddle doesn't mean that he doesn't care. Think of it in the terms of being a parent. When the kids leave home you have to allow them to make their own mistakes. You can't step in every time you see danger. Childhood is over. You can provide moral support, give a houewarming plant (even if it is on fire), and leave some reminder notes (a commandment or two etched on stone) but for the most part you have to stay out of it. This is especially true when your children are not your equal, when you presence will reduce them into a state of childhood. You want them to do the right thing for their own reasons not because you are standing right behind them. Leaving things alone is the only way to allow freedom of choice, the only way to develop a sense of morality. You see, direct divine meddling, the standard creationist viewpoint, may actually be against the desires of god. |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
We do not have freedom of will. What happens in the future is determined by the laws of nature and what has happened in the past. I never actually chose to attend college. I am attending it because the events of my life have all added up to cause such an event to occur. There was really no choice to be made on my part. I do not ever make a conscious choice between eating food and not eating food. According to the laws of nature, the cells in my body will begin to die without a constant supply of energy (in the form of glucose). So, I eat food. I do not eat it because I actively set out to eat it. Just a few examples for contemplation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Not making a choice is still a choice. If that is the one you prefer then so be it. And remember, until adulthood your parents make most of your choices for you (at least the ones that matter). That doesn't mean that free will doesn't exist, just that you have not yet begun to excercise it.
|
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
That is hardly a logical response to my supposition. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
My point was that I have no choice. What I will do is already determined by what happened in the past and according to the laws of nature. If I make no choice, that was already determined. If I make a choice, that choice was already determined. Even when your parents make choices for you, it is still not their free will that causes them to make those choices. |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
Besides, I have to remind myself to eat. I can very easily get caught up in something and forget.... Edit: I kan't spell.... [ March 19, 2003, 23:56: Message edited by: Jack Simth ] |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Fyron:
Interesting though - if you hold to a no free will universe, you contradict an earlier post where you said true prophecy was impossible. Without free will, prophecy simply becomes a matter of calculating inevitability, a feat of information processing, information awareness, and knoweledge of the rules of the universe, but not an impossibility. |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You have the illusion of free will because you do not realize all of the factors involved in your decisions. [ March 20, 2003, 00:38: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Just my .02 on this matter.
You very well can have free choice. We can and we do. I chose to buy a computer. I chose which car I wanted to buy. I choose what kind of food I want to eat when I'm hungry. I choose who I talk to. I choose who I like. I choose what TV shows I want to watch. Needless to say I can keep going on, but I choose not to. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Rags, you completely missed my point. And, your belief that you actually have free choice is an illusion (as illustrated prior).
|
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
Food for example: I choose what kind I want to eat once I become hungry. It has nothing to do with what happened in the past or events that just took place. I have foods I like thus I choose what kind I want to eat at any given time. I choose who I hang out with. This also has nothing to do with events in the past. I meet someone and if I like them I'll hang out with them. If I don't, that's my choice to make. Granted there are some choices that are decided by what events took place days prior to it but not all. There are still choices in our lives that are decided by us, not by events that took place that will help make the decision. [ March 20, 2003, 00:52: Message edited by: Ragnarok ] |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
Quote:
However, if you don't postulate that, then you leave the option of an independent soul open, which would really throw determinism out the window. |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
Edit: And just to beat you to the punch, it is a very big jump to go from affected by to determined solely by. [ March 20, 2003, 01:15: Message edited by: Jack Simth ] |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
I was just trying to start a philosophical debate, but I can see that has failed miserably. Maybe I should just stop looking at this thread altogether.
|
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
You mean I was able to turn Fyron around?!? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Sorry to deter your philosophical debate Fyron, that wasn't my intentions, I just simply wanted to bring out that we do have free will. I will now leave and you can have your debate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
What is this thread about? I have never seen it before. It just appeared here magically one day. And now it has swelled in size. OMG! Its taking over!
|
Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.