[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[spoon]

Originally posted by Krsqk:

quote:

---

This accounts for the prevalance of super-flu's and such and is one more piece of evidence one the side of evolution.

So you have a better bacterium. 1)It's still a bacterium; 2)It's still the same disease; 3)It could just as easily be evidence to support intelligent design--highly adaptive designs would make more sense.

---

Observed instances of origin of new species can be found here:

talk origins

Also suggest reading this page, which describes five major misconceptions about evolution:

talk origins

I encourage you read the entire talk origins faq, and post to talk origins if you really think you have Evolution beat. Then get back to us with your results.
-spoon

[Andrés]

I didn't find anyone defending a "no-theory", or an alternative third theory.

All I links I could find were supporting some variation of creationism. That name is discredited so now they avoid using it, but they present the same case, perhaps not a literally biblic creationism, "intelligent design" and "guided evolution" are just other names and variants of creationism.
Most times they use another wrong theory, the young-earth theory to support them (if you read the links posted here you'll find the correct explanation for every one of the supposed flaws uncovered in evolution, do we need to copy and paste every one here?)
And ALLWAYS involve an "intelligent designer" or some other name to replace God.

The objective of presenting them as alternative scientifically valid theories, is to disguise religion as science and be able to teach in public schools that are supposed to be lay in the US (and BTW also here in Argentina) that this "intelligent designer" exists.
I other words, to teach students that the God existence is scientifically proved.
+

[Fyron]

BM:

Look at what you quoted. I typed how life came to be how it is, not 'how life came to be'.

I was not quoting anything there. Quoting you would have involved placing it in quote UBB tags. I did not distort anything there. In fact, you never said anything about "how life came to be how it is". I do not see it in any of your Posts.

you went right ahead and chopped off half of the phrase to make it into a different claim.

No, because _you never said that phrase_. It was made-up "quote" (though not really a quote of anything, as it is not a quote), not a quote of you.

There are many more books pointing out the flaws of Darwinian theory, btw. It's not just this one. Here are just a couple of the more respectable ones written by 'real' scientists. Admittedly, they aren't easy to find. That's why I pointed to Milton's book first. It's easy to find.

You do realize that I said that the theory of evolution is currently undergoing major re-evaluation, right? I never once said that the theory of evolution is set in stone, and that is how it is. You seem to think I have argued that, when I haven't. In fact, everything I have said leads to "if it is proven wrong, it will be changed to accomodate new evidence/experimentation".

Originally posted by QuarianRex:
BM:
It's unfair to use an archaic theory of evolution (purely gradual) as an example to 'disprove' evolution in its entirety. Modern views include both gradual and dynamic theories and are much more inclusive of the available evidence.

Exactly what I have been saying all along.

Krsqk:

Did it progress through a 3 1/2-chambered heart

Krsqk, please do not get into that half-organ garbage again. It did not help your case in that old thread, and it will not help here. Bringing it up will only hurt your argument.

Explanations for legs to wings: Sure, it all sounds nice, but we don't see any examples of transitions between them. Unless, of course, it just made big jumps.

Yes we do. There are dinorsaur fossils with legs and half-wings instead of arms. Actually, legs to wings is wrong. It is arms to wings that is the correct path.

Fewer genetic similarities: So evolution will adapt its theory to meet this new obstacle. Does that mean they'll redraw the "evolution tree" we see so much of? Will it now be based on genetic similarities, instead of physical ones?

That is a distinct possibility.

Any theory is better than no theory: 1)No, it's not; a false theory would not be better than a true one; 2)I don't see "no theory" being advocated. All that's been asked is for the evidence to be held up to both theories, not just evolution.

And this is done constantly. Pure creation with no evolution always falls short because there is no valid evidence supporting it. The only "evidence" is false theories and incorrect analysis of the evidence. This is not to say that the current theory of evolution and all of the currently held paths of evolution are absolutely correct (as they probably are not), just to say that pure creationism is not supported by any valid evidence that we have.

Fyron: Not everything in this post is directed toward you, so let's not inflate your post count by quoting everything that doesn't apply to you and saying "I never said this," okay?

I haven't done anything of the sort so far, so what makes you think I would start doing it now?

[Suicide Junkie]

Any theory is better than no theory: 1)No, it's not; a false theory would not be better than a true one; 2)I don't see "no theory" being advocated.

Did you really mean to type that?
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.

[raynor]

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.

[Andrés]

Originally posted by raynor:
It's unfortunate that separation of Church and State prevents schools from teaching Creationism. As theories go, Evolution vs. Creationism both seem equally plausible.

That is a lie.
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: Andr&eacutes Lescano ]

[Fyron]

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.

Life on other planets must exist. The odds of there not being life anywhere else in the universe are infintesimal.

Of course, life on earth having been seeded by aliens is preposterous.