[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[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.

[raynor]

[quote]Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

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

Of course, there is life on other planets. But they're all human. Thus, I don't believe in aliens.

[Fyron]

[quote]Originally posted by raynor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

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

Of course, there is life on other planets. But they're all human. Thus, I don't believe in aliens.

---

I am not going to comment further, as your smiley indicates that you are joking, and not serious about that all humans thing.

[Andrés]

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?

[Andrés]

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: Andr&eacutes Lescano ]

[raynor]

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.

[Fyron]

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.