"Your "logic" escapes me."
No doubt.
No doubt.
evolution: 1 creationism: 0
- Thread starter Gordon Gekko
- Start date
Coming in late to the fray - but here's my two cents (hopefully of some sense):
AAA - first off, you're confusing "hypothesis" with "theory".
A hypothesis is a tentative conjecture respecting a cause of phenomena.
A theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena incorporating facts, laws, and tested concepts.
A theory is NOT a belief or conjecture. Relativity is still known as Einstein's theory even though predictions based on it have all been demonstrated correct. Evolution clearly falls into the same category with a long list of supportive evidence.
While I personally respect the belief in a higher creative intelligence, what is so trivially offered up by the lunatic fringe as "creation theory" is barely a hypothesis - calling a "belief" a "theory" does not make it so, anymore than calling a Scottish Terrier a horse would allow you to ride it across town.
The whole "creationism" farce is an insult to thinking Christians and only serves to diminish and trivialize the much grander underlying concept.
Most serious religious scholars are very clear in their recognition that the Genesis creation tale is purely allegorical. There is no presumption of literal content.
They are the first to declare that the concept of "intelligent design" does NOT rely on having to accept Genesis as absolute literal historical fact coupled with the dismissal of evolution (which has been repeatedly validated and is consistent with hundreds of millions of years of evidence from paleontology, anthropology, geology, biology, etc.).
Genesis was written thousands of years ago for people who could no more understand the concepts and enormous timescale involved in the actual genesis of the universe than William Perry could understand basic electrodynamics ("Ya open the door and the light go on").
The Bible is chock full of allegory, parables, and morality tales that were not intended to be consumed literally or are only loosely based on other material or even older events.
Acceptance of the obvious fact of evolution does not diminish one as a Christian (or Jew or Muslim or Buddist or ...) nor one's belief in a creative God. And recognizing that the Bible was written by and for people who lived 2,000-4,000 years ago (and has undergone numerous interpretation and editing since) and was therefore written in a way the people of the time could understand does not diminish its overall message.
To Archangel. If you read the whole thread you would see that while there is micro evolution I do not think you can call macro evolution a theory by your definition.
According to talk orgins "synthesists extrapolate" species to species evolution from the things that cause micro evolution. I do not think extrapolation adds up to your definition of theory. I would happy to hear your arguments in favor of it being a theory.
But remember we are looking for the theory of species to species evolution. I think everyone will grant you that micro evolution is at least a theory. We are looking at the orgin of the species type stuff for the area of dispute.
Stu why are you ignoring the thread I made with your name on it.
P.S. please do not argue intelligent design I have never said it is a fact.
According to talk orgins "synthesists extrapolate" species to species evolution from the things that cause micro evolution. I do not think extrapolation adds up to your definition of theory. I would happy to hear your arguments in favor of it being a theory.
But remember we are looking for the theory of species to species evolution. I think everyone will grant you that micro evolution is at least a theory. We are looking at the orgin of the species type stuff for the area of dispute.
Stu why are you ignoring the thread I made with your name on it.
P.S. please do not argue intelligent design I have never said it is a fact.
Already debunked this.
THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR MACROEVOLUTION
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
and therefore it qualifies as a scientific theory.
" do not think extrapolation adds up to your definition of theory."
They never claimed it did. You continue to use this strawman.
peace
axeman
THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR MACROEVOLUTION
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
and therefore it qualifies as a scientific theory.
" do not think extrapolation adds up to your definition of theory."
They never claimed it did. You continue to use this strawman.
peace
axeman
In a nutshell..... the synthesists claimed that the MECHANISM for
microevolution could be extrapolated to macroevolution.
You then committed a non-sequitur and claimed that this somehow
meant they they were admitting there was NO evidence for
macroevolution.
This is clearly not the case. They made no such admission and
there IS scientific evidence for macroevolution which qualifies it
as a scientific theory.
Ive posted the link numerous times now.
peace
axeman
microevolution could be extrapolated to macroevolution.
You then committed a non-sequitur and claimed that this somehow
meant they they were admitting there was NO evidence for
macroevolution.
This is clearly not the case. They made no such admission and
there IS scientific evidence for macroevolution which qualifies it
as a scientific theory.
Ive posted the link numerous times now.
peace
axeman
It is rather perverse to give any credence to the notion that macroevolution does not occur.
Preverse, nay, ironic.
Let us say I am an agnostic and you are a person of great faith.
The quote from "talk-origins" once again.
"Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails."
I am not here telling you that evolution did not occur. I am telling you your faith is based on the guesses of true believers (synthesists) guessing that the process would be the same for species to species evolution as they are for within species evolution.
.
Let us say I am an agnostic and you are a person of great faith.
The quote from "talk-origins" once again.
"Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails."
I am not here telling you that evolution did not occur. I am telling you your faith is based on the guesses of true believers (synthesists) guessing that the process would be the same for species to species evolution as they are for within species evolution.
.
What gives anyone the idea that species to species is so special and different than intra species change?
Darwin's epiphany at Galapagos re: finches holds today.
Gould and punctuated equilibria argued it happened also in bursts.
The inter species/intra species argument thy faithful proffer thee is surely specious.
Darwin's epiphany at Galapagos re: finches holds today.
Gould and punctuated equilibria argued it happened also in bursts.
The inter species/intra species argument thy faithful proffer thee is surely specious.