Re: If you believe any of your theories, you've turned science into a religion.


Brian Tung wrote:
> It should be made clear what that rhetorical question is after. The
> motivation for ID is that *something* has to have designed these things;
> they couldn't have sprung up from nothing. The rhetorical question
> points out that that same reasoning could be applied to any Creator, who
> must, after all, be more complex than anything on the Earth today. (At
> least, it seems so to me, and I've never heard anyone claim otherwise.)
> In short, it's an indication of a logical flaw.
>
> Whether that's a useful tactic from a practical perspective is a whole
> nuther question and depends on whom you're talking to. I think that if
> you're talking to someone who may disagree with you but who is at least
> honest with themselves, they will admit that that particular argument
> for ID is logically flawed.
>
> > The "Big Bang" theory has the universe exploding from something
> > smaller than an atom into the present universe we have today. What if
> > you were asked "Where did that small particle come from"?
>
> I would respond, "I don't know. Science isn't prepared to answer that
> question yet, so it's pointless to pretend that it has the answer."

Then let's give the ID proponents the same flexibility. If "science"
doesn't have to answer their question, why should ID proponents be
required to answer your unanswerable question. (I say unanswerable
because as far as I know anyone who has met their Maker hasn't sent
back a description (smile) yet)


> > You want science? Do a research on mules. They have been bred for
> > hundreds of years as a cross between donkeys & horses. In the evolution
> > theory, accidental mutations gave rise to species. Yet the mule, which
> > has been around in abundance cannot successfully breed & continue the
> > strain. To get more mules, you need more horses & donkeys. This will
> > get evolution out of the "theory" area & into the reality area. Why
> > doesn't it work here?
>
> First of all, hundreds of years is a blink of an eye from an evolutionary
> perspective--especially as it applies to large beasts. The smaller you
> are, the faster you reproduce, as a rule, and therefore the faster you
> evolve.

But I've always read that macro evolution was caused by accidental
mutations which brought about a separate species? I would think this
had to happen in one generation?

It took life on the Earth about three billion years to evolve
> sex the first time. That is many, many times a few centuries.
>
> That also points out another requirement for evolution, besides lots of
> time: reproduction. Humans have also been making spears for thousands
> of years, and yet in all that time, spears have not evolved the ability
> to breed themselves.

Give me a break! Mules are large animals with all the right equipment
for breeding, yet you make an asinine statement about breeding spears!
I'm not a child or an idiot.

Even if we
> restrict ourselves to biological things, the rule of reproduction still
> stands. We can grow Thompson seedless grapes, and have done for some
> time now, but if we plant those grapes, we can water and fertilize them
> all we like, they won't grow. The fact that they came from seeds isn't
> relevant,

Grapes grow from seeds, yet it isn't relevant that these have no seeds?
You have certainly never been on a farm, have you? In the REAL world,
seeds ARE relevant. Only a dummy would plant seedless grapes & expect
them to grow.


> Remember that evolution rests on more than the principle of random
> variation. It also relies on heredity--the notion that characteristics
> breed true, for the most part.

If heredity breeds true, then forget Macro-evolution (no accidental
mutations)

If you don't have reproduction, and
> instead rely on man-made instances to spontaneously develop reproductive
> facilities on their own--and simultaneously in a male and a female at
> that--well, you'll be waiting for a long time, much more than a few
> centuries. That it doesn't happen earlier does not violate the theory
> of evolution by natural selection, not in the least.

But, as I stated above, mules already have the reproductive
facilities. They were born with them, BUT, they can not reproduce
offspring after their kind. You should read up on them, it might
generate some questions.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Thermodynamic vs. Informational Entropy - for Dr. Marc Buhler
    ... How can those bacteria evolve without a germline? ... Odd, isn't it, that by your definition of evolution only sexually ... Using only clonal reproduction bacteria can ... The population of immune cells ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Thermodynamic vs. Informational Entropy - for Dr. Marc Buhler
    ... How can those bacteria evolve without a germline? ... Odd, isn't it, that by your definition of evolution only sexually ... Using only clonal reproduction bacteria can ... mutation and selection during the lifetime of the host dies with the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution
    ... reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct. ... The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and ... random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by ... George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution ...
    (talk.origins)
  • OT: McCain Running Mate
    ... But evolution is simply the term that we apply, ... utterly dependent upon imperfection in reproduction, ... exalt efficiency to any detectable degree. ... life requires, that it work. ...
    (comp.sys.hp.mpe)
  • Re: Evolution confuses an observation with a theory
    ... species over time - and the theory of evolution which explains that change. ... What is your theory of evolution. ... size, speed, camouflage, rate of reproduction. ... antelopes which inherit speedier combinations ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading