[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society - Page 16

Mephisto · #**151** March 17th, 2003, 02:39 AM

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.

Suicide Junkie · #**152** March 17th, 2003, 06:02 AM

Quote:

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 · #**153** March 17th, 2003, 06:06 AM

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.

Andr�s · #**154** March 17th, 2003, 06:20 AM

Quote:

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 · #**155** March 17th, 2003, 06:27 AM

Quote:

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 · #**156** March 17th, 2003, 06:39 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Quote:

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 · #**157** March 17th, 2003, 06:42 AM

[quote]Originally posted by raynor:

quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Quote:

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.

Andr�s · #**158** March 17th, 2003, 06:47 AM

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?

Andr�s · #**159** March 17th, 2003, 06:59 AM

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 · #**160** March 17th, 2003, 09:36 AM

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.