Thank you for that correction, you DO know about fallacies. I'm impressed, really I am. Should we bow the knee? When does the date of publication disqualify a proposition? I've quoted some evolutionists that question the Darwinian theory, not creationists. You did catch that didn't you? And when we finally do get a definition of evolution. Wow. So typical of the evolutionary evasive ambiguity. Is that some kind of fallacy? Use the term in as many ways as possible, only to avoid the real issue. Slippery things, those evolutionists. >1) Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a >population spread over many generations. That is what this is all about? Change over time? Does a creationist deny this? Please quote one who does? Change over time within a species is utterly uncontroversial. No one has ever questioned that. The question is whether the standard theory of macroevolution, the standard definition of biological evolution, the theory that is so vigorously taught in the public schools, published in biology textbooks, that change over time, or descent with modification accounts for the origin of new species, in fact, of every species. It accounts for all of the complexity we see. That is the controversy. All I ask is that you teach the controversy. I'm not asking for you to teach the Bible. Just teach the controversy. Science is the search for truth, so there shouldn't be anything wrong with a fair and reasonable discussion of problems surrounding the theory. And, according to at least one agnostic molecular biologist, Michael Denton, "Neither of the two fundamental axioms of Darwin's macroevolutionary theory . . . have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859." Don't mislead the public. There is a controversy.
speaking of SETI, put SETI@home on your computer (especially you religious people). i have it on mine.. http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/download.html
It is true that Science doesn't seem for long to cope with "complex" philosophical question because it just seem impossible and transcendant to Science. But it is no more true: for example "Conciousness" which is indeed a problem related with "God" problem is now a problem investigated by science. I have already recommanded in the past to read "A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination" by Gerald M. Edelman (Nobel Prize of Medecine) - see below - so that Science, in its most advanced areas, is more and more tackling with the same domain than Religion. This of course will create at the same time threats and chances for Religions but if one is looking for truth and not for pretexts to justify one's beliefs that they are true or false, then one musn't be frightened by that but on the contrary be opened minded to listen to what Science can say. Many times Science has confirmed intuitions or revelations of Religions - for example the brownian motion as movement of atomic particles has been indeed exactly described by ancient greeks - I've read it in Alan Sokal and Bricmont the two physicians Book about "fashionable nonsense" : if they didn't say that it was written 2000 years BC I wouldn't see much difference with a modern description of brownian motion - how did they have that intuition is a mystery since they didn't have modern microscopes. So it is not obligatory a threat for Religions. "A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination" by Gerald M. Edelman (Nobel Prize of Medecine) : http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0465013775/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-5456782-4337553#reader-link (Unhappily Amazon has retired the exerpt there is only the index now) but here's a review http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/edelmang/univeroc.htm The perplexing question of what consciousness is has long been at the forefront of philosophical disputation. This elemental process, an essential -- indeed defining -- aspect of being human has given rise to any number of theories and ideas. Modern science made great advances in the 20th century, and much of the most interesting work regarding consciousness is increasingly no longer the domain of philosophers but of scientists. The brain is the seat of consciousness, at least physiologically speaking, and it is those who study the brain -- neurologists, neurobiologists, and the like -- that are doing the most interesting work regarding the question of consciousness. In this book Nobel laureate Gerald Edelman, director of the Neurosciences Institute, and his colleague Giulio Tononi present their findings and theories. The brain remains a murky and mysterious place, and though its functions and the processes that take place within it are almost continually becoming better understood its fundamental complexity is still overwhelming. Much about how the brain works has become clear in recent years, but most, it seems, is not. Consciousness, perhaps the most complicated brain-function (involving, presumably, most of the other functions of the brain), remains one of the most daunting areas. Edelman and Tononi present a useful overview of the problems and issues regarding consciousness, and various theories regarding it. Numerous examples in A Universe of Consciousness show how the brain is being studied, and what the information gleaned from experiments and experience suggests. A variety of illustrations and charts offer useful supporting information. Edelman and Tononi also offer a fair amount of speculation. They are careful to say that much of what they offer is, in fact, theory -- one version of "how matter becomes imagination" -- though the emphasis (that much is speculation) is perhaps not strong enough. Among the more interesting concepts they discuss is that of reentry: large numbers of neurons interacting "rapidly and reciprocally", a continuous give and take throughout the brain that is very different from what goes on in a computer, for example. Edelman and Tononi consider reentry central to consciousness -- as they do the idea that consciousness takes place throughout the brain, i.e. that it cannot be pinpointed in one specific area, but requires neural activity in much of the brain. A variety of examples and experiments given in the book support these claims. Another aspect Edelman and Tononi emphasize is the notion of "Neural Darwinism" (the title of a 1987 book by Edelman, and a somewhat controversial theory). This theory -- also known as TNGS ("theory of neuronal group selection") -- also integrates the notion of reentry, as well as "developmental selection" and "experiential selection". Edelman and Tononi present an interesting and cohesive (if still rudimentary) picture of consciousness, based on their theories of the functioning of the brain. Their theory should be of interest to the professional and layman alike, and provides a useful advanced starting point in any discussion of problems and issues regarding consciousness. Well-presented, the book is thorough without being daunting for the non-specialist, and most of the complex points are clearly explained. Perhaps more could have been said about alternative views, but overall A Universe of Consciousness is a very solid effort.
And if a definition of evolution was to be Change over time from hydrogen, ammonia, methane... into organic molecules.. into amino acids, along with evolution of other life supporting chemical compounds. Life from mud. I am sure there are a shit load of creationists who would not support that. It is not change within a species and it demonstrates an observable method by which life may have come about by itself. It wouldn't need creator God. Creationist obviously question that. I don't think there is a problem with science as controversial. Good Science thrives on exploring and explaining the controversial. The problem arises when the creationist declares science is controversial therefore ...controversial science = creator God. That's where the problem is. And would that be having a 'fair and reasonable discussion of problems surrounding the theory' ( a well substantiated explanation containing overwhelming evidence) of evolution.... WITHOUT the presupposition which creationists display... controversial science proves creator God. Tell that to a Bible class about the Bible. Watch what happens
In-credible indeed but even more incredible... ....... the "scientific and education establishment's main line of defense is ridicule and name calling" ???? The educational estblishment is the one which for hundreds of years has foisted a set of beliefs on its children in their own schools whether they like it or not, that God created everything. But suddenly according to AAA and to turn the position on its head, the educational estblishment is the act of questioning those who are skeptical about evolution and spontaneous creation (aka creationists) WHAT?? So then, questioning the creationist, is always accusing the creationist of being religiously brainwashed ?? WHAT?? ....And then when people say, wait, when you think about this God thing, it doesn't add up. Those people now all of a sudden ,become the education establishment , who just by an act of raising a skeptical note, turn themselves into the the educational establishment and by doing so are ridiculing and name-calling the creationist !!! WHAT?? To question, to raise counter argument, or to supply overwhelming and suportable evidence for something is to be ridiculing and name calling.?? Just when did that become the case.
The burden of proof is on whom? Theist based creationists, or atheistic based evolutionists? The answer is the evolutionists. Why? Because the evolutionists are attempting to generate a scientific proof devoid of the mechanics of faith, and the creationists are attempting to generate faith. This really is the key, and what is missing from all these discussions is the honest admission that science requires proof beyond theory to have any real validity. A "valid" theory is useless without a proof. As a theist it is easy to admit that proof is not a requisite for faith, as the theory of theists is that individual proof of God comes through the practice of faith, but when an atheistic scientific approach is taken, how can the atheists explain their acceptance of a theory so faithfully without proof? Rather than see great skepticism by the evolutionists, we see argument and defense from conclusion and rabid defense of their theory. Who should be more skeptical of the theory that man came from mud, a theist...or a scientist? A theist would believe that God fashioned man from mud quite easily. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. A scientist would need proof. There is this confusions over the difference between a scientific proof, and a reason to have faith. There is not overwhelming evidence of life coming from mud. There is perhaps though enough theory though to believe in a Perfect Being sufficient to practice faith for many. If people want to worship mud as the origin of life, so be it, that is their right. If people want to believe in a Supreme Being that to is their right. However, this attempt to push evolution on the basis of science as a proof is sorely lacking.
To anyone reading this board you see a few people making very salient points. Most are from just one side. We saw one good post from the pro evolution side. We saw harry make points for both sides and then we see people focusing on irrelevancies. Why. The debate club effort should be addressing issue of whether macro evolution is fact. NO ONE HAS SHOWN MACRO EVOLUTION TO BE A PROVEN FACT Come guys did we come from monkeys and muck or not. This should be a no brainer for the highly skilled debate club. Resolved, macro evolution is a fact. Although many creationist and some supposedly neutral scientist have argued that macro evolution is not a fact, Advances in technology have turned the tables yet again leading back to the great man Darwin Before we go any further lets us define MACRO EVOLUTION. according to ___________ Evolution (macro) is defined as"_______________________________________" We will prove the above in the following manner We have 1. 2. 3. facts supporting the above Then give arguments on why that facts are convincing 1 a b c 2 a b c 3 a b c Conclusion We told you there were facts, we told you we were going to support them. We gave you the support. There can be only one answer. BOOM If you can not debate in this manner you have no thesis and you have no facts. Just keep attacking the messenger.
Thank you for that correction, you DO know about fallacies. I'm impressed, really I am. Should we bow the knee? Thank you for verifying that you debate like a 4th grader. When does the date of publication disqualify a proposition? Strawman fallacy. I never stated this. However, OLD quotes on theories which have greatly changed obviously have a higher probability of being wrong. I've quoted some evolutionists that question the Darwinian theory, not creationists. You did catch that didn't you? Your point being? Scientists are rarely in perfect agreement over theories. You can always find someone who disagrees on somthing. What is the majority consensus? Do you know? And when we finally do get a definition of evolution. Wow. So typical of the evolutionary evasive ambiguity. Is that some kind of fallacy? Learn what a fallacy is and maybe you could make this judgement yourself. Use the term in as many ways as possible, only to avoid the real issue. Slippery things, those evolutionists. I quoted a more modern scientific definition, and your just upset that its not the easily attackable creationist version. >1) Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a >population spread over many generations. That is what this is all about? Change over time? Does a creationist deny this? Please quote one who does? Change over time within a species is utterly uncontroversial. No one has ever questioned that. Great...then you agree evolution is fact. The question is whether the standard theory of macroevolution, the standard definition of biological evolution, the theory that is so vigorously taught in the public schools, published in biology textbooks, that change over time, or descent with modification accounts for the origin of new species, in fact, of every species. It accounts for all of the complexity we see. Ummmm that WAS a definition from a biology book for biological evolution.. Macroevoution on the other hand IS A THEORY, and considered not proven by scientists, but DOES have supporting evidence. Again, you like to set up a strawman and PRETEND that science considers macroevolution FACT so that you can attack. You rely on this fallacy so much it should be named after you. That is the controversy. All I ask is that you teach the controversy. I'm not asking for you to teach the Bible. Just teach the controversy. Science is the search for truth, so there shouldn't be anything wrong with a fair and reasonable discussion of problems surrounding the theory. I agree that current problems with theories should also be taught. And, according to at least one agnostic molecular biologist, Michael Denton, "Neither of the two fundamental axioms of Darwin's macroevolutionary theory . . . have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859." And which two axioms would those be? I cannot judge if this is true or not. peace axeman