Re: From Ziltch

On Mon, 4 May 2009 20:17:23 -0700 (PDT), perstare wrote:

On May 4, 9:50 pm, Shane <remar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2009 17:31:23 -0700 (PDT), perstare wrote:
On May 4, 10:49 am, Chris <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 4, 11:25 am, perstare <perst...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

1.- No "side" here can claim to be any more well off with science.
Either they're both scientific, or neither are.

Well, no. That's simply not true. Science is a way of examining data.
It's not a "let's all get along" kind of thing.

One begins with a
supreme being, the other with a cosmic egg.

"Cosmic egg"? Are you talking about the Big Bang? Biological evolution
has nothing to do with that.

[That sentence alone is
enough to stake my possible afterlife in the, frankly, more probable
creationism. I removed myself from all bias first to decide belief in
Christ.]

Why more probable? What evidence in support of evolution have you
examined and rejected?

Examples: Miller experiment, useless whale hipbone, embryology...

It would have been politer to respond to Chris directly.

So what about those things made you conclude that they do not support
evolution?

2.- If one decides in evolution from there, he must prove to himself,
that it is possible, over millions, say, billions of years, for an
enormously complex cell to emerge from... a... rock?

That answers my earlier question. You erected a straw man with which
to argue.

Additionally,
there is no evidence of #pre# biotic remains to start with. However, I
admit this may be revoked if the first stages of evolution occurred on
another planet.

So are you talking about the notion of common descent or the notion of
abiogenesis?

Here I am talking of abiogenesis.

Ditto, response direct to Chris is preferred.

3.- No one has any right to be using angry, pugnacious remarks
downgrading another's argument (including mine) except sincere points
of apparent fallacies.

This is Usenet. Be prepared for anything.

Chris

Well, Chris, you were able to point out many holes. Thank you. But
yours still aren't filled.

Nor even identified. I note you chose not to answer any of his
questions, Is there a particular reason for that?

To name (again) one hole: no remains of a bird-lizard.

Why do you consider that that is a hole? as evolution predicts no such
transition. It is comments like this that display your lack of knowledge
of evolution.

Biologic evolution has to start somewhere; I haven't heard of a theory
other than the Big Bang (creative name) to start it besides
creationism.

Then you need to listen harder. An understanding of evolution no more
requires a definitive understanding of the origin of life than
creationism requires a definitive understanding of the origins of the
creator--indeed it is considered a positive attribute of theism, that
their deity is beyond comprehension, if only they accepted the same
standard from science, but apparently some sense of ethics or morals
precludes that--or that an understanding of the properties of
electricity requires a definitive understanding of how electrons are
formed.

You are presenting a false dichotomy, and not only that you are
presenting it as something new and previously unconsidered. It is fair
to say that there has not been a new argument in favour of creationism
for a considerable time and yours are no exception.

On the other hand, your lies always have to be changing.

That is a rather pugnacious comment. Would you care to identify one of
my "lies", and how it has changed?

Truth, of course by definition (unless you're a postmodernist, for
whom science has no purpose) must be constant.

What an interesting idea, which raised a question. Do you consider that
Newtons ideas of planetary motion to be
1. True.
2. Mostly true, for the knowledge they had available to them at the
time, and when that knowledge increased, the increased knowledged
refined, but did not overturn, the essential truth of Newtons ideas.
3. False, but close enough to approximate truth.
4. Completely false.
5. Lies.

Now as for your specific claim that you have not heard of an explanation
for the origin of life, other than the big bang or creationism, then I
suggest that a quick Google of "abiogenesis" may serve as a springborad
for some learning on your part.

No, no, no, no, NO! What I mean is, for MATTER origins I have only
heard of it start those two ways. I am completely aware of the
several, several different theories of LIFE origins

Why then did you write: "Biologic evolution has to start somewhere; I
haven't heard of a theory other than the Big Bang (creative name) to
start it besides creationism."?

You are the one that specifically tied biologic evolution to the big
bang, and introduced the confusion. Lenny is suggesting that we go easy
on you because you are only young, but you are the one that decided to
swim in the adults pool. If you want to do so, fine, but I suggest that
you type your words with far more care than you have so far
demonstrated.

As for the big bang, there are other alternatives that you are
apparently unaware of, yet you seem to automatically assume that your
knowledge is complete. You may wish to google "steady state universe"
and also you may wish to research the big bang itself, as there are a
few different scenarios there, including the idea that I suspect matches
yours that the Big band is a one-shot as opposed to cyclic to name but
two.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mischaracterization of ID?
    ... How would you characterize Intelligent Design, ... > falsify the Theory of Evolution, which is strictly a scientific matter ... The Theory of Evolution does not explain the origins of life, ... > force religion or Creationism into the public school curriculums. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Opinion: The struggle between evolution and creation: an American
    ... are good scientific guides to the origins of our world. ... implication that everyone who doubts evolution is a 6-day YEC. ... but are increasingly science literate, ... creationism are christian fundamentalists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Article: A world where lies are true.
    ... -Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism" ... The danger of creationism is that, ... Rationality is not allowable under evolutionary paradigms. ... As if everything in evolution were not based on random ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ponder me this...
    ... Branches occur all the time in evolution. ... Creationism means you have a working brain. ... Who or what created the Big Bang? ... Imagine explaining that theory to a bunch of half apes ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: Why is my son an atheist?
    ... can be a Christian and believe that the Earth orbits the sun, ... although old-earth creationism was acceptable. ... I first learned about evolution and an ancient age for the Earth from ... background confirmed a prediction of Big Bang theory, I and just, ...
    (talk.origins)