|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: Re: Natural science is not pure mathematics. posted by dado4 on October 18, 2003 at 20:00:33:
You said:"Bowlen's statement is one of open ended preference for any naturalistic explanation of life's origin. This is stating a philosophical position, not proffering a theory."
I am just going by your own criteria for naturalistic philosophy. By them, atomic theory, Newton's law of gravitation (which never explained Mercury's orbit), and Einstein's Theories must be naturalistic philosophy because they don't mention God. They openly prefer a natural explanation. You have given me nothing else to go on here.
Just because you don't like evolution doesn't make it naturalistic philosophy or semi-religious faith or a religious myth, although it can be given naturalistic and religious interpretations.
I take it that you really don't know anything about the background of the first creation story in Genesis. And did you know that there are 5 major creation stories in the Bible, all of them different?
I have not equated evolution and history, although there are some similarities. I simply point out that by your criteria, we don't know much of anything about the past. How do you know the sun rose in the past? That's just speculation, isn't it? That's parity of reasoning. (I'm turning Hume's famous question about whether the sun will rise tomorrow on it's head, here!)
The experts regard evolution as a fact, and they seem to me to have done the relevant research. Evolution is a unifying concept in biology and it provides a framework for fruitful research. I see no reason at all to doubt them on this. You have given me no reason to do so, and simply calling evolution faith or naturalistic philosophy or myth (Come on: which is it?) doesn't work. If you want to show that evolution is any of those things, then you must understand what those things are, but you doh't seem to.
As for your limits to how far evolution can go, you have not found "well-defined" limits. Indeed, you simply take popular notions of species and assert they are unchanging. In simple terms, the relevant definition of evolution runs as follows:
"The fact the frequency of the appearance of alleles in a population of organisms changes over time." (I corrected a spelling error.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
That is an observed fact; and so is natural selection, because even you can see that happened with the moths. So both evolution and natural selection have been observed to operate. Q.E.D.
So, what are those well defined limits about how many alleles can change in a popularion? You haven't given any.
Note: Darwin didn't understand modern genetics, nor could he be expected to.
Why don't you tell us your real objections to evolution?
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Did the sun rise in the distant past? - Pat D 16:49:02 10/19/03 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
