Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

What are we arguing here?

We have been over all these points before.

The sun has been observed to rise with such regularity that our life is built around it's cycle. Macro-evolution has not been observed at all. What are you arguing here?

Observation of the process is the natural limit. No changes from one animal group to another have ever been observed. The observation and aggressive genetic manipulation of millions of generations of E. Coli bacterium have not led to it's change into a non-E.Coli bacteria. The same is true for every animal bred by man and every animal observed in nature. Macro-evolution remains an inference. The website states as much. My point is that inference is not fact.

The controversy over evolution is precisely it's extrapolation from observed genetic variation (micro) to it's all-powerful extension of creating all forms of life on the planet (macro). No one argues against micro evolution. Any debate is by default about macro evolution.

Entropy is part and parcel of the second law (you will not find a text on the subject that does not include it). Entropy is included in many definitions of the Second Law. There is no fallacy of division here. Mere avoidance of this fact answers nothing. Similarly vague appeals to the earth (or biosphere, or organisms) as an open system is not a response to the criticism. Read my response again and note what evolutionists have failed to provide as an answer. The fact that energy and mass cross system boundaries says nothing of how they are translated into useful work (this is what the law is all about). One of the great observed trends in relation to the second law is that exposure of closed systems far from equilibrium to additional free energy and/or mass (making it an open system) accelerates it's move towards equilibrium (increases entropy). This is precisely the where evolutionists are silent.

I am very surprised that you would assume I have never visited talkorigins, it is the premier websourse for info on evolution after all. I also read avidly on this subject from other sources. I have read most of the major works of Gould, Mayr, and Futyma as well as Dawkin's two most popular books. This is not to boast, just to state would not engage in a debate if I was not familiar with what I was arguing against.

And as to philosophy of science, this amounts to evolutionist asking for a pass on scientific testing of their theory. They posit a cause and effect, why should we believe it without it's verification? If I said the cause of bio-diversity was lightning striking the earth, why should any one believe me without my demonstrating it? Sure I can say lighting strikes the earth all the time, but how does that explain the creative power I have assigned to it? This is why evolution ceases to be a scientific theory and becomes a Just So story. It's proponents can shout accusations of hubris all they want, it does not make their theory scientific. As an idea, evolution may be elegant, ordered and reasonable, but it is not testable. This is the key.

My engagement was with you. May I take your closing statement as a wish to no longer continue this exchange? I was trying to give you every courtesy possible in choosing the direction of this debate and I am disappointed that you have not taken up my offers.

My overarching point is that as an idea (rigid requirements of demonstrable theory aside) evolution simply does not hold up to any kind of intensive scrutiny. Many intelligent people (religious and secular) have raised varied criticisms to this theory from the beginning and most of these have not been answered. It would be one thing if evolution's apologists were able to silence critics by way of reasoned counter argument, but for the most part they have not done this to date. Don't take my word for it. If you have not done so already, I would suggest reading Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial and then read Gould's and Dawkin's responses to his arguments. A good next step would be studying Behe's and Denton's works and the follow on evolutionist responses.

Thanks,
Rob

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  VH Audio  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]