Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Conclusion of the "Debate"

Expand Messages
  • L. K. Appleton
    Hi kel, ... From: kel_bc_ca To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 1:20 PM Subject: [creation_evolution_debate]
    Message 1 of 101 , Apr 1 4:40 PM
      Hi kel,
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: kel_bc_ca
      Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 1:20 PM
      Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Conclusion of the "Debate"


      Bil:   Please explicitly define "Intelligent Design" as you mean it in the context of this debate on the "scientific theory of Intelligent Design", and say how "Intelligent Design" can be detected using the scientific method.

      > LKA:  There is nothing to add to what I said before.


      Bi!: OK I understand:
      there is no explicit definition of "Intelligent Design"; and
      there is no scientific evidence for its existance.
      Q.E.D.
      >

         LOL. Then you have effectively debunked the essence of all
      evolutionary claims about the value of Stone tools and stone
      artifacts.  Your comments necessarily come under the heading
      of "shooting yourself in the foot"!
       
       
      Laurie Appleton
      lappleto@...
       
      "Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are soon
      routed by a steady onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific topics."
      (Niles Eldredge 1982)
    • L. K. Appleton
      Hi Phil, ... From: Phil Nicholls To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate]
      Message 101 of 101 , Apr 11 12:46 AM
        Hi Phil,
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 10:51 AM
        Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: an't answer straight question, hmmm?

        >
        >   <snip>
        >
        PN>  Why don't you sum up for us Paley's arguments for Design. 
         
           Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's conclusions should do. i.e.;
         

                     "The second possibility is curiously reminiscent of the
               special creation theory advocated in the second half of
               the eighteenth century by William Paley. After
               emphasizing that plants and animals are remarkably well
               adapted to the environments in which they live, Paley
               likened the precision of the living world to a
               beautifully made watch.  He then argued that, just as a
               watch owes its origin to a watchmaker, the world of
               Nature must owe its origin to a Creator God. His work "A
               View of the Evidence of Christianity" was highly
               influencial."
         
               "Given initially as a series of lectures in the
               University of Cambridge, the book became required reading
               in that University. Indeed, up to the twentieth century
               an examination, popularly known as 'Paley's Evidences',
               had to be successfully passed by all graduates of the
               University.
         
               In 1835 and 1837 Edward Blyth published two papers in
               which he considered the effects natural selection.  He
               argued that once species were adapted to their
               environment, natural selection would prevent them becoming
               disadapted. He also argued closely along the lines of the
               quotation from Darwin given in chapter 4: 'On the average
               every species must have some number killed year with year
               by hawk....' Blyth saw this argument clearly, long before
               Darwin wrote it in his notebook, but he felt that it
               could only improve the adaptation of an already adapted
               plant or animal.
         
               Getting the adaption there in the first place remained a
               problem, and for this Blyth found it necessary to take a
               position not much different from Paley's. The problem of
               getting the 2,000 necessary enzymes there in the first
               place remains to this day, as we discussed already in
               chapter 2.
         
               What Darwin, and also Alfred Russel Wallace, did nearly a
               quarter of a century after Blyth was to assert that
               natural selection would indeed get the adaptation there
               in the first place, a position which Blyth had considered
               and rejected. The assertion was without proof, although
               the scientific world has been persuaded into thinking
               that exhaustive proofs were given in The Origin of
               Species (1859). What we are actually given in Darwin's
               book are very many changes of adaptation by already
               adapted species, of which there had never been any real
               cause for argument since Blyth's papers in 1835 and 1837.
               The key issue, namely that origins from scratch cannot be
               explained in the same way, is not dealt with at all.
         
              
                  "The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out
             to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic
             that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave
             William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for
             more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance
             of being the ultimate winner."
         
             (Evolution from Space, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra
             Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 96)
         
        <snip>

        LA>      However, mostly evolutionists and Creationists agree about
        >  the facts. The major disagreements arise because the
        >  evolutionists spend most of their time making up stories,
        >  that desperately try to explain away the facts.

        PN> Actually we do not agree on the facts.  The disagreement
        PN> arises in that you chose to ignore certain facts.
         
            The very opposite is the case.
         
        PN>  For example, you repeatedly bring up the Cambrain explosion
        PN> but ignore the fact that the sudden appearnce of modern
        phyla took place over a 40 million year time span
         
            That is of course is NOT a fact, but rather an hypothesis. The fact
        upon which evolutionists and Creationists agree is that there
        was a sudden explosion of life, "just as if they were planted there"
        with NO evidence of previous evolution, and this, , as Dawkins
        admits, has delighted the Creationists. (And of course, has greatly
        troubled the evolutionists too!)
         
        <snip>

        LA>      I mean there is no doubt that the evolutionists found
        LA>  some skull bones at a place called Piltdown. The only
        >  disagreement was about the silly story that the evolutionists
        >  concocted about those bones! As usual the Creationists
        >  turned out to be right!

        PN> Tell me, Laurie, who uncovered the fraudulent nature of
        PN> the Piltdown materials? 
         
            The Creation Scientists had ALWAYS rejected it and thus when
        the evolutionists finally had to admit that it was a fake, that
        conferred no credit on them in the slightest.  Even Roland
        Numbers, in his book; "The Creationists" points out that;
         
         
                  "[Arthur I. Brown] by the early 1920s [he] was
             publishing antievolution pamphlets on such subjects as
             'Evolution and the Bible (1922) and 'Men, Monkeys amd
             Missing Links' (1923)
         
                  "In Men, Monkeys and Missing links, for example,
             he provided a synopsis of 'God - or Gorilla (1922), a
             sneering, indignant attack on human evolution by a
             muckraking Catholic journalist, Alfred Watterson McCann
             (1879-1931), who reveled in exposing Piltdown man as a
             hoax years before the scientific community conceded
             that it was."
         
         (The Creationists, Ronald L. Numbers, 1993, p. 58)
         
         
        PN>   I'll give you a hint.  Creationists had nothing to do
        PN> with it.
        >
         
            Just the opposite, as the above shows! You appear to have
        accepted a lot of distorted and incorrect statements.
         
         
         
        Laurie Appleton
        lappleto@...
         
        "Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are soon
        routed by a steady onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific topics."
        (Niles Eldredge 1982)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.