Posted by Templar on May 18, 1999 at 14:09:03:
In Reply to: So many misconceptions... posted by Pat on May 15, 1999 at 21:51:40:
: Templar:
: I was a biology major in college and I know there are quite a few $50 words to try to explain how several laws of physics and biology are trampled over in order to allow the sudden genesis of something as intricately complex as DNA, instinct and cellular regeneration
: Pat:
: Interesting. I don't know of any. Because such things, if the evidence is any guide, took place over a very long period of time. However, if you really were a biology student, you should have learned that the origin of living things has nothing whatever to do with the theory of evolution, which concerns itself exclusively with the way existing living things evolve.
The following laws: Energy takes the path of least resistance, 2nd Law of thermodynamics: All processes, left to themselves, become simpler. 1st law of Cytology - all cells come from preexisting cells. The belief in life randomly appearing on earth is usually referred to as the evoloutionist's model - it is certainly not anyone else's model. You know it's interesting that this is so well accepted in the US. I have friends in Japan who just scowl and shake their heads at this theory.
: Templar:
: but the simple fact is - broken down into basic, quantitative terms - you would have to believe that machines more complex than today's computers complete with operating systems suddenly popped out of nowhere.
: Pat:
: This is what is sometimes called The Cartoon Theory of Evolution. No wonder you don't like evolution. If I thought it was about such things, I wouldn't like it either.
If you can't dispute it, denegrate it. Simple fact is neither you nor anyone else can possibly explain the sudden genesis of DNA, simple instinct or the highly complex, intricate structure of even the simplest living creature. It's interesting that this theory originated before the discovery of DNA. Had the scientific community not been fully brainwashed by now I'm certain this theory could have made NO headway.
: Templar:
: Evolution is as much a religion as Chritianity.
: Pat:
: Wrong again. Evolution requires evidence. Religion requires faith. Don't get them mixed up; you'll get complete garbage.
Evolutionists would like to raise their religion above Christianity but the fact is - there is no evidence to support evolution and simple logic dictates a different model. An evolutionist holds onto his rosary of the development of life with the same fervor as a Roman Catholic. Rarely am I in a discussion with a proponent of evolution where the discussion doesn't turn into a lot of name calling on his side (see the flames later on.) My discussion with evolutionists take absolutely the same antilogical twists as my discussion with Christians.
: Templar:
: There is little or no evidence in the fossil record, virtually no evidence - in fact evidence to the contrary when it is studied in a lab.
: Pat:
: Wrong again. The transitions between (for example) therapsid reptiles and early mammals are so finely graded that at the transition point, there are a number of animals that can only be classified as intermediates. I'd like to explain this in a little more detail. What do you know about the anatomical differences between reptiles and mammals, specifically the jaw and skull bones used to separate them? Or if you'd like something a little more obvious, how about the dinosaur/bird transitionals? Have you seen the recently discovered feathered dinosaurs?
Lets look at the sudden existance of Sabertooth cats. All 4 species of Sabertooth cat appear suddenly and without intervening fossils. What we SHOULD see in the fossil record is millions and millions of failed mutations - a laboratory has YET to produce a GOOD mutation so, to accept the extreme unlikelihood of a GOOD mutation, we would have to see millions of terrible, failed mutations. None of the dinosaur/bird species or feathered dinosaurs have examples of 'intervening fossils' such as wings with no use, nonaerodynamic bird etc. ALL fossils we have show animals that are specifically DESIGNED for their niche in the environment - not bizarre offshoots that survive for a few hundred years with unnecessary mutations that, for some reason, end up producing GOOD mutations. Therapsids are such a basic design that anything can be made out of the fossils.
: Templar:
: But, as you say, it is the only, current, nonreligious explanation so therefore it must be followed with the blind faith of a Franciscan Monk.
: Pat:
: Nope, you just made that up. Let me make something clear, Templar. I don't mind you disagreeing with me. I want to be civil with you. But if you lie about what I say or what I believe, it's going to be very unpleasant for you. Don't do it again.
Ohhhh - and you're not arrogant and patronizing when you deal with me? What's the threat about - are you going to be EVEN MORE arrogant, pompous and patronizing. I don't think that's possible.
: Templar:
: In the future our decendants will look at those who believe in evolution today as quaint and entertaining just as we look back at those who believed in Mithraic myth.
: Pat:
: Doesn't seem very likely. When I started on the net, most creationists denied evolution occured at all. Then they admitted speciation happened. Then they agreed new genera occur. And now, many of them admit that new families evolve. By the time you speak of, there won't be anything left to argue above, assuming the backpedalling continues.
I know of no one like that. Though I do know of many evolutionists who have backpedaled - as an example - let's look at Star Trek compared to recent fiction. Star Trek's constant pounding of "EVOLUTION, EVOLUTION, EVOLUTION, EVOLUTION" has been replaced with Star Wars and Babylon 5 who reflect the creator's view that we don't know what is going on and we have to be totally arrogant to believe that at this early stage we have all the answers to origins.
: Templar
: I choose to refuse to believe that the universe was designed by a big Sky God but I also choose to believe (along with the scientist who discovered DNA) that infinitely complex systems absolutely cannot be the result of randomness.
: Pat:
: Good. Because the theory of evolution also denies that it's due to randomness. If you actually learned what the theory is about, you might like it.
Yeah, I've never heard of evolution... duh.... You have to accept that unthinking elements are capable of designing incredibly complex systems. The single-cell, for example, is an incredibly complex, designed machine incapable of being generated whole cloth from an 'organic soup'. Let's just pick one organ out of thin air - the Kidney. For some reason fish suddenly developed 'a Kidney' - here is a highly complex, designed organ specifically built for it's ONE task. Here in the 1990s we STILL are incapable of creating this organ and yet we are told by the disciples of the One True Faith that we must BELIEVE that this organ popped out of nowhere into existing organic machines and successfully hooked up into a system that has never before owned this intricate mechanism. Believing that random organs suddenly pop into our bodies and are discarded or used as needed is, again, asinine! If this were true then we could simply look at the population of the planet earth finding random organs popping into our bodies or maybe third eyes or extra limbs but we don't because THEY ARE UNNECESSARY! Obviously the highly complex programming language (DNA) seems to KNOW what we need and don't need - it EVEN 'knows' to produce more male children during a war. This mind-boggling DESIGN at our most basic level, more than anything else, should prove that something other than random elements are at work.
: Templar:
: I didn't want this to turn into a discussion on evolution but I am absolutely outraged by the obtuse arrogance of it's current disciples.
: Pat:
: Frankly, Templar, you have demonstrated to all that you don't have a clue about what the theory is really about. Perhaps you ought to fall back, learn a little about what it says, (hint make sure you learn from someone who knows more than you do) and then come on back and try again.
Ewwwwwwwwwwww patronizing and arrogant. Absolutely predictable from the disciples of 'The One True Faith'.
: Templar:
: Claiming that evolution is akin to gravity is asinine and betrays your lack of knowledge on the subject.
: Pat:
: As noted above, we've already established who lacks a grounding in the theory. I assume you know that creationists do admit that new species evolve.
Patronizing and arrogant again. Can't you actually defend your faith? I don't care what certain creationists believe or what they or you define as 'evolve'.
: Templar:
: Many scientists (one of whom is a friend of mine and works for Nasa) neither believe in the spontaneous generation of complex systems or a religious explanation yet you would rule them out immediately - I'm certain.
: Pat:
: I rule out spontaneous generation. The theory is not about spontaneous generation, nor does it require such a thing. However, I do accept a religious explanation for the ultimate origins of the universe. But that is not science, and not open to evidence. It seems you have a hard time separating the two ways of knowing. That always leads to error.
Science is Greek for 'Knowledge'. Religion must be as much science as any other endeavor. We can't simply 'have faith' - we must believe because of some real evidence. So, if you believe in a possible religious origin then why would you not believe in a religious 'guidance' of organisms? Why is saying 'I don't know' so hard?
: Templar:
: Anyway, I'm not interested in hearing from a pack of selfsatisfied, brainwashed disciples of the True Faith (evolution) - I want to hear some other options.
: Pat:
: There are none, I'm afraid. Perhaps it's time for you to drop your misconceptions about evolution, and learn what it really is. Then you might be able to discuss it intelligently.
Of course 2000 years from now we'll still accept the current scientific model even though that model has been challenged by fellow scientists and continues to change.
Maybe I didn't act in a 'civil' manner but when confronted with a demeaning, patronizing attitude I tend to get a little miffed. Again, Biology was my major in college and I have NO misconceptions about evolution - if anything, I'm sure I could help you out by giving you some inklings on new theories that are coming out of our univerisities.