Posted by Pat on May 15, 1999 at 21:51:40:
In Reply to: Evolution posted by Templar on May 13, 1999 at 13:18:40:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.