Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
You say that there isn't a shred of evidence, but we are citing evidence. Evidence has been cited. It appears to me that you haven't read the posts, carefully, though, because you are still making arguments that have no place in this thread (e.g. - "There was this diagram of a fish crawling on land and becoming a reptile of something and a half whale half cow in the sea").
More than that, even if you come to the point where you agree that we are using the same evidence, and have come to different conclusions, we do engineering based on Evolution. Evolutionists perform experiments on fruit-flies that not only support the science, but actually refine their understanding of it.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
I think Dawkins is a bad example because he's pretty anti-religious. You can read his articles in "Free Inquiry" or the "Skeptical Enquirer" (I forget which), and he's honking rabid. But read his technical work. You'll see a substantially different tone. There's no way a reputable journal would publish the kinds of things he writes for the Atheist magazines.
.
Dawkins gives the impression he's demented poor man .
Originally Posted by Willtor
Either that or you haven't allowed yourself to see any of the proof. Maybe you should read my friend's thesis. He's defending in a couple of weeks (Feb 14, I think) and if you remind me, I'll post a link to his writeup.
Thankyou. Whats it about?
__________________ From the lone shieling of the misty island
Mountains divide us, and the waste of seas;
Yet still the blood is strong, the heart is Highland,
And we, in dreams, behold the Hebrides.
You say that there isn't a shred of evidence, but we are citing evidence. Evidence has been cited. It appears to me that you haven't read the posts, carefully, though, because you are still making arguments that have no place in this thread (e.g. - "There was this diagram of a fish crawling on land and becoming a reptile of something and a half whale half cow in the sea").
More than that, even if you come to the point where you agree that we are using the same evidence, and have come to different conclusions, we do engineering based on Evolution. Evolutionists perform experiments on fruit-flies that not only support the science, but actually refine their understanding of it.
Hello
Evidence has been cited? Sorry I missed that. In this thread I am posting my experience with people who teach evolution theory beliefs.
How do fruit-flies relate to the missing link? Did it fly off?
__________________ From the lone shieling of the misty island
Mountains divide us, and the waste of seas;
Yet still the blood is strong, the heart is Highland,
And we, in dreams, behold the Hebrides.
Dawkins gives the impression he's demented poor man .
...
Thankyou. Whats it about?
His thesis is on the application of genetic algorithms to query optimization. The idea is that the person who maintains a database has to hit it, repeatedly, with the same query over and over again (especially if the query is coming through a website or some such). Now, it may be that approximate results are "good enough" if the results are generated much faster. Consider a database with a table of 1500 rows, and a query that takes 30 seconds to run and returns a set of 800 results. Jason may be able to evolve a query that takes a fraction of a second to run, and returns a set of 850 tuples, 750 of which are in the intersection of the two result sets. Depending upon the application, the new query may be sufficient. It may not be necessary to get the exact results, but a pretty good approximation is enough for the user.
Genetic algorithms (genetic programming, in the case of his thesis) are useful in a lot of applications, though. There's a popular problem within the Computer Science community, called the traveling salesman problem. The idea is that there are a bunch of cities with airports, but not every city goes to every other city (necessarily). This salesman has to visit each city, but he doesn't like to fly, so he wants to find the shortest route. As it so happens, this is a very difficult problem to solve. Even with the fastest computers in the world, using the latest and greatest algorithms, once you have 15 or 20 cities, the problem takes too long to solve (months or years). But in the field of evolutionary programming, the problem has become too easy, so the conferences soup up the question to make it more compicated. Genetic algorithms easliy find very good solutions, and sometimes find the best solutions.
This is the sort of engineering I'm talking about. But you don't have to take my word for it. Go to the Computer Science dept website of any school that has a decent CS program and look up Genetic Algorithms.
How do fruit-flies relate to the missing link? Did it fly off?
Yes. It flew off.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
inspires fanatical and even pathological devotion from its followers (did you see Richard Dawking on TV 'the root of al evil'),
All of them or just special cases like Dawkins?
dictates a persons world view and aims,
then how come evolutionists come in all shades of religious belief and philosophical leanings?
influences how you look at the world around you,
and since it is true, it should
changes yet cannot be challenged,
It would never have changed if it had not been challenged.
tries to gain a monopoly on media coverage and education,
not true in either case. The only place in which the arguement is made for excluding non-scientific views on origins is in the science classroom.
tries to explain everything
Not true. It only explains the process and history of change in species.
yet proves nothing,
because science does not rest on proof. It rests on evidence.
it forms a hierarchy
??????? what hierarchy?
which can persecute those who do not believe its dogmas, it is accepted by peer pressure and intimidation.
No--it persuades through evidence.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
because science does not rest on proof. It rests on evidence.
...
(ramble_rant)
It depends on what science we're discussing. If, indeed, my field is a science, then often mathematical proofs are sought. However, as with most "natural sciences," in the case of Evolution, I cite engineering principles based on the system it provides (genetic algorithms, experiments on fruit flies, etc.). When we can do engineering, if what we have isn't strictly correct, we can say with some certainty it's very very close, and now we're more concerned with (comparative) details than general principles. This is not to say general principles can't change (Newtonian Mechanics -> Relativity), but that the old system is not refuted so much as it is superseded.
I tend to think the word, "proof" is over-used, and under-explained. When someone wants "proof," what is it he is looking for? It's the same in certain "Existence of God" threads. I don't know what people are looking for. I have tried a number of approaches (testimony, philosophy, epistemology in light of the Incarnation, general success and growth of Christian Theology, the Socratic method, etc.), and none seem to satisfy.
It would be nice if people looking for "proof" would give a form in which this proof would come. You say science doesn't deal in proofs, but the fact is, "proof" can be found insofar as the methods of the age and the limits of human reason permit. To this, I say Evolution is proven. It is not proven in the same way or to the same degree as other things with other methods (Revelation, Math, etc.), but it is difficult for me to apply the word, "proof," to much of anything without including Evolution (and the content of a great many other sciences) within that sphere.
(/ramble_rant)
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
While I agree that often evolution is promoted by very much religious atheists, and that evolution itself is badly taught (hence the fact that creationism actually can come up with a scientific veneer there), it is quite a far leap to get to saying that evolution itself is a religion.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
I dont think evolution is meant to be taken literally though- its allegorical. And as for evidence .
The tales in evolution are really subtle philosophical points. For instance the invention of billions of years really just tells us how great God is to do in six days what the fallen mind believes can only happen in billions of years.
The fish crawling on land of course is sheer bunk but makes the point that no matter how far you run, or if you try to change what you are you can never run away from the truth. You are made in the image of God whether you accept what he has done or not.
So talk away about your allegorical tale.............I like it.
__________________ From the lone shieling of the misty island
Mountains divide us, and the waste of seas;
Yet still the blood is strong, the heart is Highland,
And we, in dreams, behold the Hebrides.
I dont think evolution is meant to be taken literally though- its allegorical. And as for evidence .
The tales in evolution are really subtle philosophical points. For instance the invention of billions of years really just tells us how great God is to do in six days what the fallen mind believes can only happen in billions of years.
The fish crawling on land of course is sheer bunk but makes the point that no matter how far you run, or if you try to change what you are you can never run away from the truth. You are made in the image of God whether you accept what he has done or not.
So talk away about your allegorical tale.............I like it.
That'd be great if evolution were a story instead of a scientific theory. lismore, this is frankly downright awful of you. You are saying something you know to be false in an attempt to degrade evolution. Why are you choosing to be dishonest? Did the Bible teach you to lie, even about things you don't agree with?
I dont think evolution is meant to be taken literally though- its allegorical. And as for evidence .
The tales in evolution are really subtle philosophical points. For instance the invention of billions of years really just tells us how great God is to do in six days what the fallen mind believes can only happen in billions of years.
The fish crawling on land of course is sheer bunk but makes the point that no matter how far you run, or if you try to change what you are you can never run away from the truth. You are made in the image of God whether you accept what he has done or not.
So talk away about your allegorical tale.............I like it.
It would seem you have your ostrich act perfected.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
. 
.
Linear Mode
