Joined: Jan. 2006
I guess what I wrote passed by you. Communication isn't always easy about this stuff.
|For myself and my friends who hold the same views as me on evolution we simply find evolutionary theory too implausible, nothing emotional about it.|
Well, I always consider this sort of reply to be hilariously dishonest, though probably more with yourself than with anyone else. Any explanation of any body of evidence doesn't sound implausible in a vacuum, it always sounds implausible compared to something that sounds MORE plausible. That's the only way it can possibly work. For example, you may find the notion of someone flying by flapping his arms implausible, but only by comparison to known information on this subject.
So I guess we need to dig into WHY you find it implausible. Plausibility is a comparative term, and the "compared to what" must be specified. Otherwise, we are reduced to guessing that you find it implausible in comparison to magic, but you're pretending otherwise.
|What do you mean? (about DaveScot peeking)|
I mean, he is actually looking (sometimes, not too hard, but still looking) at actual evidence. And evolutionary theory in the context of evidence is not only plausible, it's stone cold obvious. Shame on DaveScot for letting the nose of evidence into the Big Tent.
|But if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate.|
Why do you say this? The origin of life from nonliving organic molecules is higly active, lots of experiments are being done, a great deal is being learned. And while there are highly competitive schools of thought, none of them would dream of suggesting that a living cell happened all at once. We're looking at tens to hundreds of millions of years, with thousands of steps along the way to what we might generously call a protocell today.
Your statement seems to ignore both the processes involved, and the time available. Kind of looking at a modern fighter jet and assuming that it has no aircraft history.
|Also is it really plausible that evolutionary theory can account for the percentage of artistic precision, color coordination, and symmetrically beautiful shapes found in nature? Almost every life form that we can see with our unaided eye is confounding chance by being artistically phenomenal|
Sheesh. And isn't it a marvel that smoke rises from a fire, rather than forming a fist and smacking you upside the head? Wowie zowie! Ooooh. By the way, have you ever looked at your hand? I mean, REALLY looked at it? Can I have another hit?
|Why isn't the overwhelming attribute of the living world utilitarian and drab?|
Other self-appointed art critics see exactly that. How mundane the world is, they say. How boring and uninteresting and dull. I suppose you'll claim that those who see the world the way you do are commenting on the world, those who see it differently are only commenting on themselves. Convenient, I guess.