Albatrossity2
Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
| Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 07 2007,15:28) | ftk:
Which part of evolutionary theory do you have problems with? Common descent? The mechanisms? Both? And why do you have problems with them? |
In order to save FtK the trouble, and to help make sure that the holiday ham doesn't get burned, I can point you to some of the answers at her blog and elsewhere.
About halfway down the comment thread here, you can read her response to a similar question, where I asked her if she believed in microevolution, in common descent, or in macroevolution.
| Quote | At 4:11 PM, aka...Forthekids said…
"1) microevolution (I assume that is Yes)"
Yes. I think the mechanisms of evolution are quite capable of making very significant changes in living organisms. But, evolution from one species to the next is highly questionable and not supported with near enough evidence, IMO. When it comes to the evolution of new body parts and vital organs, I am highly skeptical of what evolution is capable of.
"2) common descent (I assume that is also Yes, but am less sure about this one)"
That depends on your definition. Obviously I am a descendant of my grandparents, but I highly doubt whether every living creature evolved from that first living organism that initially dropped from the abyss.
"3) macroevolution (I assume that is !!!NO!!!)"
If you don't think I support macroev, what made you think I accept common descent? But, no, I don't think the empirical evidence comes even close to providing us with enough information to confirm macroev.
"For any of these three that you don't accept, is it because
a) you have specific scientific evidence to the contrary,
b) because you think that there is insufficient scientific evidence in favor,
c) because you think that this "idea is completely worthless to science",
d) or ???,
e) or some combination of the above?"
B & C for sure, and A if you consider how in the bloody #### the process got started. But, of course that goes much further than what evolution can answer. Yet, it's funny that we even consider the evolution of stars, planets, and everything else.
So, we are pretty much told that the entire universe evolved in some manner from virtually nothing. And, yes, I realize that the mechanisms of evolution that we have been discussing only apply to life on earth.
Anyway, I think there are plenty of arguments that provide scientific evidence to the contrary when we consider the whole scope of the evolutionary paradigm, but I'm not interested in getting started on that one because I've gone that route too many times in the past,and I've found that it is pointless to discuss these issues with a die hard evolutionist.
I have no desire to try to change you opinion so there is no point in wasting my time with it all again.
"I promise I won't ask again; this is just part of my ongoing struggle to find common ground by agreeing on a definition of terms."
Ask away, I'm pretty much an open book. But, if you repeat questions to often, I'm falling back on links. It gets maddening after a while. |
She is pretty much clueless about the mechanisms, but certainly believes that the entire process is random.
As to WHY she has problems with them, you will get one answer from her, as noted above (there is no evidence that macroevolution ever happened, and plenty of evidence against it) and one answer from me (she has been told, and apparently believes, that accepting scientific reality in favor of the explanation from Genesis will turn her into an atheist).
And do read further down that comment thread to note that my last (unanswered) comment asks her for the "scientific evidence to the contrary" that she refers to above...
Hope this helps!
--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers
|
