Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya
- Thread starter mercury904
- Start date
chefjamesscott;2897454; said:ahahahhahah
Thank you! What is the transitional form from pancakes to waffles anyways? They probably look interesting.
I don't think it's fair to state that the odds of one thing are greater than another. That would imply that you have some data to substantiate that, which you do not. It's merely that you do not believe one thing to be case, not that there are some actual "odds" of one being more or less likely.
I think the main problem here is that one who has a full understanding of, and firm belief in, evolution sees all the evidence available and attempts to come to the most simple solution available. This is the idea of parsimony, or Occam's Razor, that the simplest solution to a problem based on the available evidence is often correct (not always, of course). For a biologist, someone who is going to thinking in terms of physical or observable evidence, taking the creationist view is to simply throw away all that evidence. And there is a substantial amount of it for evolution: fossils (check out Gould's punctuated equilibrium to explain the general lack of "transitions"), microevolution (most easily observed in microbes...although some would argue that microevolution does not imply macroevolution), developmental biology, biochemistry and genetics etc. etc. etc. There is no physical evidence for a creator, so for an evolutionary biologist this is not a reasonable conclusion.
Also, the whole idea of abiogenesis is not set in stone, and of course is full of holes. However, as has been previously stated, there is a fair amount of experimental biochemical evidence (going back over 50 years to Miller and Urey's experiements at U of Chicago) that at least tells us it is POSSIBLE, and at least some of the holes are being filled. Possible does not, of course, mean definite. But evidence in support of something is a lot better than no evidence at all. Another point I'd like to make on evidence...you can't disagree with "evidence" in the sense of evidence being data (unless those data were collected in questionable ways). Data are data. You can disagree with the conclusions drawn from that, but not the data itself. That's like saying "I disagree with 5" rather than "I disagree with 5+5=11."
To make a final point with a silly and rather simplistic analogy: if you woke up one morning, looked out your bedroom window and saw that the sky was gray and the street was wet, what conclusion would you draw? I would think that it rained sometime before I woke up. Is this the correct answer? Probably, but I don't know because I wasn't there (let's pretend you can't just ask someone or check the internet...), but it's the simplest solution to that problem. Sure it might just be overcast, and maybe a firehydrant broke and sprayed water everywhere. But until there is evidence that that is the case, the the simplest answer would be rain. Both the overcast conditions and the wet pavement are explained by the same simple phenomenon, rather than two independent events occuring to produce the same result (parsimony!).
I'm not trying to convince you of anything or change your beliefs. That would be an arrogant and silly prospect. I'm just trying to at least lay down the mindset that governs these things.
I think the main problem here is that one who has a full understanding of, and firm belief in, evolution sees all the evidence available and attempts to come to the most simple solution available. This is the idea of parsimony, or Occam's Razor, that the simplest solution to a problem based on the available evidence is often correct (not always, of course). For a biologist, someone who is going to thinking in terms of physical or observable evidence, taking the creationist view is to simply throw away all that evidence. And there is a substantial amount of it for evolution: fossils (check out Gould's punctuated equilibrium to explain the general lack of "transitions"), microevolution (most easily observed in microbes...although some would argue that microevolution does not imply macroevolution), developmental biology, biochemistry and genetics etc. etc. etc. There is no physical evidence for a creator, so for an evolutionary biologist this is not a reasonable conclusion.
Also, the whole idea of abiogenesis is not set in stone, and of course is full of holes. However, as has been previously stated, there is a fair amount of experimental biochemical evidence (going back over 50 years to Miller and Urey's experiements at U of Chicago) that at least tells us it is POSSIBLE, and at least some of the holes are being filled. Possible does not, of course, mean definite. But evidence in support of something is a lot better than no evidence at all. Another point I'd like to make on evidence...you can't disagree with "evidence" in the sense of evidence being data (unless those data were collected in questionable ways). Data are data. You can disagree with the conclusions drawn from that, but not the data itself. That's like saying "I disagree with 5" rather than "I disagree with 5+5=11."
To make a final point with a silly and rather simplistic analogy: if you woke up one morning, looked out your bedroom window and saw that the sky was gray and the street was wet, what conclusion would you draw? I would think that it rained sometime before I woke up. Is this the correct answer? Probably, but I don't know because I wasn't there (let's pretend you can't just ask someone or check the internet...), but it's the simplest solution to that problem. Sure it might just be overcast, and maybe a firehydrant broke and sprayed water everywhere. But until there is evidence that that is the case, the the simplest answer would be rain. Both the overcast conditions and the wet pavement are explained by the same simple phenomenon, rather than two independent events occuring to produce the same result (parsimony!).
I'm not trying to convince you of anything or change your beliefs. That would be an arrogant and silly prospect. I'm just trying to at least lay down the mindset that governs these things.
Ullopincrate;2895710; said:
Ullopincrate;2899521; said:
Not for an evolutionary biologist. I really don't think that that's a ridiculous statement. I suppose I should amend it, however, since creation doesn't deny evolution. I meant creation in terms of total biological stasis (i.e. everything is as it was when originally created). Sorry, it was late. I wasn't trying to say anything inflammatory.
I didn't take it as inflammatory. I just disagreed with that statement. As we, (others and I), have said before, nothing is proven. We all have different opinions. Some strictly one way, some strictly others. Others a mix of ideas. I have had a biology professor that is a creationist, a couple who believe in intelligent design. Most I would say are evolutionists. It's just more banter.
Gotta love clade Archosauria/Archosauromorpha.
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/classification/Archosauria.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/archosauria.html
Birds be dinosaurs!
Crocodiles be inarticulate, warmblooded protodinosauria!
I love me some scientific consensus.
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/classification/Archosauria.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/archosauria.html
Birds be dinosaurs!
Crocodiles be inarticulate, warmblooded protodinosauria!
I love me some scientific consensus.
