Evolution? How?

He is playing mental dodge ball. The ball keeps grazing him but he fluffs it off with rhetorical nonsense. He would have been good at rewriting the scriptures. He is in the fog of ignorance. In this case, ignorance isn't bliss as he is questioning his faith but does not realize it. He wants us to explain to him how evolution is a fact and how it works. It's all over the Internet and in some very good books. What he needs is a good bibliography of books to read. However, I doubt that he would ever read any of them as he is in such denial that he's like the alcoholic who will not come to grips with his own affliction. It's, "Oh woe is me, how do I sober up?" Evolution is very sobering to those caught up in the fundamentalism of any religions, save perhaps Buddhism.

So many pages since last i posted, no sense in trying to deal with the fluff with which that was greeted.

You know, what we have here is the continued assertion on the part of "real life" that the evidence for a theory of evolution and for a divine creation are equivalent--but no evidence that this is so. Plunging on, "real life" continues to attempt to put people in the position of "proving" a theory of evolution, and claiming that any alleged lacuna of scientific explanation of any phenomenon is evidence ot the failure of a theory of evolution to account for the diverstiy of life on the planet.

All of this is just chock full of fallacy. His references to scientific lacunae will be to the observation of the process of evolution (one suspects that he would never bake his own bread, because he would be unable to see the yeast at work, and would conclude that the bread would not rise, and it would be a wasted effort), or to celestial mechanics (as though the direction of the rotation of planets has any bearing on a theory of evolution), or to cosmic origins (a matter with which a theory of evolution does not concern itself). Plowing on past these fallacious statements and irrelevant discussions, he concludes that an alleged and undemostrated failure of a theory of evolution to account for his personally imagined objections authorizes the conclusion that this was all the product of a direct creation of his imaginary friend.

It is his fond hope, of course, that the casual reader will buy that bill of goods.

Right, set -- it's a false equation to being with.

That he would continue to push the false premise of creation tells us more about people like rl than he imagines. He thinks he's defending his religious belief, but he is actually harming it.

Real Life does not even have the gumption to define creation as the "literalist interpretation of Genesis" or some equal inanity. Too bad. It would be entertaining to see how his question to me "Does creation fit all the facts?" stacks up against his definition of creation.

His ideas are somewhere deep in the Grand Canyon which was formed in about 6,000 years just in time for the Indians and migrating Americans to find it. I think it might be the first bush on the left past the pumpkin patch.

real life wrote:
The fact that you are alive is consistent with creation.

This is where you miss out on logic. You can't support a premise with a premise. We need evidence for one to support the other. Where is your evidence for creation? Otherwise, it only exists in your own imagination.

I have proof that my existence was the result of my parents having sex. Most people accept this as a universal truth, proven with evidence.

You might think that it does, but invoking supernatural forces explains nothing and gives no insight into anything. As soon as you say "A God did it" (which is what it appears you are doing) you have passed from the realm of science and have closed your mind to any real existing evidence that does fit the facts.

And, if you are using the God of the Bible as the creator, and hold that book as the ultimate truth, then you have some real problems. That creation doesn't fit the facts.

P

I guess we'll see if he has the gumption to put his money where his mouth is.

Chum, That eventuality will not be forthcoming, since he will only make himself look the fool - again.

Coming up with all these "facts" that can be scientifically supported, not just the gut feeling of faith, would be a milestone in theology. No great religious leader has been able to do it and many of them have already admitted evolution is the logical answer -- since there was no sun the first day in creation, there is no marker for how long the first day was.

Wouldn't a different way of saying this be that living systems may temporarily seem to overcome entropy with the utilization of information and energy, but are ultimately subject to it?

Entropy does catch up to all living organisms eventually, so it wouldn't seem that they are not governed by it.

(Just as gravity can be temporarily overcome by the utilization of information and energy in order to fly for instance, yet aren't all things are governed by the law of gravity?)

Maybe a minor point, yet it seems an important one.

well then, by your definition, life includes death. I agree that entropy "kicks in" at death, however evolution only affects the living and life operates against all entropic gradients..

hey, I didnt wanna have a "jump on real life" kickfest, but if we stick to fundamental disgareements on science, we can get really heated but not personal. (Sort of like Abe Vigoda in the Godfather !!"_nuttin poisanal, ISH jus bidness")

real life is a good example of a masochist and a drunk.

Don't forget to tell Boeing not bother with wings anymore, since you know how to temporarily overcome gravity with information and energy!

Besides , planes dont reproduce by themselves.

The mile high club?

OH you just gave birth to a small 737

That must have hurt.