ddmiller@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (Dave......) wrote:

>You're asking me?  I can't see how the species could have all appeared 
>simultaneously.  What was the mechanism by which this occured?

Genetic material encoded by God.

>I'll believe that when I hear it.

I'm beginning to doubt that.

>>You may believe that because that's what you've been told.

>No, that is the logical conclusion to the laws of natural selection.  The 
>change in allele frequency is something that only applies to populations.

Whether it is logical or not we'd have to discuss. I just don't see the logic. If some living entity, like a bug survives fine without rational intelligence there is no need for rational intelligence to evolve to begin with. Therefore according to natural selection we shouldn't exist because we, rather than preserve our existence, are ruining the ecosystem on which we are dependent for our survival.

>>>Yes, speciation has been observed.  I was mistaken when I said that it 
>>>hadn't been.
>>
>>No it hasn't. If it has, then please give an example.

>Check the talk.origins FAQs, as many have pointed out to you.
>The example I was given was with a certain species of laboratory worms 
>that had been separated for many generations from the rest of the worms 
>that lived in the wild.  After generations, these worms were released 
>back into the wild, and could no longer breed with the worms that had not 
>been captured.  Thus, the lab worms had become a new 
>species....speciation.

No they hadn't. They were still worms. They didn't start to grow tiny feet or anything like that. I knew it would be lame examples like that in the talk.origins.

>>But the fact that basic genetical codes are seen in
>>different species could as well indicate conscious
>>intelligent planning. Why wouldn't God be smart and reuse
>>basic material in stead of coming up with something new in
>>every single case.

>See, this is the problem with creationism in general, and why it can 
>never be a scientifically reasonable explanation for life.  It makes no 
>real testable predictions, so is unfalsifiable.  No matter what evidence 
>we gather, there is always the fallback stance:  "Oh, it was just created 
>that way".  Bah.  

So is your idea of the need for falsification, falsifiable?

>> Something like the evolution of cars. Some basic components
>>are similar in different types of cars. That certainly
>>doesn't suggest random chaos but rather conscious
>>intelligent planning.

>Don't go back to this one, Jahnu.  Order does arise from chaos.

Do you have other examples than this funny one with the ice flakes? That proves nothing. It could still be the order of God which is the basic principle of everything. Your example proves that as well.

> And, 
>going to the analogy of cars, we look at all of the different kinds of 
>cars, and it is obvious that somewhere there was the first car, and all 
>cars were like that.  As time progressed, minor modifications were made 
>to this first type of car, so that there were different types of cars.  
>These small changes accumulated over the years so that a modern Porsche 
>has little in common with the original car, aside from the most basic 
>structures, and the function it performs.

That's the point and they certainly didn't accumulate by random chemical activity but by conscious intelligent planning? See, even when you try to defeat my point you end up speaking in favor of it.

>>>Of course not, because then we could refute it point by point.
>>>But I agree, this ng is NOT the place for that type of post.
>>
>>You are tempting me. How about some scientific anomalies?

>Not here, that is off topic.  talk.origins is the place for this, where 
>you will be able to debate to your heart's content with people who know 
>far more about evolutionary theory than I do.

Actually, I find it boring to speak about evolution, too. In fact no progressive scientist even believes it anymore.
I'm just commenting on behalf of my collegue.

>>Modern skelletons where they shouldn't really be, cultural
>>artifacts of high sophistication, like vases and goldchains
>>in layers millions of years old, things to prove that the
>>modern man came to the new world long before the 30.000
>>years which is the modern estimation. Stuff like that;
>>investigated and documented. Would you like to refute some
>>of that evidence?

>I don't have to.  You said yourself that these were anomalies.  That vast 
>preponderance of evidence is on my side.

In fact it is not. There is no conclusive evidence what so ever to prove your position. The evidence is all a big bluff which is only consistent within your own self styled paradigm.

>>The only way you could do that would be to reject their
>>autheticity. But they are accepted by many scientist who of
>>course don't have any more big positions due to their
>>belief. In fact no scientific journal will print what they
>>publish. You may take that to indicate that they are wrong
>>but it could also be the other way around. You really have
>>no reason to believe in either way unless you are willing to
>>make a thorough study of the subject matter.

>Sure I do.  I'll believe the side that has the most evidence.  If the 
>best that one side can do is a few anomalies, then I will go with the 
>other side.  Science isn't completely without fraud, you know, and the 
>anomalies are more likely to be faked.

Well, if you want to base your life on a belief someone has, what can I do?

>>>No thanks.
>>
>>Why not? If you want proof.

>Because, I don't have the time to devote to it, and it is not what I have 
>gone to college to study.

See, you don't learn anything in college. They just present you with information, but no wisdom is being taught.

>>>Because I don't have the time to devote to it, and I don't believe a 
>word 
>>>of it.

>That too.

I thought this was not a believing contest.

>>As I said, it's really not so important what anyone
>>believes. The important thing is to know. By your approach
>>you will never know anything beyond the scope of your senses
>>and then only that which is being told to you by the modern
>>propaganda machinery. 

>Jahnu, I am a physics student here at the university of Iowa.  As I have 
>said before, I am not being force-fed scientific theories.  All of the 
>professors that I have encountered have stressed, over and over again: 
>question EVERYTHING.  They don't ask me to accept anything on faith, 
>which is more than I can say of any religion that I have ever heard of.

It is true that many religions stress the faith factor, but the Vedic religion gives you the method by which you can discern real knowledge. It's an entire different approach to knowledge than the empirical one, which is limited to describe only a narrow fraction od reality.

>>>It is also completely unfalsifiable, so I would be wasting my time 
>>>investigating it.  
>>
>>How will you know if it's falsifiable or not until you've
>>investigated it thoroughly?

>By its nature, it is unfalsifiable.  No conceivable test could 
>demonstrate that it is false, even if it is false.  This means that it is 
>unscientific in the extreme.

But how will you know if it's false until you demonstrate it to be false? Why think that it is false even if you can't prove it false? What's the logic? The thing with the Vedic statements is that they can be proved right. Your statements can't be proved right.

The point is that it is the whole scientific approach to knowledge which is in error. It is completely inconsistent with logic. It's amazing that it has been able to mislead people so long.  What you should ask yourself is this: Is the basic principle by which empirical knowledge is understood falsifiable?

-jahnu
-jahnu