Why TOE is not accepted

In theory, perhaps not. But I think you will agree that, taking this forum as a sample, there is.

If the science is weak, I need to know about it.I'm not interested in supporting this or that group. The only thing I am interested in is the truth. I am not interested in pretending this or that because it benefits me. I'm too old for that.I want to know the truth.

It looks to me like Randman is picking out one error in a textbook to put down the entire theory of evolution. He has also implied that because I am not very knowledgable about TOE, that I have been brainwashed.I will stick to my original point, and claim that crationists are presenting a political argument. They certainly argue like politicians. They treat TOE with contempt despite its tremendous credentials; they are not willing to give anyone else the benefit of a doubt; they twist things around and make one error in science seem like the end of all science.They are not willing to examine the evidence objectively, and to admit that they may be lacking in knowledge. No. they are very arrogant.You know, when I talk to some one who knows about these things, they give me answers--very specific, detailed answers. From the creationists I get vague moralizing. That tells me that creationists don't know what they are talking about. They have not studied it profoundly. In order to really understand a subject, you have to study it for years. You can't just visit a few websites and decide that you know everything.

I will tell you someone who tells the truth: EZscience. My argument was that microevolution automaticaly leads to macroevolution.Now, EZscience is an "evolutionist," and you would think that he would support this idea. After all, if one could prove my thesis, we could put the matter to rest, since practically everyone accepts microevolution. A politician would have jumped all over it.But EZscience is not a politician. He's interested in the truth, not in some agenda. And he explained to me how microevolution does not automatically lead to macroevolution. And his idea made perfect sense to me. It's one of those moments when you realize you are talking to somebody who doesn't have an agenda, except the agenda of telling the truth.I like that.

I searched for it. The whole topic has disappeared.

I wasn't making a scientific claim. It was just an opinion of my own. Creationism strikes me as political in nature. It's not the sort of claim that can be scientifically investigated.

It wasn't in the great debate forum. It was a topic I introduced, entitled "Does microevolution logically include macroevolution?" I couldn't find it.

Thanks. See message #16, Faith.

I'm not sure what "mega-toe" is, but from what you've said, it seems to be some idea of "evolution" from Big Bang on. I think this is a misuse of the term "evolution" amd is definitely a misuse of the term Theory of Evolution, which is about how life forms evolved on earth and nothing more. It doesn't include the idea of how life evolved from non-life and has nothing to do with the development of stars and planets and such, which are not life forms. If you start turning all that into a TOE, you just confuse the issue. I know nothing about such ideas, and in any case it is a totally different topic than the Biological Theory of Evolution. One can accept the Biological Theory of Evolution without accepting that. One can believe in natural selection and believe in God at the same time. One can believe that God created the first life form and at the same time one can also believe in the Biological Theory of Evolution. One can believe that life came from non-life and still believe in God. One can believe in Big Bang and "inflationary theory" (whatever that is) and still believe in God. And Christ for that matter.There's only one belief you would have to drop: a literal belief in the Biblical Genesis. I know of this Jewish friend of mine who has an elaborate idea about interpreting Genesis such that "day" equals some vast number of years (there's a lot more to it than that, but I forget). Well, that's fine. You can interpret it non-literally in that fashion, in which case the story of Genesis is a general overview told in pre-scientific terms of what in fact actually happened.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The difference is in whether you are claiming something scientific. My claim is that creationists engage in political style argument, consisting of shouting-down matches, obfuscation, and name calling. This is what, under a guise of sophistication, politicians do. Where do I come up with this idea? The EVC forum.I don't see any difference between "brainwashing" and "indoctrination," except that the latter is a more polite term.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Christ was the son of God. Now what exactly does this mean as concerns his actual mentality? We don't know, nor does a Christian have to know. There's no reason why we can't think that when Christ was made human, he was made a human in the full sense of that word. His scientific and other types of knowledge might have been on the same level as everyone else's. I myself prefer to think that when he asked someone a question, such as "What is your name?" he actually wanted to know, rather than that he was this omniscience walking around pretending to be human. After all, he did say that before this generation had passed, he would return. There is no reason why this full human mentality should take away at all from what's really important about him, from the Christian viewpoint. To me, assuming his mind (not his spirit) worked like everyone else's makes his life much meaningful and real.I don't see what faith in the Resurrection and in eternal salvation has to do with the biological theory of evolution, which is only a description of how species evolved, and has nothing to do with spiritual concerns, has nothing to do with the possibility of an after-life.Nobody knows what "mind" is, what that thing is we refer to as the inner "me," just like nobody knows what "energy" is.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 08-03-2005 07:35 AM

I suppose if one is "indoctrinated"--that is, brainwashed--one does not know that one is indoctrinated; otherwise one would cease to be indoctrinated. Perhaps you are the indoctrinated one. Perhaps your examination of the evidence was carried out in a biased fashion due to your indoctrination of which you are not aware. Just because you criticize something does not show that you are not indoctrinated with some other idea, such as the indoctrination of fundamentalist religious views, which allows you to pick out an error made by the compilers of textbooks and thus condemn an entire scientific theory.One of the misconceptions I've come across frequently in creationists (due to my brainwashed views) is their notion that a "species" is some kind of essence--this notion of "kind." But the labeling of a particular two life forms as being separate species although having evolved from the same form is a merely classificational matter. If one wished to, one could classify species in some other way. It would be rather clumsy, but one could classify every slight change in a species as constituting a new species. So the emergence of blue-eyed people from a group of brown-eyed people (say) would constitute a new species. That way we could have a lot more species. We could multiphy the species of butterflies, for example, by counting all the variants as new species. If we changed the classification scheme, we could say that macroevolution occurs in practically every generation of practically every life form.Due to my naive state of being brainwashed, it seems to me that once one recognizes that a "species" is a mere label of convenience, one begins to realize that "microevolution" as opposed to "macroevolution" has no meaning. This recognition was an epiphany in my indoctrination.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 08-03-2005 08:14 AM

The bumps on the head may not have been the way the antlers evolved. Or if did evolve that way, perhaps the bumps had some benefit. Maybe it made the head harder and so more impervious to injury when battling with other deer. Maybe they provided a slight cushion. Maybe when the antlers evolved the head was not shaped as it is now. There are all sorts of scenarios.

The argument from incredulity has to do with trying to prove that something else happened because of incredulity about another explanation. If Faith does not offer another alternative, then it is not an argument from incredulity.

Not necessarily. It might partially support it, but not all the way.