Kalkor <kalkor@kalkor.com> wrote:

[Ouri]
I just replied to them. Here's what I wrote:

I'd like to comment on your declarations on the subject of evolution. Now,
I'm not writing about the prize - I don't have a PhD on the subjet (yet).
But even I can see that you are making a few mistakes.
For starter, you are mixing the Big Bang theory with evolution theory. Even
if God created the universe, or if it had been created in another way some
time ago, that wouldn't necessarily mean that life hadn't appeared thorough
evolution. These phenomenons are completely unrelated. Cosmic evolution
doesn't hve anything to do with biological evolution, and no scientist
pretends that evolution as originally presented by Darwin (and later
revised) created time, space, and matter. Nor did it organize galaxies and
the solar systems.
You also claim to disprove evolution, one could simply prove that no animal
has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of
animal. Need I remind you that recorded history has existed for merely a few
thousands years? ! Whether evolution is real or not, nobody could have
witnessed such transformations. But the fossil records are good indication.
As to life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter: While science
currently assumes it happened, it is only assumed to have happened ONCE (at
least) since the formation of the Earth. It could very well be such a rare
event that the odds of it happening anywhere in the universe are about once
per billion of years; it would be irrealistic to hope to witness such an
event ourselves.
It wouldn't disprove evolution either to prove that matter can't make itself
out of nothing. As soon as the matter was there - no matter what brought it
there in the first place, be it a natural phenomenon or a supernatural one -
as soon as it was there, evolution was possible.
Presently, I see no logical reason to assume that a supernatural event was
behind the formation of life. Until it is proven that it couldn't happen
naturally, I'll assume that it has a logi! cal explanation - which means
I'll rely on science to know what happened. And so far, evolution theory
seems like an explanation that makes sense to me.
I hope a proof - of a theory or of another - will soon be found in this
domain.
My best regards, and good luck discovering what really happened.

[Kalkor]
Here's a quote from the site David linked to:


Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above,
under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could
have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable.


Sounds like this guy doesn't know jack about the scientific method.
Provisional truth does not require "proof beyond reasonable doubt" does it?
It's provisional. It's a model that we use to describe a natural process
using empirical, verifiable, non contradictory evidence. When better or more
information is obtained, the models change accordingly. This guy wants YOU
to PROVE to HIM beyond a "reasonable (in his mind) doubt" that evolution is
the ONLY way the observed phenomena came into being. His mind is already
made up. No one will ever win this $250,000 if the funds in question even
exist.

I agree with your points, Ouri, but think you may have missed a couple in
addition to that:


Most thinking people will agree that--
1. A highly ordered universe exists.
2. At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety
of life forms.
3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.


Highly ordered compared to what?
Amazing by what standards?
Define advanced as it pertains to "forms of life"...

This guy is unable to form a coherent premise, does not understand the
difference between biological evolution and cosmic evolution, claims to have
disproven evolution in general, and challenges anyone to provide empirical
evidence in support of the theory. Well I'm sure we can all think of at
least one example of directly observed evidence in support of one or more of
the proposed mechanisms of the evolutionary process. Natural selection, for
example: ever hear of Biston betularia? Geospiza fortis? I'm sure this guy
has.

It won't make a difference. Our energy is better spent elsewhere.

Cheers!

Kalkor

 

 

---------------------

I know all that. But I felt that to the very least I had to tell them how they were wrong, even if teh odds they'll listen are a million to one. I used the same logic a month ago when I sent an e-mail to the White House: I doubt anybody, let alone the president, will ever read it. I doubt even more that it'll have any impact on his policies. But if I criticize him 'behind his back' all the time, then I must at least try to communicate. The same applies to the creationnists. We should always at least try the respectful, communicative approach, even if there's 99.99999% probability that it'll fail. Then we can try another approach.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to