On Jan 13, 2008, at 9:01 PM, boddi satva wrote:
> ...Shane Mage wrote:
>
> "So what did he mean by "the theory of
> evolution?"
> Presumably the standard textbook "NeoDarwinian" explanation of the
> *fact* of evolution by gradual mechanical/ecological/statistical
> processes to the explicit exclusion of any factors implying
> consciousness or teleology. "
>
> Right, and that is not "Neo-Darwinism" but is the modern evolutionary
> synthesis...
So Bodi thinks there is some difference (what?) between neoDarwinism and "the modern evolutionary synthesis." Whatever.
> ...It's also the act of accepting that for which there is
> evidence (evolution as we understand it) and rejecting that for which
> there is no evidence at all (consciousness or teleology playing a role
> in evolution)...
But consider this: 1. Birds have been proven to have been descended from dinosaurs. 2. Dinosaurs have been proven to have been exterminated in a
catastrophic set of events.
3. Birds are totally absent from the fossil record (ie., according to
the
> evidence they did not exist) before the demise of the dinosaurs.
consequently 4. Birds evolved from dinosaurs during the very short period during
which the dinosaurs became extinct.
You can be sure that, asked how the birds evolved so rapidly from their
dinosaurian ancestors, the neoDarwinian "modern evolutionary
synthesis" will be able to offer no evidence-based explanation
whatsoever.
>
>
> ..." (and surely belief in a Big Banger is at least as
> reasonable a belief as belief in the Big Bang),"
>
> Not even close. Not even within the same intellectual Universe. The
> belief in a Big Bang jibes with observed physics down to many decimal
> places...
The "Big Bang" theory has already refuted itself by its need for the invention of nonsensical unobservable entities like "dark matter" and "dark energy" as placeholders to avoid acknowledging experimental observations that, without them, would totally contradict its expectations and so totally invalidate it. The "many decimal places" produced by the postulation of values for such imaginary entities is thus factitious in the extreme.
In fact, the "Big Bang" theory, like the rest of orthodox astronomical theory, rests on an already refuted dogma--that "red shift" indicates the distance of an astronomical object from the earth (see, for instance, "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp).
And beyond that, the "Big Bang" postulates the origin of this universe-- governed by natural laws that have remained absolutely unchanged (because by definition uniform throughout spacetime) since its very first moment (that is how they retropredict the "inflationary" first moments of the universe)--in a "singularity." But just ask the question: "HOW did the supposed singularity, in which no natural laws applied, give birth to a universe governed by the precise (to "many decimal places") laws supposed to govern it today?" I defy anyone to come up with an answer that makes more sense than the Big Banger theory.
Shane Mage
"This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures."
Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 30