Sarfati Vs. Dawkins... Who has a better point?

(If 당신 have read Dawkin's Greatest Show On Earth, 또는 Sarfati's Greatest Hoax On Earth, then please elaborate on your thoughts of the argument on whether Creationism is a better theory, 또는 if evolution is. And, answer me this: if mutations cause information loss, then how is it that humans and other higher organisms have 더 많이 information, than ancestral organisms)
 blackpanther666 posted over a year ago
next question »

토론 답변

whiteflame55 said:
I haven't read either, so I can't speak to it directly, but from what you've told me there are some interesting arguments there. Still, mutations are something I know about. Mutations don't always cause a loss of information, sometimes they create new information, though it's 더 많이 common that mutations are a loss of it. Another part is that not all of the human genome is what we would consider to be "important" information, since much of the genome is composed of DNA that serves no known function. Also, just being a higher organism doesn't necessarily mean 당신 have 더 많이 DNA than others. Many plants have 더 많이 DNA than any living animal, though the number of genes is about the same. It might be reasonable to say that shedding genes actually pinpoints the 더 많이 important ones, creating a 더 많이 efficient animal rather than a 더 많이 complex one.

But I think the 더 많이 important response comes in a different form. We don't fully understand evolution, that much is true. There are many theories as to what's actually going on, but just basic "mutations lead to evolution" isn't holding up as well as it once did. I don't know if that's an argument for creationism, though. Mutation may in some ways be directed, but the 출처 of that direction need not be a deity. It's just not a process we fully understand right now.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
The thing is... Mutations are mostly bad ones, 또는 neutral ones that have slightly negative effects. While I don't doubt that they`do, indeed, have some part to play in natural selection and evolution, I think our current knowledge is not quite there yet... There needs to be 더 많이 research done on it and we need to do 더 많이 experimenting, so we can find a 더 많이 logical explanation, that doesn't necessarily advocate Creationism. While I do feel that Sarfati makes a lot of good points against Dawkins and, consequently, evolutionary theory/Darwinism, I also feel predisposed to believing a large part of evolutionary theory - I just think it needs a lot 더 많이 work put in. Anyway, I agree about the 'higher' organisms, I don't think they necessarily need to have had 'more' information, 또는 DNA/genetic material... Just because current theory says that it is so, doesn't mean that it matches up and it seems that Sarfati has pointed out a good defense for Creationism in due respect to that part of the topic. I find the lack of evidence for fossil records quite disturbing, too... It is pointed out that a lot of organisms today are not actually related to many of the common ancestors, as evolutionary theory seems to state. That is a problem. 더 많이 work needs to be done in that part of the field, so we can glean a better idea of how Cambrian organisms are related to today's corresponding species, as well as the conundrum of how some organisms, like the whale, were related to land mammals, 또는 evolved from land mammals to sea mammals. Another thing that got me was the surprising inability to Dawkins to explain away many of these problems - instead of debating, he blusters, exaggerates and formulates some strange ideas, as well as he seems unable to give straight answers, 또는 decent ones.
blackpanther666 posted over a year ago
*
Yeah, Dawkin's tends to be a little overly of a militant atheist in his arguments than an ardent scientist. Sarfati makes some good arguments, I'm just not sure he's making the final connection between the possibility of directed evolution, the lack of a complete fossil record (which I don't find to be all that disturbing - the fossils we've found say a lot, and others are likely to be discovered), and creationism. It's sort of the "Thank 당신 For Smoking" argument - if I prove your side isn't fully correct, then I win. At the same time, there's not much 당신 can do to prove creationist theories, since the whole idea is that they are fundamentally unprovable.
whiteflame55 posted over a year ago
*
Heh, that much is true. It would still be an excellent find, if someone were to discover 더 많이 of these links, though.
blackpanther666 posted over a year ago
Cinders said:
I've never read Dawkins, because seeing him speak is enough to tell me that he is a tool, who mocks even me, as an Agnostic, for being a "fence-sitter" and not coming around to the Atheist's way of thinking. And I have never heard of Sarfati. But if you're asking about evolution versus creationism than my answer is easy.

Evolution and creationism are not incompatible theories. They describe two different events. Creationism believes in the story of Genesis as the actual 설명 of the beginning of the world. But the book of Genesis is easily interpreted as metaphor. I honestly - honestly - do not see how the theory of evolution conflicts with it, and I believe it is easy to believe both theories at the same time.

A lot of people who criticize the theory of evolution don't actually understand it. Read link for 더 많이 on that.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
This isn't a typical Craetionism Vs evolution argument, to be honest. Perhaps 당신 might like to read Sarfati's book and 코멘트 further. His book has a lot of arguments in it, that seem to contradict evolution, hence my interest in it. Plus, I advocate evolution, 더 많이 than I do Creationism, which is why the book intrigues me so much. But, I do agree that they are not incompatible theories - the trouble is, a lot of people simply consider it to be that way, which is probably a somewhat narrow-minded way of looking at it... 의해 the way, if 당신 want to know anything, read Whiteflame's answer and what I wrote in reply.
blackpanther666 posted over a year ago
next question »