Message 1 of 59 (360761) 02-07-2003 3:03 AM

quote:

---

This thread is a continuation of the discussion that developed about gaps in the theory of evolution in the thread titled THE EVOLUTIONISTS' GUIDE TO PROPER CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR in the Faith and Belief forum. I've included the last 9 posts from that thread.

---

quote:

---

WI, Quetzel is rhetorical and boasts a little knowledge, and for what? To ignore us handwavers (if there be such a thing)? To handwave out the handwaver with sinuous bias? You don't need to follow erroneous men, Quetzel and/or myself. Quetzel may still be repeatedly asserting all proteins are enzymes, and hence graft in subtle twists (fatal fallacies) against the IC/ID parameters. This is bad science, evilution.
Don't make Quetzel or me your hero. Please, think for yourself. I respect and cherish your words (and Quetzel's) and hope you expose my errors, bigotries, redemptive insights, or whatever, add a little bias to, fall short a little. I realize I picked a bad author but he (more crudely than you and less crudely than I) at least tried to give a detailed list of scientific gaps. (Ya gotta give him some kado)

Note Joe T's remarks are strong rebuttals; original and thoughtful rebuttals indeed; he is excellent at exposing my hypocracies, neuroses, psychoses, slanders, and/or errors, as Quetzel once was, till he went the way of John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind" (just kidding)

---

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-05-2003]

Message 2 of 59 (360762) 02-09-2003 2:03 PM

Okay, it's up to you. I thought focusing on a single "gap" might make clear the fallacy under which you're operating. Since you don't want to choose one, I will. How about the one about the theoretical constants of our universe being just right for life? Change any one of them by the scantest amount and life couldn't exist.

How is this an argument against evolution? It isn't even biology, it's physics. And it applies equally to all sciences. Change any of these constants and physics and chemistry would no longer work, and our universe as we know couldn't even exist.

So why don't we focus on something closer to the Creation/Evolution discussion? It really isn't possible to argue against your general assertion of "the gaps invalidate the mega-ToE model". Pick a gap related to evolution so we can understand what you're getting at.

--Percy

Message 4 of 59 (360764) 02-10-2003 12:51 AM

Else follow Percy's rebuttal. We can start from scratch, hopefully on a friendly less-self-righteous-intimidating note. I'll try to do the same.

Message 5 of 59 (360765) 02-10-2003 1:35 AM

Reply to: Message 2 by Percy 02-09-2003 2:03 PM

"How about the one about the theoretical constants of our universe being just right for life? Change any one of them by the scantest amount and life couldn't exist."
--Seems like a fair one to choose.

"How is this an argument against evolution? It isn't even biology, it's physics. And it applies equally to all sciences. ... Change any of these constants and physics and chemistry would no longer work, and our universe as we know couldn't even exist."
--Why might you and everyone have to have biology in the equation of stellar evolution? But, yes, its science. And evolution by your definition is also science, agreed.
--(I may be missing the point here)

"So why don't we focus on something closer to the Creation/Evolution discussion? It really isn't possible to argue against your general assertion of "the gaps invalidate the mega-ToE model". Pick a gap related to evolution so we can understand what you're getting at."
--Great Percipient! Now you just through the ball back at me!
--Now what is the fallacy (by which I am operating) that you just made clear??:
Overgeneralization? God-of-the-gaps? Seeing the forest-SANS-the-trees? (Doubtless I'm guilty of all these to varying extents)
--I don't wish to get into too many science details and traps any more. These only beg the question of finiteness.
--Percy, My point again is simply: Both stellar and biological evolution have gaps that make a mega-ToE model difficult if not impossible to postulate, let alone theorize.
--On the biological end for example, it would be unscientific and unethical for me to tell my patient(s) he/she has a cavus (arched) foot due to an evolutionary advantage of running with higher arches in primate forefathers. Now a mega-ToE of this sort contains many stinky scientific gaps. A plaintiff lawyer might have a heyday if I surgically correct flat-feet while citing such ToE logic.

Message 6 of 59 (360766) 02-10-2003 8:23 AM

Reply to: Message 5 by Philip 02-10-2003 1:35 AM

Actually I've been getting the feeling that we have different conceptions of what constitutes a "gap", and I was hoping for clarification by way of example.

I don't, so it sounds like we agree. I was just offering one item from the list you provided in Message 22 in the Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ? thread.

As I suspected, we're talking about different types of gaps. The type of gap you mention here is without significance relative to the validity of evolutionary theory. It's a scientific/historical issue whose answer is a function of availability of evidence, of which there is very little.

Questioning evolutionary theory because we're unable to piece together the evolutionary history of the arch of the foot would be like questioning the laws of physics because we can't figure out the origin of a newly discovered comet. Both of these questions are unanswerable due to lack of information about very specific situations, and not to any theoretical lack.

--Percy

Message 7 of 59 (360767) 02-10-2003 9:27 AM

quote:

---

Note Joe T's remarks are strong rebuttals; original and thoughtful rebuttals indeed; he is excellent at exposing my hypocracies, neuroses, psychoses, slanders, and/or errors, as Quetzel once was, till he went the way of John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind" (just kidding)

---

I hope that the "just kidding" part also applied to my "exposure" of your hypocrisies etc. I only addressed inaccuracies of the author your quoted. I said nothing about you personally. I do my best to avoid internet psychoanalysis.

Joe T.

Message 8 of 59 (360768) 02-10-2003 11:28 PM

Shalom

Jet

------------------
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Prof. George Greenstein

Message 9 of 59 (360769) 02-10-2003 11:59 PM

So forget about starting with abiogenesis. Take a trip back in time to the moment that life first existed according to the TOE, then please explain the scientific methods used within this scientific TOE that will keep the TOE solvent as you pass through time, ending at the present day.

Please give the most verifiable, testable, and scientifically falsifiable examples of how the TOE manages to stay coherent, let alone scientific, as we move from single celled life, (unless the TOE is incapable of going that far back), and how the ability to increase the neccessary informational data occurred, along with the scientific methods neccessary for showing the viability of this being a continuing process, then continue moving through the millions upon millions of years, again remembering to remain in the realm of science, until you arrive at the present day.

Do this and you may make a believer out of me yet.

Shalom

Jet

------------------
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Prof. George Greenstein

Message 10 of 59 (360770) 02-11-2003 8:30 AM

------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Message 11 of 59 (360771) 02-11-2003 8:48 AM

Reply to: Message 8 by Jet 02-10-2003 11:28 PM

To repeat, I want to know how to tell the difference between a natural system that we don't understand yet, or do not have the ability to understand, and on that has been Intelligently Designed.

Why not pick a system that you believe is Intelligently Designed, and then explain, in dettail, exactly how you know that we will never be able to find a naturalistic explanation for it at any time in the future, and also explain exactly how you know that we are not just unable, through lack of technology or intelligence, able to understand it?

I mean, in order for you to even CLAIM that anything has been Intelligently Designed in the first place, you must, by definition, have some way or method of telling these two groups apart, right?

So, it should be easy for you.

Message 12 of 59 (360772) 02-11-2003 9:05 AM

Reply to: Message 9 by Jet 02-10-2003 11:59 PM

quote:

---

I understand that you miss the point of using proper analogies to make an understandable point of view come forth.

---

No, I don't miss anything in this case. You justcan't admit you are wrong. How very scientific of you.

quote:

---

Nothing falls flatter than the TOE when it faces true scientific study.

---

More hot air.

quote:

---

The only reason the TOE even continues to be presented as a viable explanation of life is because it can't answer even the most basic questions concerning the existance of life.

---

Look, how many freaking times do you have to be told that the SCOPE OF THE TOE DOES NOT COVER THE ORIGINS OF LIFE AND NEVER, EVER HAS SINCE IT'S INCEPTION?

quote:

---

All it really attempts to do is give a modern day version of some very ancient religious beliefs.

---

Don't start with this nonsense again, please.

quote:

---

Even then, it has to pick up the story in the middle, having no concept, or at least no scientific explanation of lifes' actual beginning.

---

You are stubborn, aren't you? Please show me any definition from any Biology textbook, or even from Origin, that includes ANYTHING about the origin of life being included in the ToE.

If you can't then please, stop re-erecting this long-torn down strawman that the ToE is at fault because it doesn't explain something it NEVER CLAIMED TO EXPLAIN.

Do you fault Chemistry for not explaining where the elements come from? Answer the question. Yes or no will suffice.

quote:

---

So forget about starting with abiogenesis.

---

So, do you accept that to fault the ToE for not explaining life's origins is inappropriate? Yes or no will suffice.

quote:

---

Take a trip back in time to the moment that life first existed according to the TOE, then please explain the scientific methods used within this scientific TOE that will keep the TOE solvent as you pass through time, ending at the present day.

---

They are the same scientific methods used in most other observational sciences. Here's a brief primer:

http://www.skepdic.com/science.html

quote:

---

Please give the most verifiable, testable, and scientifically falsifiable examples of how the TOE manages to stay coherent, let alone scientific, as we move from single celled life, (unless the TOE is incapable of going that far back), and how the ability to increase the neccessary informational data occurred, along with the scientific methods neccessary for showing the viability of this being a continuing process, then continue moving through the millions upon millions of years, again remembering to remain in the realm of science, until you arrive at the present day.

Do this and you may make a believer out of me yet.

---

That is a very tall order. You are basically asking me to provide you with the equivilant of the information someone would get in earning an undergraduate Biology degree.

I have a better idea. Why don't you go read, study, and understand every last bit of information on the TalkOrigins website? That will go a long way towards providing you with the information you have asked for.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Message 13 of 59 (360773) 02-11-2003 9:50 AM

quote:

---

Jet:
Nothing falls flatter than the TOE when it faces true scientific study

---

Pehaps you can outline a few such scientific studies for us.

Message 14 of 59 (360774) 02-24-2003 10:41 AM

Reply to: Message 12 by nator 02-11-2003 9:05 AM

I, on the other hand, using my religious literature, am fully able to explain an even more indepth timeline, beginning before the emergence of corporial life, and ending at the present day. Now I realize that you would reject this out of hand, due to your revulsion to the idea that "God did it!"

You are much more comfortable with the idea that "evolution did it", even though you are not able to understand or explain all of the where's and why's concerning your insistance in this ancient, yet udated, pagan fable. I have at least done my homework when it comes to the thought of evolution as the main reason life exists as it does today.

As I have stated numerous times, the idea of evolution is as old as the hills and any indepth study of ancient pagan beliefs will confirm this fact. Granted, the modern day TOE has added new twists and turns in order to make this ancient fable more palatable to what the scriptures refer to as the "darkened minds" of those who are labeled as foolish because "the fool has said in their heart, there is no God."

So let's just leave it at that. You continue with your "evolution did it" beliefs and I will continue with my "God did it" belief, sure in the knowledge that I am following the right path, and you are on the path to failure, disappointment, and, like every other living thing that has, does, or will exist, eventual death. The only difference between us concerns what comes afterwards. For you, apparently nothing, according to your beliefs. For me, according to my belief and faith in God, some of us will be raised unto everlasting glory with God, Our Father. And some of us will be raised unto everlasting shame and contempt.

Personally, I don't care for what your future holds for you, regardless of which belief, evolution or creation, is championed. I will admit, however, that I wish somehow your eyes could be opened, and that you would return to that which you have abandoned. And I do not mean that you should return to catholicism, but rather that you would return to Christ. Here's to hoping for the seemingly impossible, knowing that "with God, all things are possible."

Shalom

Jet

------------------
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Prof. George Greenstein

Message 15 of 59 (360775) 02-24-2003 11:02 AM

Reply to: Message 13 by derwood 02-11-2003 9:50 AM

I am sure such an endeavor would be interesting for everyone concerned, including myself. But please don't ask me to outline the failure of the TOE as being scientific. Its' failure is tremendously obvious by its inability to use the very scientific methods that it imposes upon creationists.

All you need do is prove the assertion held by all evolutionists the the TOE is scientific. Good luck with your timeline. I believe that you are going to need all the luck that you can muster, assuming that you don't avoid the challenge of tracing the transformation of a single species throughout time.

Every other evolutionist I have come into contact with has either been unable, or unwilling to tackle such a simple undertaking. Perhaps you will be different, a step above the rest of the pack, so to speak.

Shalom

Jet

------------------
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Prof. George Greenstein