Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 31 of 224 (476971)
07-29-2008 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by killinghurts
07-24-2008 3:37 AM


Re: Theory in science
Which do you think is more reasonable:
a) A 2000 year old script mentioned that once there was a worldwide flood that this lends evidence to suggest that we were created by a magical imaginary being - of which we can't see, touch, smell, taste or hear.
or
b) Countless fossils based on sound dating methods, direct DNA links, hundreds of years of gathering evidence and questioning and changing theories, searching for falsities and contradictions and we *sort of* know what happened, not quite everything, but we have a GOOD idea that we evolved from a common ancestor and that we change with our environment and geographical location - much like we see on a micro level *every day* right here right now - in reality.
You are correct that the theory of evolution is a theory. However it is not based not on ONE fact alone (i.e a 2000 year old script), and thus it is much more reasonable to state that we did not get majicked up by the spaghetti monstor OR any other imaginary being, and that it is more likely that we evolved.
It's a good question. And I understand where you're coming from. The problem is that it's subjective isn't it. To me, there is no explaining how unlikely I think evolution is, along with abiogenesis. To me, that is off the scale, that the designs we see popped up by chance from the primordial soup. I completely give way to people's right to believe that and search it out - and postulate, but you have to understand that from a personal viewpoint, or "worldview", I will never convince my mind that the universe wasn't created.
You can think of God as an imaginery being - but that won't remove what is before my eyes. That being the incredible universe, and the designs I see and contemplate in nature.
I do my own thinking, so I don't refer to the "designs" that are usually debated here on these boards.
Listen - if there's some great art going down and no one wants to look at it - is it great art? I suppose it's up to you. I am not trying to convince you my God exists, as I can't do that.
(sorry for my long spells away from evc, I post from the library).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by killinghurts, posted 07-24-2008 3:37 AM killinghurts has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 32 of 224 (476972)
07-29-2008 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by bluescat48
07-25-2008 10:33 AM


Re: Theory in science
Still you are predicting after the fact.
Not really because the bible was accepted as true before the fact. Back in the day people found fossils and said; "look - just like the bible tells us".
Whether fossils were known before or after is irrelevant.
You can't have it both ways. Either it matters or it doesn't.
The fact that fossils were later shown to be remains of life further gives evidence to the creedence of evolution rather than creation.
It doesn't because that's what the bible said happened. We see mass death. You can't distinguish between gradual uniformitarianism or sudden catastrophism with any proof, so logically there is no X over Y. It is not proved either way.
You infact favour evolution subjectively, as in reality, there is nothing stopping the history of the flood if that's what happened in history.
Since there is no proof either way - logically or scientifically you statement doesn't have credence. Science nor logic would claim that the fossil favour evolution. Only individuals do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by bluescat48, posted 07-25-2008 10:33 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by dokukaeru, posted 07-29-2008 8:37 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 33 of 224 (476978)
07-29-2008 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by mike the wiz
07-29-2008 7:33 AM


Re: Theory in science
Hi, Mike.
Mike the Wiz writes:
In human history, the popular accepted search was for a natural explanation - there is no search for evidence of creation, however - logically there is evidence of creation.
I've started a thread here to discuss whether evolution is based on either a pattern of evidence or a philosphical worldview.
This is the kind of thing that shows when somebody is basing their search for truth on a worldview, and not on a pattern of evidence:
Mike the Wiz, msg #31 writes:
...but you have to understand that from a personal viewpoint, or "worldview", I will never convince my mind that the universe wasn't created.
Please bring this to my thread and show how you think evolutionists do the same.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 07-29-2008 7:33 AM mike the wiz has not replied

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4615 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 34 of 224 (476981)
07-29-2008 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by mike the wiz
07-29-2008 7:56 AM


This is a science forum show proof
mike the wiz writes:
You infact favour evolution subjectively, as in reality, there is nothing stopping the history of the flood if that's what happened in history.
This is off topic and should continue in another thread Mike.
Actually, there is overwhelming evidence that a world wide flood never occured. Can you point out any evidence that it did occur?
I refer you to these 2 boards:
http://EvC Forum: 100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah’s Flood -->EvC Forum: 100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah’s Flood
http://EvC Forum: Age of the Earth in Stages, Great Debate, S1WC and RAZD only -->EvC Forum: Age of the Earth in Stages, Great Debate, S1WC and RAZD only
I am sure that you will just gloss over all of this evidence but, just to point out a few:
anglagard writes:
7. Ice sheets - Ice caps can’t reform in the time allotted since any global flood of 4500 years ago.
4. Carbonates - The huge amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to being locked into carbonate rock would have made the planet resemble Venus. There would have been no life to drown.
29. Worldwide iridium layer - Although any worldwide flood evidence is lacking, there is a worldwide iridium layer at the K-T boundary where it exists. How could this iridium layer have been deposited among all those swirling waters in a flood?
41. Multiple glaciations - There are at least four major separate evidences of glaciations in the geologic record separated by eons. How could all four occur during a flood while supposedly underwater?
58. Parasites - Parasites require hosts in order to survive. Were all creatures on any ark hosts and how did they survive such parasitism?
59. Diseases - Diseases that exist today require hosts to survive. How did all the infected animals survive simultaneously being hosts to every disease currently around?
66. Tree ring data - Rings on currently living trees that indicate they are older than 4500 years do not indicate that they were drowned and died at the time of any proposed global flood.
71. Food pyramid - how could the predation relationship be preserved with only a pair of creatures at the bottom of the chain?
86. No human activity in deeper layers - There are no indications of human activity, or even humans, in any geologic layers prior to the Pleistocene.
88. Egyptian history - Why did the Egyptians not mention a flood during their monument building period?.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 07-29-2008 7:56 AM mike the wiz has not replied

0piumBlack
Junior Member (Idle past 5713 days)
Posts: 2
From: Santa Clarita, California, Unites States
Joined: 08-06-2008


Message 35 of 224 (477720)
08-06-2008 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
07-05-2008 7:41 PM


I want to apologize for posting on a somewhat "dusty" thread, but returning to the original topic,
Dubois' theory of strong anticipation sounds like nothing but pseudoscience. However, in all honesty, I think the reason I look at the theory as such is because I’m not exactly grasping the "freedom" aspect of the idea. So, if you wouldn't mind, is this freedom anything beyond the ability to decide? or what exactly is it?
I again apologize for my ignorance but this particular theory is a bit perplexing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 07-05-2008 7:41 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Syamsu, posted 08-23-2008 12:16 PM 0piumBlack has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 36 of 224 (479025)
08-23-2008 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by 0piumBlack
08-06-2008 10:36 PM


The freedom in anticipation theory is basically of alternatives in the future. So these alternatives are not in the present. It applies to anything the same way, so biologcal systems, planetary systems, people's brains, all of these have freedom, and decisions are made to realize the one alternative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by 0piumBlack, posted 08-06-2008 10:36 PM 0piumBlack has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 37 of 224 (479073)
08-24-2008 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by mike the wiz
07-29-2008 7:33 AM


Re: Theory in science
mike the twit... wiz writes:
You missed that post to you that defined evidence. There is still evidence for theories that are no longer popularly accepted.
You seem to have the misconception that evidence for something necessarily supports the existence of that thing. Before I go on, let me make a few examples to make my point bleedingly obvious.
Evidence for bigfoot: some pictures, some cam footages, some witness testimonies, some footprints, etc.
Evidence for visiting extraterrestrials: some pictures, some cam footages, some witness testimonies, some footprints, etc.
Evidence for god: absolutely no pictures, absolutely no cam footages, some witness testimonies, absolutely no footprints, etc.
Try to think of it like the poker game texas hold 'em. There are 5 cards in the middle that belongs to everybody. Only a special kind of idiot would think that he won the game because he sees 3 jacks in the middle while the cards he has in his hands amount to absolutely zip.
What determines popularization of a certain theory in the scientific community is the way the evidence fit together, not if there is any evidence at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 07-29-2008 7:33 AM mike the wiz has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 38 of 224 (479148)
08-24-2008 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by mike the wiz
07-29-2008 7:33 AM


Re: Theory in science
There are possible alternatives, and I find that the evolutionary explanations that answer for the problems we see, are insufficient. Living fossils for example - I believe flesh being preserved on dino bones , etc...all these evidences are more logically explained with the Creation model, and it is the job of scientists to prove otherwise, and protect their theory - but the explanations are poor nowadays because of the comfortable acceptance of evolution. Anyone who thinks deeply enough can find holes.
If one digs deep enough, one can probably find "holes" in any theory. That is what a theory is, the most logical explanation for a given problem. All theories are falsifiable. Even theories called laws are falsifiable. Mendeeleev's periodic law was partially falsified with the discovery of the proton. Thus when the law stated that the periodic state of the elements were periodic functions of atomic weights the was changed to atomic number and was thus modified and made more correct. That is how science operates.
all these evidences are more logically explained with the Creation model, and it is the job of scientists to prove otherwise
Actually it would be the job of creationists to prove their model not simply debunk the evolutionist model. Scientists do attempt to "prove"
otherwise
Edited by bluescat48, : quote typo

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 07-29-2008 7:33 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 39 of 224 (479190)
08-25-2008 11:22 AM


Freedom is real science proved it
I want to invite some more comment on the original posting in the thread, to the point that the paper referenced affirms freedom as a reality.
On his blog in uncommon descent Behe said that Darwinists don't believe in free will. Then a Darwinist blogger responded that such was an absurd accusation. However, on these forums I cannot find any single Darwinist who affirms freedom as a reality, and is willing to actually do science with freedom.
What I find invariably on these forums is Darwinists that believe decisions only occur in brains (of people), and is not actually free, meaning it is not actually possible that an alternative may become realized. So the logic of that works as follows; person A can go left or right, person A goes right because... (and then follows some explanation which forces the person to go right). The alternative here is merely a variable in an equation. So for instance; if the point is to get the highest safety value, and going left has a safety value of 10, right a safety value of 20, then the outcome is going right since it has the highest safety value. So the alternative of going left could never become realized by this logic, because the option of going right is forced because it has a higher safety value.
So can any of these brainists validate their belief that decisions only occur in brains, in face of the scientific evidence referenced in the orignal posting that freedom abounds?

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Coyote, posted 08-25-2008 11:41 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 08-25-2008 11:44 AM Syamsu has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 40 of 224 (479195)
08-25-2008 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Syamsu
08-25-2008 11:22 AM


Re: Freedom is real science proved it
So can any of these brainists validate their belief that decisions only occur in brains, in face of the scientific evidence referenced in the orignal posting that freedom abounds?
So to how many degrees of freedom do you want your answer specified?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Syamsu, posted 08-25-2008 11:22 AM Syamsu has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 41 of 224 (479200)
08-25-2008 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Syamsu
08-25-2008 11:22 AM


Re: Freedom is real science proved it
I don't get it.
What does ID have to do with any of this?
Are you saying that brains are not required to make decisions?
In the absence of conscious intelligence (i.e. in a material universe prior to humans or other evolved intelligences) what are the claims of this theory?
Or does it only apply once conscious intelligcne is introduced?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Syamsu, posted 08-25-2008 11:22 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Syamsu, posted 08-25-2008 12:03 PM Straggler has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 42 of 224 (479203)
08-25-2008 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Straggler
08-25-2008 11:44 AM


Re: Freedom is real science proved it
Right, brains are not required to make decisions, freedom abounds in the universe at large, so says science.
I think this should be about brainists validating their beliefs scientifically, since the creationists beliefs are already validated by the papers referenced.
I mean you are asking these questions about creationism, but in the meantime you seem to be slipping in the brainist beliefs without any scientific evidence whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 08-25-2008 11:44 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Coyote, posted 08-25-2008 12:09 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 08-26-2008 7:35 PM Syamsu has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 43 of 224 (479207)
08-25-2008 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Syamsu
08-25-2008 12:03 PM


Re: Sophistry
Right, brains are not required to make decisions, freedom abounds in the universe at large, so says science.
I think this should be about brainists validating their beliefs scientifically, since the creationists beliefs are already validated by the papers referenced.
I mean you are asking these questions about creationism, but in the meantime you seem to be slipping in the brainist beliefs without any scientific evidence whatsoever.
This post is one of the most amazing bits of sophistry I have ever seen.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Syamsu, posted 08-25-2008 12:03 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Syamsu, posted 08-25-2008 12:17 PM Coyote has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 44 of 224 (479210)
08-25-2008 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Coyote
08-25-2008 12:09 PM


Re: Sophistry
Ok, my line of argument doesn't work since brainists can simply define words such a way that decisions only occur in brains is true.
But why don't you all believe in freedom in the universe at large, when direct experience, common knowledge, religion and science prove it is real?
Enlighten me about what thoughts go through your head when you deny freedom is real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Coyote, posted 08-25-2008 12:09 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 08-25-2008 12:33 PM Syamsu has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 45 of 224 (479211)
08-25-2008 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Syamsu
08-25-2008 12:17 PM


Re: Sophistry
Enlighten me about what thoughts go through your head when you deny freedom is real.
This new concept of "freedom" you are pushing is merely an untested and unsupported hypothesis.
At this point it appears to be contradicted by the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Why should we abandon thousands of years of accumulated knowledge for one tiny bit of contradictory information--when that tiny bit is neither tested nor supported?
This is the kind of stuff that cranks push.
From Wiki:
But why don't you all believe in freedom in the universe at large, when direct experience, common knowledge, religion and science prove it is real?
Sorry, I must have missed the proof. Direct experience and common knowledge are not proof. Anecdotes? Pah! As for religion, see tagline, below. And scientific "proof?" This idea doesn't even have the scientific evidence to rise to the level of a theory. It is still an untested hypothesis.
You are missing several important steps in the scientific process, going from an idea to "proof" all at once. And then you are relying on that "proof" for additional far-reaching conclusions.
Sounds more like creation "science" than real science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Syamsu, posted 08-25-2008 12:17 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Syamsu, posted 08-25-2008 12:48 PM Coyote has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024