Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not Abiogenesis
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 123 of 251 (654156)
02-27-2012 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by marc9000
02-26-2012 8:59 PM


Re: Analogies
I can’t say that it would be affected, and don’t claim that it would be. But the reason I don’t mind seeing that question asked is because I never see the following question being answered by evolutionists;
How would any study of ID be affected if the designer was;
*The Christian God
*The Flying Spaghetti Monster
*Allah
*Spacemen from another planet
*Any other idea
Well, the first thing that comes to my mind is that each of those possible answers raises the question, "What was their motivation?" Because of their shared history, I might expect that the answer for the Christian god and for Allah would be similar. A second question that comes to mind is, "How did they accomplish this?"
There, now you can cross that off the list of questions that you never see "evolutionists" answer.
I think many (such as myself) claim that evolution, that is ~all claims about evolution~ are less factual/believable THAN THEY WOULD OTHERWISE BE if evolution had more scientific facts about naturalistic origins of life.
Why?
The things that we believe we know about evolution are based on the evidence we see. Evolution is about biology. It is about how organisms that recreate imperfectly in an environment of scarce resources compete and change over time. Questions about how life began deal with chemistry, how different elements and molecules combine together, and with what the conditions were on the planet billions of years ago. They are quite simply two different fields of inquiry. What do unanswered questions in one field have to do with evidence that we now have in hand in the other?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 8:59 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by marc9000, posted 02-28-2012 8:49 PM subbie has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 146 of 251 (654298)
02-29-2012 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by marc9000
02-28-2012 8:49 PM


Re: Analogies
Not really, because you don’t show enough knowledge of what ID actually is. Motivation of a designer isn’t formally involved.
I have two different, but related, responses to this point.
First, no, of course it's not formally involved, because ID is a religious movement trying to camouflage itself as science. We al know that the only designer that the ID movement has in mind is an Abrahamic god. For them to openly discuss motives would let the cat out of the bag. (Not that it's much of a secret, but at least they can pretend they're not talking about their god.)
Second, the fact that motivation isn't now a part of ID doesn't mean that questions about the motivation of the designer shouldn't be part of a legitimate scientific investigation. If there isn't a consensus about the motivation or how to study it, that wouldn't really be unique or even unusual. Scientific consensus can be very hard to come by in the early stages of a new field of investigation. Not a problem.
IMO there would be far more diversity in this regard among ID scientists that there currently is in evolutionary scientists about atheism.
Not really. They all think it's an Abrahamic god. Some think it's Yahweh, some think it's Christ, and some think it's Allah. There is demonstrably more diversity among scientists, because there are scientists who believe in all the same gods as the ID crowd, as well as scientists who believe in other gods and who believe in no gods. I'm not aware of any atheist IDers.
Some claims that are made about evolution can be more acceptable/factual than others.
If by that you mean there is more evidentiary support from some parts of the Theory of Evolution than others, I agree.
As more and more conclusions are drawn about what evolution is, what it has done, more and more philosophy creeps in.
I really have no idea what you mean here. Can you clarify or provide examples?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by marc9000, posted 02-28-2012 8:49 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by marc9000, posted 03-02-2012 8:18 PM subbie has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 147 of 251 (654299)
02-29-2012 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by marc9000
02-28-2012 10:31 PM


Re: Analogies
isn't the common ancestor that is equally important to evolutionists so important to them that they can't be separated from it as well?
No.
It's been said many times, but so long as you keep ignoring the point, someone needs to keep repeating it. How life developed is irrelevant to the ToE.
Now, it is true that any good scientist is going to be interested in learning new things, solving mysteries of the natural world. And there are many scientists working on learning what they can about the "first life form."
(I put that in quotation marks because there isn't any first life form. It's a continuum. Atoms joined together to form molecules. Molecules joined together to form more complex molecules. At some point, some of those molecules began self replicating. Later, additional characteristics of life emerged. We can put together a semi-arbitrary set of criteria that we call life and then call the first organism that met those criteria the first life form. But in actuality, it was like the spectrum of visible light. There's no line between red and orange where it's red on one side and orange on the other.)
And for those scientists that are working in that field, those questions are important. However, the answers to those questions are not so important to biologists that they cannot separate them from their own work. Biologists can happily go about their business studying biology and learn a great deal of information without ever even giving a thought to the beginning of life. It's not relevant to how life evolved.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by marc9000, posted 02-28-2012 10:31 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 166 of 251 (654685)
03-02-2012 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by marc9000
03-02-2012 8:18 PM


Re: Analogies
Just like we all know that the naturalism in evolution is atheism.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "atheism." If you simply mean in the absence of any supernatural entity, you are correct. That is in effect the meaning of methodological naturalism; investigations and explanations attempt to describe the natural world without appealing to any supernatural entities.
If instead you mean disbelieving in gods, then you are wrong. Science makes no claims about any supernatural entities because such entities are not amenable to scientific examination.
So, the ToE makes no claims or assumptions of any sort about any gods. It simply attempts to describe the natural world without appealing to any supernatural input.
The parts that are more lacking than others in the evidentiary support are there for a reason.
Yes, and the reason is that they are mysteries that haven't yet been solved. Science is still working on them.
They come up short on evidence, but someone (or group) WANTS them to be there. A conclusion is drawn first, then evidence is used to work backwards to that conclusion.
And you of course have evidence of these people (or groups), right?
Of course, IDists are accused of doing that,
Because that's what the evidence shows. If you're unclear about this, Google "cdesign proponentist" for one piece of our evidence. Now, where's yours?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by marc9000, posted 03-02-2012 8:18 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by marc9000, posted 03-02-2012 8:45 PM subbie has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(4)
Message 170 of 251 (654690)
03-02-2012 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by marc9000
03-02-2012 8:27 PM


Re: Analogies
It only works depending on the real existence of the common ancestor that it claims all life on earth arose from.
Not true.
There's nothing logically inconsistent with the Theory of Evolution and the possibility of multiple lines of completely independent phylogenies. The reason for the scientific theory of a single common ancestor is that that is what the evidence shows. If we somewhere were to find new evidence of a life that came from a difference ancestor, one that was silicon-based for example, that new evidence would be added to our knowledge base and new theories would emerge from that information.
Scientists don't care whether all life came from a common ancestor or not. Science simply came to that conclusion because that's what the evidence says. Change the evidence and the conclusion will change.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by marc9000, posted 03-02-2012 8:27 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 172 of 251 (654693)
03-02-2012 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by marc9000
03-02-2012 8:45 PM


Re: Analogies
Hmmm, "atheism" must be a slippery word too!
Like many words, it means different things to different people. I'm rather perplexed that you reached adulthood without understanding this simple truth. I'm not perplexed that you had no substantive reply to the meat of my point.
So science can do anything, if given enough time?
I certainly don't think so. First, science is limited to explanations for natural phenomena. It can't define justice, or beauty, or truth. Second, while science has shown that it is the best process invented by humans for learning about the natural world, that doesn't mean it doesn't make mistakes. But it does try to correct them. It also doesn't mean that it can answer all questions about the natural world. But it tries. I make no predictions about its ultimate success (which might justify your curious response), but I'd put my money on it over any other process in existence today.
Of course, but that's probably another thread.
Ah, yes. The ultimate cop out.
I gave you one piece of my evidence. I'm sure nobody would begrudge you providing a little bit of yours. If it turns into something substantial, we can always break out another thread.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by marc9000, posted 03-02-2012 8:45 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2012 8:43 PM subbie has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 183 of 251 (654821)
03-04-2012 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by marc9000
03-04-2012 8:43 PM


Re: Analogies
Because it hasn’t been hauled into court like ID has.
Sorry, no idea what you mean. Or what it has to do with atheism having different meanings. Or what it has to do with my initial point.
ID has been ruled by courts to only mean one thing - religion.
Because that's what the evidence put before the court showed.
The scientific community keeps it out of the public scientific realm based on that ruling.
No. It's kept out of public schools based on that ruling.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2012 8:43 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(3)
Message 204 of 251 (655250)
03-08-2012 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by marc9000
03-08-2012 8:26 PM


Re: Analogies
I accept every theory in science that we can directly observe, and practically apply in our daily lives.
Then you accept none.
No scientific theory can be directly observed, because a theory isn't a concrete thing. It's a collection of hypotheses that attempt to explain a broad range of observations from the natural world.
You might think of the theory of gravity as a theory that "we can directly observe and practically apply in our daily lives." You might think, we drop something, it falls. Thus, gravity. However, the theory of gravity is considerably more complicated than that, and cannot be directly observed.
By your definition, most of science would not qualify.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:26 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024