Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   faith based science?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 8 of 171 (676285)
10-21-2012 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by eclectic1993
10-20-2012 11:47 PM


What 'holes in your understanding of origins (bangers and toe) have you had to accept by faith? Just because you use faith to fill in the gaps doesn't mean it is bad science or not true. For now, given our clearest empirical understanding of origins, what do you accept on faith?
Well, Panda is right. Instead of using faith to fill in the gaps in my knowledge, I say: "I don't know". That is scientific.
Using faith to fill in the gaps would not be scientific, because we know that faith isn't a reliable method of gaining knowledge --- it would be like using a measuring instrument that we know to be broken in order to obtain data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by eclectic1993, posted 10-20-2012 11:47 PM eclectic1993 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 14 of 171 (676315)
10-21-2012 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by eclectic1993
10-21-2012 5:04 PM


My evolutionist friend at work has an interesting way of dealing with life spawning from inorganic matter. He explains that it is outside the purview of evolutionary science. He stated that was a matter for a chemist to work out. He is able to embrace evolutionary theory and "ignore origins of life", and is quite happy. He takes this gap in 'faith'.
I don't see that. He knows that he doesn't know how life arose, he doesn't try to fill the gap with a faith-based solution.
This is why, technically, creationists and evolutionist cannot really debate, because they are not debating the same thing.
Creationists can use the word "evolution" to mean evolution. They just choose not to.
My friend from work explains this 'gap' by saying that millions of years have elapsed, and that anything could happen in that amount of time. I'll be honest, I'm convinced that given trillions of years that life would not 'find a way'.
Well, your friend is right and you are wrong.
We know what sorts of mutations can occur. We know about insertion, deletion, single nucleotide substitution, chromosome fusion, etc.
Knowing what mutations occur, it is perfectly obvious that there are many --- indeed, infinitely many --- sequences of mutations that would get you from the genome of a fish to the genome of a frog, or from the genome of a monkey to the genome of a man. The limiting factors are the mutation rate and time. That's not faith, that's math.
This leads me to another question. Have you actually considered what we (evolutionists and creationists) share in common in terms of science and beliefs?
Qua evolutionists and creationists, very little.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by eclectic1993, posted 10-21-2012 5:04 PM eclectic1993 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-22-2012 4:55 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 19 of 171 (676441)
10-22-2012 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-22-2012 4:55 PM


Maddenstein
Eclectic1993 ---
For your benefit as a newcomer, I should explain that Maddenstein is a crazy stupid person whom we just about tolerate posting on these forums, because the forum moderators prefer to let in too many people than to shut too many people out. If you are wondering why you can't understand what Maddenstein's saying, or can see that his statements are obviously false, this is because his statements consist of schizophasic ramblings rather than genuine propositions.
I would therefore urge you to engage with people who are not actually insane. I, for example, disagree with you about almost everything we might wish to talk about on these forums, but I am not actually mad. At most, I am misguided. Therefore, we can engage in rational discussion. Maddenstein, on the other hand, is completely round the bend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-22-2012 4:55 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by AdminModulous, posted 10-23-2012 8:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 28 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 6:54 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 23 of 171 (676456)
10-22-2012 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by eclectic1993
10-22-2012 8:17 PM


Mathematically, given enough time, its possible that all species will eventually die out due to enough mutations OR given enough time it is possible that species can change into higher forms. I believe the former to be true, based upon what we know.
Who is this "we"? Only doesn't include me or geneticists, who know something different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by eclectic1993, posted 10-22-2012 8:17 PM eclectic1993 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 171 (676668)
10-24-2012 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by AdminModulous
10-23-2012 8:38 AM


Re: engage with people who are not actually insane.
I can't say I'm thrilled with this post as a moderator or personally. As someone that has done some work in mental health awareness and de-stigmatization it makes me a little uncomfortable to see a dismissal of someone in this manner.
Well, I would say that it is one thing to want to destigmatize poor mental health and another thing to agree with the delusions of the people who suffer from it.
I spent some months, maybe about a year, lodging with a medicated schizophrenic. I'll destigmatize him all you like, he was OK, I wasn't worried by his condition. On the other hand, I did explain to him that his persistent beliefs that the Rastafarians were out to get him was a symptom of his disorder, that in fact as he admitted, no Rastafarian had hurt him ever, that he acknowledged that he was schizophrenic, that he knew perfectly well that one of the symptoms of schizophrenia was the formation of irrational paranoid delusions, and that his beliefs about Rastafarians were in fact a symptom of his condition. To the extent that I convinced him of this, I was not stigmatizing him, I was doing him a favor.
If we just stand helpless before their madness, then we should just kindly pat them on the head and say: "There there, I will stop the Rastafarians from killing you." But I think that I should not stand helpless before their madness. Something could be done, they could in principle be convinced on intellectual grounds that their delusions are symptoms of insanity.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by AdminModulous, posted 10-23-2012 8:38 AM AdminModulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 6:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 38 of 171 (676716)
10-25-2012 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by eclectic1993
10-25-2012 1:10 AM


I call the first life form in the evolutionary process 'protobug'. (Is there an actual name?) Whatever it is, it represents the point at which the abiogenesis crowd passes the baton to the evolutionary crowd. I think protobug could actually go two ways. It could 'acquire' more genetic information so that a successive offspring could be classified as being more advanced. Or it could continue on, with 'loss' of genetic information, killing the species.
I think you're making a fairly classic mistake here. "It" would not be an it. To be life at all, the "protobug" would have to reproduce, meaning that there'd be lots of them in short order.
Now, some of this protospecies could have, and doubtless did, degenerate as a result of deleterious mutations. And those individuals would not survive, which would not in fact kill the species --- it would ensure that those particular organisms did not survive and reproduce.
You must never think of mutation as happening to a species, only to an individual. Otherwise you're not going to get the hang of it at all.
---
I don't know if there's a commonly accepted word for the first life. I guess "protobug" is as good as anything, so long as it doesn't suggest to anyone that it was actually a bug.
As evolutionist, I thought you might appreciate random rantings because over a long period of time they might produce something intelligible and meaningful.
Only if subjected to selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by eclectic1993, posted 10-25-2012 1:10 AM eclectic1993 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 41 of 171 (676725)
10-25-2012 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by eclectic1993
10-25-2012 1:10 AM


So, abiogenesis moved outside the purview of evolution. I understand science needs to be broken into smaller buckets as knowledge increases. Now it is no longer an issue for ToE. I suspect that Charlie Darwin might roll over in his grave to know that his "Origin of Species" has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.
Here's what "Charlie Darwin" said about the origin of life:
It is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life; one might as well think of origin of matter. Charles Darwin, letter to J. D. Hooker, 29 March 1863
But you tell us that now abiogensis has moved out of the purview of evolution, and Darwin would roll in his grave if he knew that this was so?
Bollocks. Darwin, the discoverer of the theory of evolution, knew perfectly well that neither he nor his theory could account for the origin of life, and he said so very clearly. What has evolved on this point is creationist rhetoric --- creationists are now sufficiently dishonest as to pretend that this is not the case. The claims made for evolution have remained the same.
Your other ramblings are similarly inaccurate. For example:
Another change that happened was the differentiation on a widescale of microevolution and macroevolution.
Yeah, I bet you didn't hear those words when you were taught biology in school. This is because biologists hardly ever use them. The "differentiation on a widescale of microevolution and macroevolution" was something creationists started doing when they realized they'd been caught with their pants down. The theory of evolution stayed the same; but creationist rhetoric evolved. Oh, how it evolves!
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by eclectic1993, posted 10-25-2012 1:10 AM eclectic1993 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 171 (676729)
10-25-2012 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-25-2012 4:21 AM


Re: Maddenstein
You cannot be helped until you admit that you have a problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 4:21 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 4:47 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 47 of 171 (676733)
10-25-2012 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-25-2012 4:47 AM


Re: Maddenstein
You cannot be helped until you admit that you have a problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 4:47 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 48 of 171 (676734)
10-25-2012 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-25-2012 5:15 AM


You cannot be helped until you admit that you have a problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 5:15 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 50 of 171 (676737)
10-25-2012 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-25-2012 6:01 AM


You cannot be helped until you admit that you have a problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 6:01 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 52 of 171 (676739)
10-25-2012 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-25-2012 6:28 AM


Re: engage with people who are not actually insane.
Now, Doc, please stop muddying the water and pulling wool over everybody's eyes. Do I profess that my belief all Rastafarians are after me or anything of the sort is a fact of nature? Not at all.
No, you did not. On the other hand, you frequently refer to yourself in the third person and claim to be a cat, and these are minor personal eccentricities as compared to the fact that you wrote: "Strictly speaking infinitely many is zero".
You cannot be helped until you admit that you have a problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 6:28 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 8:19 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 74 of 171 (676886)
10-25-2012 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by New Cat's Eye
10-25-2012 2:55 PM


You, sir, have totally delivered. I wasn't sure what to expect, but with your reputation that site is as batshit crazy as I should have expected it to be.
But what is more strange is this --- A.M's crazy nonsense about time seems to be based on thinking that Einstein was right and then being pathetically wrong about what Einstein was right about. So why did A.M. link us to this site? All Maddenstein's delusions come back to his pitiful inability to understand Einstein. So why does he link us to a site that claims that Einstein was wrong about everything?
It is possible, of course, that A.M. is just an enormous troll.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2012 2:55 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 3:57 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 78 by vimesey, posted 10-25-2012 3:59 PM Dr Adequate 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