|
Author
|
Topic: Teaching the Truth in Schools
|
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: 08-30-2003
|
Martin The source of your confusion lies in this statement of yours.
I challenge you to tell me about something that is genuinely empirical in nature that creation scientists and evolution scientists disagree about (that necessarily implicates their opposing positions about ultimate origins. Evolutionists, for the umpteenth time, do not speak of ultimate origins. This is the realm of cosmologists.Evolution simply deals with the process of discovery over the past couple of centuries of a pattern in nature which is called evolution.The theory deals with the sorting of the evidence into tables of knowledge that can be used to make predictions about evidence that we have not found yet. Creationists are the ones who call into play ultimate origins.The only thing creationists bring to the table is a "supernatural" God that they cannot demonstrate.This God adds no information to the evidence,cannot be demonstrated and leaves no trace of its actions. The world operates on principles that get better and better defined as time goes on and this is because scientists do not believe but,rather,doubt.Doubt that the ideas they have are the last word and that there are always new wonders to unearth, and new questions to answer as we go along. Creationists work centers around apologetics[note the similarity to the word apology] due to their need to constantly revise their basic 'laws ' of how the world works in order to save face. I am sorry if you think that metaphysics, which is only a system of principles behind knowledge, is the same for evolutionists as it is for creationists. As for the empirical can you tell me of an experiment done by creationists to prove their God. You see that is what seperates the two is that science 'works',hard work I might add while creationists simply suppose. Science tests against the observable world in order to verify,creationists do not. I will add more to this later if you wish. However I am up past my bedtime and I must go now.Later
|
Rei
Member (Idle past 7034 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: 09-03-2003
|
Re: Agreement by Creationists and Biologists
quote:
about the nuclear processes that occur in the unseen center of the Sun,
Apparently you haven't read much Answers In Genesis. "Creation Scientists" have continually made ridiculous claims about the sun based on their presupposition of a 6,000 year old world that get utterly shot down every time (ah, the neutrino one was quite amusing... they weren't able to "spin" that one (spin.. get it? ha... ha?)) ------------------ "Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Martin J. Koszegi responds to schrafinator:
quote:
I'm sure you thought and analyzed, but if much of what goes on in such classes these days is itself colored with a not-so-indirect bias favoring the natsian framework, then the thinking and analyzing is about "how did evolution occur," and not at all about "did evolution occur"?
So you're saying that schraf is an incompetent boob? Besides, there are simple experiments that you can do that show evolution happening right before your eyes. Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost very much and the materials can be acquired from any decent biological supply house. Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage. What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too. But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage. How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it. But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died. Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage. But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage. What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form. But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they shold all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on. Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear. So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity. There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again. You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.
quote:
Evolutionism
Definition, please. You seem to think that there is some sort of "belief" in evolution in the same way that there is a "belief" in god.
quote:
virtually any blank check imagination would be hard pressed to come up with any sort of scenario that would disprove the theory
Incorrect. In fact, it requires very little cogitation to come up with a plethora of scenarios that would disprove evolution: 1) Show an ostrich being hatched from an alligator's egg. 2) Show a rabbit fossilized in Pre-Cambrian strata. 3) Show that all organisms are genetically equidistant. 4) Show that the genome never mutates. That's just four off the top of my head. I'm sure other people can add to the list. There are plenty of ways to show that evolution isn't accurate...it's just that nobody has ever been able to do so as of yet.
quote:
Could this scenario undermine the theory of evolution? The truth: not in the least bit--not even if multitudes of such magnitude were discovered.
Incorrect. That scenario would be the death blow of evolution. If it could be verified that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, there would have to be a huge restructuring of our understanding of biology. You're basically claiming that scientists are zealots who are incapable of recognizing valid data when it is staring them in the face. You're basically claiming that there is a Worldwide Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth and that scientists are engaged in a massive coverup or at the very least are incompetent fools.
quote:
I think I'll close this thought with another valid point that can be summed up in a phrase I picked up from Phillip Johnson
But isn't it the case that nothing Philip Johnson says is valid? ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
Agreement by Creationists and Biologists
NosyNed writes:
Could you list those things? Martin writes: First, list the VAST amount of things creation scientists and evolution scientists agree about? Well, perhaps I'll just mention a few examples, and then I'm sure you'll get the picture. They agree about the physical reasons why laser technology works, about the nuclear processes that occur in the unseen center of the Sun, electronics, gravity . . . I mean, I'm sure you get the idea; the list goes on and on in this vein, wouldn't you agree? Well, I'm glad you think they agree on those things. (as an aside they don't agree on nuclear processes in general). However, it is interesting that none of the things you listed are specifically something that would fall into the perview of an "evolution scientist" so they are rather useless in clearing up my confusion on what you are talking about.
Martin writes:
...somehow, life must have come into existence on its own. Creation scientists disagree with the evolution scientists' rhetoric that indicates that because we must limit our studies to nature, nature is all there is (enter the "somehow, life must have come into existence on its own" textbook typicality). It seems you have two items in this "list": 1) There disagree on the origin of life. Something which is not central to "evolution science" so it also misses the central point I am trying to understand. 2)Nature is all there is. What is specific about this in regards to "evolution science"? It is true that all sciences study what they can. You can't study something you can't detect or test or theorize about. It is not a big surprise that it is left out. So you still haven't helped me understand what you are getting at at all.
Martin writes:
Do you mean that if God really did create the universe and everything in it, he certainly wouldn't have done it in a relatively quick fashion as opposed to the methodology that might appease the nats to a degree? If for the moment, and for the sake of argument, you're considering the idea of a Creator, why would it seem so odd if he was to create a la yec-ish?
"relatively quick"? Sure, the issue isn't how long he took to create the universe. The issue is, in the case of young earther, how long it has been around since then and specifically how long the earth and life on it has been around. So your example there seems to, again, suggest that you aren't a young earther. What I am after is, within the bounds of evolutionary science, what do creationists and biologists agree on. Here is an attempt below. Note that since there seems to be very little agreement among creationists it is not possible to list anything which they will all be in agreement with. 1)They both agree that a lot of macro evolution has happened. That is they both agree that over some time period new species and genera have arisen. 2)They both agree that there have been different forms of life on earth that are not longer here. In fact, I think they both agree that there have been many, many species that no longer exist. 3)They both agree that most all areas of the earth have been subject to a variety of geological processes. Including sedimentation, volcanic activity and world wide techtonic movements. They disagree on: 1)Creationists think that the macro evolution occured in a few hundred or at most a couple of thousand years. They also think that this all occured at the genus level and down. Biologists would not expect more than very rare cases of such rapid evolution and think it occured across all the taxa. 2)Biologists say that when one set of forms of life was extant modern ones were not. Creationists think that at one time they were all there together. 3)Creationists think that all (or most) of the geologic evidence was laid down in about 1 year. Geologists (not evolutionary biologists specifically) are sure that this is total nonsense. (if I am allowed to step out of biology for a moment). There, was that so hard? Why couldn't you produce something like that since you have been making the assertions in the first place? Now that you have the idea perhaps you can double the size of the lists yourself.
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Martin J. Koszegi writes:
quote:
I challenge you to tell me about something that is genuinely empirical in nature that creation scientists and evolution scientists disagree about
Evolution. For example, creationists claim that "no new kinds can be created." For all intents and purpose, it appears that "kind" is just another word for "species." And yet, we have seen new species and even higher orders of taxa appear: Observed Instances of SpeciationSome More Observed Speciation Events Ishikawa M, Ishizaki S, Yamamoto Y, Yamasato K.Paraliobacillus ryukyuensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Gram-positive, slightly halophilic, extremely halotolerant, facultative anaerobe isolated from a decomposing marine alga. J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Oct;48(5):269-79. PMID: 12501437 [PubMed - in process] Kanamori T, Rashid N, Morikawa M, Atomi H, Imanaka T.Oleomonas sagaranensis gen. nov., sp. nov., represents a novel genus in the alpha-Proteobacteria. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002 Dec 17;217(2):255-261. PMID: 12480113 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] Fudou R, Jojima Y, Iizuka T, Yamanaka S.Haliangium ochraceum gen. nov., sp. nov. and Haliangium tepidum sp. nov.: Novel moderately halophilic myxobacteria isolated from coastal saline environments. J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Apr;48(2):109-16. PMID: 12469307 [PubMed - in process] Golyshin PN, Chernikova TN, Abraham WR, Lunsdorf H, Timmis KN, Yakimov MM.Oleiphilaceae fam. nov., to include Oleiphilus messinensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel marine bacterium that obligately utilizes hydrocarbons. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2002 May;52(Pt 3):901-11. PMID: 12054256 [PubMed - in process] Ivanova EP, Mikhailov VV.[A new family of Alteromonadaceae fam. nov., including the marine proteobacteria species Alteromonas, Pseudoalteromonas, Idiomarina i Colwellia.] Mikrobiologiia. 2001 Jan-Feb;70(1):15-23. Review. Russian. PMID: 11338830 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Stackebrandt E, Schumann P.Description of Bogoriellaceae fam. nov., Dermacoccaceae fam. nov., Rarobacteraceae fam. nov. and Sanguibacteraceae fam. nov. and emendation of some families of the suborder Micrococcineae. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2000 May;50 Pt 3:1279-85. PMID: 10843073 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] quote:
They disagree about how to interpret and evaluate empirical findings
Indeed. But the question you need to ask yourself is this: Just because two people disagree, is that reason enough to conclude there is justification for disagreement? You seem to be stuck on this idea that there is such a thing as "fairness" when it comes to analysis; that in order to be a valid study, one needs to be "balanced" and consider all points of view no matter how unjustified. Science doesn't work that way. Your right to your opinion does not lend it any validity. The only thing that science cares about is whether or not it works. Can you show that your process actually produces results? Does your model explain everything that we already see and make predictions that are validated? And does it do so with more accuracy than other models? If so, then you have a place at the table. Mere disagreement is insufficient.
quote:
the empirical findings themselves do not actually validate evolutionism, i.e., metaphysical philosophy.
But there is no such thing as "evolutionism." Nobody "believes" in evolution. It is merely a scientific theory just like all other scientific theories: The best explanation we have at the moment but accepted with the agreement that it will be discarded as soon as we come up with something that works better. You seem to be stuck on this Massive Conspiracy to Supress the Truth put forth by incompetents who have an agenda to turn everyone into an atheist as if evolution requires the non-existence of god.
quote:
The left, so questionable scientifically, so questionable politically.
Ah, see, now I know you don't know what you're talking about. "The left"? You think this is a political debate? Oh, there is plenty of politics in science: What to study, what to fund, what is considered an ethical experiment, etc. But the work of science, the actual scientific method, is profoundly apolitical: You go where the data lead you without hesitation, without bias, without question. Alas, scientists are human and humans make mistakes, but do not confuse the scientist with the science, itself. Is it possible for you to make your argument without calling people names? ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 126 by JonF, posted 12-12-2003 9:02 AM | | Rrhain has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
Message 126 of 169 (72490)
12-12-2003 9:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 125 by Rrhain
12-12-2003 1:39 AM
|
|
Ah, see, now I know you don't know what you're talking about. "The left"? You think this is a political debate? IMHO it largely is. It stopped being a scientific debate over a century ago. The ID crowd has essentially given up on pretending to do science and turned into a purely political lobying organizaation.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 125 by Rrhain, posted 12-12-2003 1:39 AM | | Rrhain has not replied |
|
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5893 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Blind Hog Science
martin writes:
The "results," the amount of scientific understanding that has been generated by those who are basically accepting of the assumption of evolutionism (i.e., well-meaning products of our educational settings), is a result of the great numbers of people who are establishing and developing knowledge, and not due to the idea that evolutionism is actually true. People can learn factual things as they work, even though the general philosophy they ascribe to is far less than true. And, of course, even in science, people can emphasize things that tend to support a favored philosophy, and de-emphasize, or totally ignore, things that undermine such a philosophy. This is almost surreal. You are literally arguing that science only progresses by accident! That a sufficient number of people stumbling around in the dark will eventually get lucky and make a discovery. IOW, science in your view operates on the premise that even a blind hog can find an acorn occasionally. This is so completely far from how science - including evolutionary biology and its sub-disciplines - operates that it's not even in the same universe. Scientists, using methodological naturalism, make observations, then develop explanations for the observations. For example, it is observed that animals inhabiting similar habitats in widely separated parts of the world have distinct resemblance in gross morphology, but are utterly different and unrelated (c.f., Parantechnus apicalis and Mus musculus, or Dasyurus geofroii and Leopardus tigrini, or Thylacinus cynocephalus and Canis lupus). Why? Separate creations? Or simply similar adaptive responses to similar selection pressures over long time scales = convergent evolution. For another example, it is observed that some moths of the genus Tegeticula (specifically T. yuccasella) are highly specific to a single host plant species, and in fact have a tight symbiotic (mutualistic - obligate pollinator) relationship with their host plant. Neither can live without the other. T. yuccasella even has a special appendage - a highly elongated palp - that permits carrying a large load of pollen, and serves no other function. However, the very closely related species T. intermedia doesn't have such a relationship nor a similar appendage, and is in fact phytophagous on the exact same plant. What is the explanation? Special creation of two species, one of whom eats the plant that the other needs to survive and reproduce? Or co-evolution of the plant and its pollinator? Can it possibly be that only pure luck would allow scientists to develop explanations for these phenomena?
in response to your challenge--later, after I seek out knowledge from some others I have in mind. Fine. However, if you are planning to use a creation "scientist" as a source, I would appreciate knowing who it is who is responding - or at least which organization s/he is affiliated with. I like to know, at least in general terms (and within the constraints of internet privacy), who I'm talking to. If the respondant is not "Martin J. Koszegi", please so inform me.
As I continually indicate, one can have an undergirding philosophy that is incorrect, and yet develop a knowledge base composed of some valid information that becomes a resource tool for problem solving in the real world. Consider, in this vein, the oil beneath the earth that is sought for; oil-drillers "A" believe the Earth is flat, oil-drillers "B" believe the Earth is spherical--that's not to say that oil drillers "A" will be unable to develop an ability to access the oil if they put their minds to it. Your example is inadequate to illustrate your point. First, the flatness or roundness of the Earth has little or nothing to do with the presence of oil. It is conceivable (barely, and with apologies to Coragyps), that a person could believe in Flud Geology and a young earth, and still be able to recognize the geological features that might indicate the presence of oil. It isn't absolutely necessary to have an understanding of the timeline required for the formation of petroleum to find it. OTOH, knowing the processes of geology, plate tectonics, etc, can tell you where to start looking. After all, if the Earth was formed 6000 years ago, and all of geology formed in a Flud 4500 or so years ago, why drill for oil on the bottom of the ocean...
I'd be interested in knowing how nature manifests distinctions that would exclude only creation scientists. This leads to my other point that you seem to think that scientists who study the same natural world (and its laws) that nats study, but whose undergirding philosophy is yec-ish, that their efforts can't actually lead to practical application knowledge, but to only ideas about "the Bible, God, or any miracle." That sort of thinking about creationists is incorrect. Nature manifests both regularities and discontinuities that are inconsistent with Creation - from the ordering of extinct organisms in the fossil record to the existence of relictual populations to bizarre adaptations such as the Melanodendron integrifolium (the endemic cabbage tree of St. Helena - which is actually an evolved daisy) to the distribution patterns of Anolis lizards in the Caribbean. There has been a total of zero contribution from any creationist "scientist" (and by this I'm not referring to scientists - from Galileo to Wallace to Newton, who were also believers; these are not creationists as are the likes of Morris, ReMine, Sarfati etc), solving any practical real-world problem using creation science or a presupposition of creation as a basis for their findings. If you think there are, please cite specific examples. Otherwise, this is again empty rhetoric.
Evo biologists are not ignorant, period; but I would say that many of them lack that aspect of knowledge that would enable them to admit the presumptive and philosophical roots of their belief system. What's "(tm)"? Nice of you to say it - however your repeated insistence that evo biologists are brainwashed, blind, etc tends to render your assurance that you don't consider them all ignorant to be somewhat hollow. And as to philosophical roots - evo biologists come in every stripe and philosophy. The only thing they have in common is they use the methods of science - methodological naturalism - to obtain their answers.
Pardon? Did you think that I regarded this scripture as a panacea for all problems? You mean you don't? That isn't immediately obvious from your postings. After all, you indict science as being a process of "blind hogism" if the scientists concerned don't include creation as a normal part of their work. Obviously, since your presupposition rests on the existence and activity of an interventionist deity which can arbitrarily modify and change the laws of nature at whim, it would seem to follow that - since the written work of your deity is the science textbook you chose to base your creationist methodology upon - you do in fact consider it the "panacea for all problems". Or are you telling us that there are problems the creation presupposition can't solve? Careful - you might get burned at the stake by your own kind...
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
As a test to the validity of this belief, I challenge you to tell me about something that is genuinely empirical in nature that creation scientists and evolution scientists disagree about (that necessarily implicates their opposing positions about ultimate origins). This is actually an easy answer. Creationist assume the Bible to be correct with respect to species diversity. If data conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible they throw it out and claim they must have done something wrong. Through this process they have thrown out almost all of their data. Evolutionists believe the data is correct and use it. Creationists use inductive reasoning in that they assume Creation without prior evidence and then look for anything at all to back it up, even if it is easily refuted. In evolution, it was the data that brought about the theory, and still supports it. This is deductive reasoning. Quite simply, creationists use inductive reasoning and evolutionists use deductive reasoning. Perhaps the question to you is what evidence is there to assume creationism as fact? Also, simply saying some scientists use evolution to further political goals does not make the theory incorrect.
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
Re: King of the Nats
OK so you DON'T know Leviticus 6:28 annd you can't be bothered to look it up. Now my argument is that on the whole the Egyptians were more advanced than the Hebrews in medicine. You haven't offered any evidence to contradict that, and your source misrepresents the Bible - and you can't even be bothered to check what the Bible really says. So what's your motivation for pushing the worship of Grant Jeffrey ?
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 130 of 169 (72825)
12-14-2003 9:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 116 by MrHambre
12-11-2003 8:03 PM
|
|
Re: King of the Nats
quote:
I haven't been able to locate any info on the Egyptians using dung for medicine.
...not exactly medicine for the sick, but... WebMD - Better information. Better health. "1850 B.C. Meet the pessary. It's the earliest contraceptive device for women. Pessaries are objects or concoctions inserted into the vagina to block or kill sperm. By 1850 B.C., Egyptians used pessaries made of crocodile dung, honey, and sodium carbonate."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 116 by MrHambre, posted 12-11-2003 8:03 PM | | MrHambre has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 131 by Abshalom, posted 12-14-2003 9:37 AM | | nator has not replied |
|
Abshalom
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 131 of 169 (72829)
12-14-2003 9:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 130 by nator
12-14-2003 9:23 AM
|
|
Re: King of the Nats
Quote: "The Papyrus Ebers, an ancient Egyptian medical transcript, contains hundreds of prescriptions for a variety of ills. It was written by a people who are historically recognized as the leaders of their time in the fields of astronomy and engineering. You would expect that their medical knowledge would be equally as great. Certainly the ancient Egyptians themselves thought so, and prided themselves on it. And yet the Papyrus Ebers, and other such texts, show their knowledge of medicine to be horribly primitive, often ineffective and even deadly. For examples: * The treatment for healing an infected splinter wound includes applying a mixture containing the blood of worms and donkey dung. Consider the many deadly diseases to be found in common donkey dung, including tetanus." Source: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7234/allsickness.html The article also comments of Moses's "medicinal" protocol and relates it to Egyptian practices of about the same time period.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 130 by nator, posted 12-14-2003 9:23 AM | | nator has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
quote:
I'm sure you thought and analyzed, but if much of what goes on in such classes these days is itself colored with a not-so-indirect bias favoring the natsian framework, then the thinking and analyzing is about "how did evolution occur," and not at all about "did evolution occur"?
So, you are saying that I thought and analysed, but just not very well, right? You know, your implication that I can't think for myself and determine what is likely to be correct is not going to win me over any time soon. The only bias I encountered in class was in favor of evidence, Martin. Positive, falsifiable evidence which is observable by anyone is the currency of science. If you don't have it, you are irrelevant.
quote:
Evolutionism is so broadly perceived (even in the context of the "science" that it claims to believe in) that virtually any blank check imagination would be hard pressed to come up with any sort of scenario that would disprove the theory, and when something is that wide open and shape-shifting, it certainly wouldn't surprise me that its subscribers would claim fulfilled "predictions."
Wrong. The Theory of Evolution is very falsifiable. It just hasn't been falsified. Big difference. See the following for a list of a number of potential falsifications of Evolutionary Theory: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent "In the following list of evidences, 30 major predictions of the hypothesis of common descent are enumerated and discussed. Under each point is a demonstration of how the prediction fares against actual biological testing. Each point lists a few examples of risky evolutionary confirmations followed by potential falsifications."
quote:
And here's what I mean about its capacity to shape-shift to any circumstance that may arise, which would prevent the philosophy from ever getting outside of its own box (so that it could recognize something contrary to their fundamental philosophy if, humor me for a moment: IF, the universe was actually created):
But what does the Universe having been created by some supernatural entity have to do with the change in the alelle frequency in a population over time?
quote:
Imagine that there has been a recent discovery of a fossilized dinosaur which contained in its huge clamped shut mouth, a like-fossilized modern-type man who was wearing a jewel-embedded ceremonial robe of sophisticated design. Imagine further that the fossilized man was curled up around and clutching an intricately etched tablet of the ten commandments, and that an ensuing investigation concluded that the like-fossilized vines that were twisted and tangled tightly around the dinosaurs jaws and other parts of its body, were discovered to be some type of extinct fruit-bearing vines, the fossilized fruit remnants of which were also discovered in the dinosaur's belly. Could this scenario undermine the theory of evolution? The truth: not in the least bit--not even if multitudes of such magnitude were discovered. No evidence could ever be concieved of that could overcome the real die-hards who represent the power structure of this thing. Of course, the pat solution to the scenario is that a then "living fossil" (dinosaur) was feeding on the said man and fruit when some kind of catastrophic condition occurred that preserved them thusly.
You are completely, utterly wrong. If your scenario was confirmed, then the ToE would be in for some serious change, possibly leading to complete overturn. Your characterisation of the entire scientific community as being as dogmatic and unchanging and closed to new understanding as your own is offensive and insulting, and actually belies your own serious misunderstanding of the very nature of science. I strongly suspect that you personally know no professional scientists, have never been to a scientific conference, and understand little of how extremely contentious the work of science actually is. NOBODY in science gets a rubber stamp of their work. Everything that is published gets picked apart with a fine-toothed comb for errors, and other scientists attempt to replicate your findings. Science is an extremely honest profession, what with lots and lots of one's collegues contantly checking your work; though extremely rare, scientists who have been discovered falsifying data basically become unemployable. No university will touch them. Scientists win Nobel prizes for overturning other scientists work. If science was as monolithically dogmatic as you say, and is willing to blatantly ignore evidence in the way you suggest, then why would we confer the highest honors to people who overturn the work of those who came before them? Of course, you have fallen prey to a false dichotomy. Just because the fossil of a man might be found eating fruit while in the jaws of a dinosaur it would not make the Bible correct in the least. The Bible stories of creation need their own positive evidence; evolution could be completely falsified tomorrow and it wouldn't make Creationism true.
quote:
Julian Huxley explained: "Improbability is to be expected as a result of natural selection; and we have the paradox that an exceedingly high apparent improbability in its products can be taken as evidence for the high degree of its efficacy."
It's absolutely correct that evolution produces outcomes which are highly improbably by chance alone. Evolution, however, is not driven by chance alone. Mutations are random, but selection is the opposite of random.
quote:
Surely either physical matter existed from eternity past without origin and somehow orchestrated itself into infinite order, or somehow nothing became everything.
What does this have to do with the change in alelle frequencies in a population over time? [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-14-2003] [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-14-2003]
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 133 of 169 (72844)
12-14-2003 1:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 80 by nator
12-08-2003 12:19 AM
|
|
A reply to message #80 in this thread, please.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 80 by nator, posted 12-08-2003 12:19 AM | | nator has not replied |
|
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 134 of 169 (72951)
12-15-2003 11:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by sidelined
12-07-2003 7:12 PM
|
|
Martin You have not answered the question here. Why (you asked) do I believe the Bible? Well, for the same reason that x-athiests, x-nats, etc. (who considered the product of the Bible, honestly, sincerely) have believed. It's not because I was raised that way. I'm aware of the rationalizations that people use to discount apologetical research, but, at the end of the day, I find that Biblical faith wins out by a long shot over all other options that are out there. While I'm not "searching" (because once one finds THE answer there's no need), I do gladly continue to learn. When pressed, nats too have an opportunity to be honest about their own supernatural beliefs:
sidelined writes: You have only answered that you do believe in the bible and that you do so for the same reason as x-atheists and x-nats. You say that the bible wins out by a long shot but not why.
You’re right about that. My answer was vague. By mentioning apologetical research, though, I had hoped to convey the idea that that offered a basis for my faith. There’s a lot of historical information that is accepted by scholars as being dependable, yet there’s some biblical historical information that is not regarded as dependable even though some of that information scores better on tests of historicity. I can be called a conspiracy monger . . . OK . . . but in my assessment of everything I looked at, I do notice such inconsistencies that I believe supports this position. Perhaps I’ll add that there is a greater reason for my faith than that, though . . . albeit, it’s not what we’d call a rational one. There’s a way of perceiving things (Biblically) whereby one has no real choice about things, including about whether or not one believes (or will believe) the Bible. If one is targeted by the work of God’s Holy Spirit and thus receives a seed of faith quite unaware, that seed will grow into an influence that is irresistible until such time that that faith is consummated by that individual’s acceptance of God’s only provision for salvation (through Jesus Christ). If you are interested in reading my more indepth response to this, see my message 6 in response to physicspete on the Welcome Visitors forum in the Does Christianity allow for a free will? section.
sidelined writes: We obviously have a paradox presented here in which you say you believe in God because the bible says so but if the book is wrong then so is the christian concept of God. No problem,you say, since to believe one looks to the bible for confirmation. (unless the natural beings are empowered for a time in order to perceive such things, as the Bible teaches). So the bible teaches you how to percieve God in order for the God of the bible to exist.Do you not see the circular reasoning here?
I’ll certainly admit that reality involves some circularity. Biblical faith is not confined to the dimension of rationality. Yes, Biblical faith transcends the scientific perspective, but that’s not to say that the God of the Bible did not call the universe into being, equipping it with all the laws of nature that scientists study. If my take on what the Bible teaches is at least somewhat accurate, empiricists might not be able to independently accept these ideas as being worth serious consideration, regardless of how much nature itself offers the lesson that time and chance alone do not qualify as candidates for universal existence. While limiting oneself to the empirical may earn one some debate points in some peoples’ minds, it won’t do a whole lot for the condition of one’s eternal soul. s: On another note you have this statement. m: Those groups part company on the unprovable things that tie into the philosophy that governs each group's belief. I'm talking about such things or processes that nats-ic scientists believe in that they can't see or experiment on in the direct sense. Why do they believe in such processes? Because the postulation of such processes provide what they call the best theoretical explanation for large bodies of data, as you alluded to. But in my view, the naturalist dilemma exists in the fact that nats are unable or unwilling to distinguish between unseen processes that can be uncontroversially extrapolated from empirical realities, and unseen processes that are inherently metaphysical in nature.
sidelined writes: You mention the reason for believing in processes that we cannot directly experience is that they provide the best theoretical explanation.This is not the only reason, they also allow us to predict phenomena that we have not yet found.This happens over and over again which is how a theory gains a greater certainty.The machines we are using here are a result of making assumptions and test them against the real world
I’m sure that each of us can present some basic (or specific) aspects of our favored models along with their correlating predictions’ success stories. Perspective is such an interesting phenomenon, don’t you think?
sidelined writes: Check out this sight and tell me what you think of the way it challenges your thinking. It is a fun sight that makes some twists that are quite unexpected. http://www.explorepdx.com/feynman.htmlLet me know what you think. But only after you have spent some time traversing the mazes it presents.
Some of this was interesting. And I’ll have to admit that some of it was also beyond my present ability to appreciate on the intellectual level. (I did get the impression that the valid information and challenges it offered, though, could be harmonized into either the natsian or the yecsian framework.) [This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-07-2003]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by sidelined, posted 12-07-2003 7:12 PM | | sidelined has not replied |
|
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 135 of 169 (72962)
12-15-2003 11:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 77 by sfs
12-07-2003 11:13 PM
|
|
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The large body of "evidence" that is intended to bolster the idea of evolutionism is itself largely theoretical. The provable stuff is just as consistent with creationism. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sfs writes: You might have a point here if your statement were true. From everything I have observed, it's not. That is, the "provable stuff", the basic data, in my field is not consistent with creationism. I'd be interested in being given an example of something that is inconsistent with the laws of nature that exist, the laws that creationists credit to the Creator. Are you going to cite some Biblical incidences when God exercised His soveriegnty over those laws He created, that represent an exception? OK, you got me. But those exceptions that occured do not interfere with the orderly universe that was created to operate according to the "laws of nature" that we may study.
sfs writes: Or at least I've never found a creationist who made even a half-hearted attempt to explain it. Perhaps you're refering to some technical questions that require a high level of expertise, that the laymen creationists you've encountered, didn't feel at all qualified to respond to. But if it's acceptable to you, I wouldn't mind mediating to a degree, any challenge to some folks I have in mind who I think would be capable of providing adequate responses, that is, just as adequate responses as you (and yours) could provide to such interactive possibilities.
sfs writes: So on the one hand I have a scientific theory, evolution, that explains and predicts lots of data that I work with every day, and on the other hand I have cretaionism, that talks a lot about presuppositions but never actually explains a damn thing. Land o' Goshen! There's so much wrong here that I find it difficult to choose a starting place for reply. I'll simplify it by reemphasizing that one's perspective, one's (yes) presuppositions are all important.
sfs writes: It seems like a no-brainer which one I should choose. If, at present, you're unable to leave your perception of the empirical perspective regardless of its limitations (its weaknesses), you may very well, eventually, be able to transend that perspective eventually (in order to see something that is even more consistent with empirical data than macro evolution).
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by sfs, posted 12-07-2003 11:13 PM | | sfs has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 136 by sfs, posted 12-15-2003 12:25 PM | | Martin J. Koszegi has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2