Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   Searching for Truth with a Broken Flashlight
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 27 (584894)
10-04-2010 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jeff Davis
10-03-2010 3:09 PM


Most likely Hawley would agree with this quote from Robert J. Schneider's essay "HUMAN EVOLUTION AND THE IMAGE OF GOD"
quote:
I have learned to patiently keep on explaining that neither Darwin nor any other scientist studying human evolution has ever asserted that humans are descended from apes. What all have said is that the hominids, which include our species Homo sapiens, and the other primates, to which the family of the great apes belong, diverged from a common ancestor millions of years ago.
I doubt that someone who is disturbed by claims the we came from apes would find much comfort in even common ancestry with chimps.
About the only one of these that I find interesting is the following
quote:
-Belief in an infallible and inerrant Bible actually allows for the acceptance of biological evolution and common ancestry
My guess is that Hawley's interpretation of the Bible is non-literal (he does not indicate a literal reading) or that he does read the bible literally but sees some areas where the Bible is not as specific as literalistic YEC proponents suggest.
The following I found to be just a play on words.
quote:
-Gravity is not a fact and equally surprising is that it never will be. It, along with evolution, is an explanation based upon facts and verified through testing, i.e., a theory.
Gravity is both fact (apples do fall toward the center of the earth) and theory (general relativity). I suspect that most non scientists are familiar with the fact of gravity and would feel that they were being toyed with.
I'm probably not curious enough to buy Hawley's book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jeff Davis, posted 10-03-2010 3:09 PM Jeff Davis has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 27 (584895)
10-04-2010 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Rahvin
10-04-2010 12:05 PM


Not Monkeys
We aren't monkeys, but apes. Monkeys are not apes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Rahvin, posted 10-04-2010 12:05 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2010 2:54 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 18 of 27 (584902)
10-04-2010 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by NoNukes
10-04-2010 2:45 PM


Re: Not Monkeys
We aren't monkeys, but apes. Monkeys are not apes.
Correct.
In one of my evolution classes the professor described the common ancestor of apes and monkeys as an "ape-toothed monkey." From there the monkey and ape branches diverged considerably from one another to form the modern critters.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2010 2:45 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 27 (584903)
10-04-2010 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jeff Davis
10-04-2010 2:43 PM


Jeff Davis writes:
What does the author mean by the creationists' global flood/sedimentary rocks argument coming from a teenager's vision? ...or will you merely "f" bomb again?
I took it to mean that Hawley does not believe there was a global or even a near global flood a few thousand years ago, and that Hawley believes Bible to be consistent with a local flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jeff Davis, posted 10-04-2010 2:43 PM Jeff Davis has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 20 of 27 (584910)
10-04-2010 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jeff Davis
10-04-2010 12:09 PM


Monkeys and Manuscripts
Hi Jeff,
You have a lot on your plate already, so I thought I would just address a couple of points. I hope Bluejay doesn't mind my cutting in.
Hawley writes:
Biological evolution does not say we came from monkeys or chimps.
Bluejay writes:
No, it doesn’t. But, the evidence does. This is only a way to comfort people who want to accept evolution but also want to believe that humans didn’t evolve.
Jeff Davis writes:
Sadly, you are wrong. The evidence conforms to Hawley's comment.
A number of people have mentioned this already, but you don't seem to want to hear the fact that Hawley is wrong here. We are evolved from monkeys, or at least, from creatures very like monkeys.
We are not evolved from chimps. Chimps and humans diverged long after (chimps+humans+other apes) diverged from monkeys.
We are not evolved from modern monkeys. Modern monkeys and apes do share common ancestry though. That common ancestor would not be any species of monkey living today. It would though, have been a small, tailed primate very much like a modern monkey. In short, it seems reasonable to call such a creature a monkey. It was a small, tailed primate; not a lemur. That pretty much makes it a monkey. It would certainly have looked enough like a monkey that no layman could hope to tell it apart from one.
If we could summon up the last common ancestor of modern humans, apes and monkeys and put it in a zoo, it would belong in the monkey house. All the evidence - fossil, genetic, whatever - confirms this view.
Your Mr Hawley has got the wrong end of the stick.
Jeff writes:
I will make one quick comment, Darwin never used the word "evolution" in his first four editions and only in his last edition did he use the word "evolved".
You are wrong. The following text is from the 1859 First Edition of Origin;
Charles Darwin writes:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms, most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
That's the 1859 edition remember. If you doubt me, you can look it up right here;
http://darwin-online.org.uk/..._PC-Virginia-Francis-F373.pdf
Now this strikes me as a fairly trivial point. Nonetheless, you seem to be very stubborn about it. You're wrong mate. Hawley was wrong. Accept it. Get over it.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : For want of a comma...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jeff Davis, posted 10-04-2010 12:09 PM Jeff Davis has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 21 of 27 (584917)
10-04-2010 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jeff Davis
10-04-2010 12:09 PM


Hi, Jeff.
Just so you know: I’m not the one going around indiscriminately giving you 1’s for all your messages: I don’t see that you’ve done anything particularly bad.
Although, I think this topic is quickly going to become a debate everything about evolution/creation simultaneously in short blurbs thread. Maybe we should plan on using some of these points as prompts to start new threads.
Jeff Davis writes:
Many creationists tout this, so Hawley is merely letting a less educated public know this.
Best to avoid the matter altogether: by trying to set the record straight about what Darwin did or didn’t say, Hawley is just reinforcing the stupid notion that scientists treat Darwin as their prophet or holy man. In actuality, if Darwin were alive today, we’d probably all want to debate with him, rather than gather around and hear his words of wisdom.
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
Bluejay writes:
quote:
Biological evolution does not say we came from monkeys or chimps.
No, it doesn’t. But, the evidence does. This is only a way to comfort people who want to accept evolution but also want to believe that humans didn’t evolve.
Sadly, you are wrong. The evidence conforms to Hawley's comment.
A semantic point, at best. It depends on what you want to call a monkey. I would certainly argue that the first animals that began evolving in the direction of apes would have been best described as monkeys.
But, the theory doesn’t say this: the evidence does.
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
It looks to me like his target audience are Christians who've had a science education from their religious leaders. In view of this, I'm sure this is not trivial.
You don’t think Darwin’s word choice is trivial? What he called it has no bearing on what it was. Frankly, I don’t see what difference it would make if even evolutionary biologists went the rest of their lives not realizing that Darwin didn’t use the word evolution.
The only response to these kind of arguments is to ask, Who cares? Otherwise, it’s still just feeding the notion that we think of Darwin as some kind of holy man.
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
Bluejay writes:
quote:
The Genesis phrase, And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind, perfectly matches macroevolution. In other words, macroevolution is actually evolution "within" kinds.
...unless, of course, the definition of macroevolution is taken to mean evolution between kinds, as is often the case.
The problem is, science rejects your definition.
It’s not my definition: it’s creationists’ definition.
What he’s saying is that all evolution is still evolution within kinds, which is not correct, because, interpreted properly, macroevolution indicates that there is no evidence that kinds even exist, which undermines his point that baraminology and macroevolution perfectly match.
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
Bluejay writes:
Furthermore, God made the beasts... doesn’t perfectly match The beasts evolved... anyway.
Oh, contraire. First, why would an ancient document even use the word "evolved". Second, from a theistic evolutionist perspective, God did make the beasts but used biological evolution as one of his tools.
First, it’s au contraire (it’s French).
Second, did you catch that Hawley’s page says God made the beasts... perfectly matches macroevolution? That match is far from perfect, even if it can be argued to be a match at all: the
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
Bluejay writes:
There are so many conflicting views on what a fact is and what a theory is, that any position you take on this issue is largely semantic.
Oh contraire again. There is no conflicing view about these words in the scientific community, and this is obviously the one he is referring to.
I happen to be a professional member of the scientific community, and I can state with considerable certainty that you are very wrong. In philosophy, they make a big deal about what counts as knowledge, what counts as fact, and what counts as theory; but, in science, most of us really aren’t all that fussy.
Some people say fact refers only to the data you collect (e.g., turtle specimen #122 weighs 0.718 kg).
Some people say that evolution is both a fact and a theory (e.g., it is a fact that things evolve, and the Theory of Evolution is our best explanation for how they evolve).
Some people, like myself, argue that gravity is not actually a theory at all, but just a pattern of observations that lacks a theory-level explanation (space-time curvature is, I think, the best hypothesis currently available).
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
quote:
Scripture reveals the exact height of Noah’s flood, Fifteen cubits (only 22 feet) upward did the waters prevail (Gen 7:20), which is in exact accordance with Orthodox Jewish interpretation and archaeology.
In 2,900 BC, a major river flood destroyed the southern city states of Sumeria. The two rivers were the Tigris and Euphrates. Twenty two feet would be appropriate for a river flood. This is in accordance to archaeology, so I bet this is what he's getting at.
If this is all he meant, then I guess I’ll retract my complaint.
But, when someone says, X is in accordance with archaeology, the insinuation is that the field of archaeology agrees with X (i.e., Noah’s flood was only 22 feet high), and not that there is evidence for something similar to X (i.e., we found evidence of a 22-foot-high flood in Sumeria). It’s misleading, at the least.
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
I'm sure this comment relates to flood geology claimed by all young earth creationists. It does show who his target audience is.
That doesn’t give him the right to call all layered sedimentary rocks a proof of Flood geology or to say that it was dreamed up by a teenage prophet poser.
And, the guy who found that Taq polymerase makes PCR practical and more useful for scientists spent much of his time on LSD because it reportedly made him see more clearly. This doesn’t change the fact that Taq polymerase actually works.
Arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, and not on the personal flaws of the people who come up with them. For some reason, Hawley (along with many other creationists/IDists) apparently has not figured this out yet.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jeff Davis, posted 10-04-2010 12:09 PM Jeff Davis has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 22 of 27 (584918)
10-04-2010 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jeff Davis
10-04-2010 12:09 PM


Hi, Jeff.
Just so you know: I’m not the one going around indiscriminately giving you 1’s for all your messages: I don’t see that you’ve done anything particularly bad.
Although, I think this topic is quickly going to become a debate everything about evolution/creation simultaneously in short blurbs thread. Maybe we should plan on using some of these points as prompts to start new threads.
Jeff Davis writes:
Many creationists tout this, so Hawley is merely letting a less educated public know this.
Best to avoid the matter altogether: by trying to set the record straight about what Darwin did or didn’t say, Hawley is just reinforcing the stupid notion that scientists treat Darwin as their prophet or holy man. In actuality, if Darwin were alive today, we’d probably all want to debate with him, rather than gather around and hear his words of wisdom.
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
Bluejay writes:
quote:
Biological evolution does not say we came from monkeys or chimps.
No, it doesn’t. But, the evidence does. This is only a way to comfort people who want to accept evolution but also want to believe that humans didn’t evolve.
Sadly, you are wrong. The evidence conforms to Hawley's comment.
A semantic point, at best. It depends on what you want to call a monkey. I would certainly argue that the first animals that began evolving in the direction of apes would have been best described as monkeys.
But, the theory doesn’t say this: the evidence does.
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
It looks to me like his target audience are Christians who've had a science education from their religious leaders. In view of this, I'm sure this is not trivial.
You don’t think Darwin’s word choice is trivial? What he called it has no bearing on what it was. Frankly, I don’t see what difference it would make if even evolutionary biologists went the rest of their lives not realizing that Darwin didn’t use the word evolution.
The only response to these kind of arguments is to ask, Who cares? Otherwise, it’s still just feeding the notion that we think of Darwin as some kind of holy man.
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
Bluejay writes:
quote:
The Genesis phrase, And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind, perfectly matches macroevolution. In other words, macroevolution is actually evolution "within" kinds.
...unless, of course, the definition of macroevolution is taken to mean evolution between kinds, as is often the case.
The problem is, science rejects your definition.
It’s not my definition: it’s creationists’ definition.
What he’s saying is that all evolution is still evolution within kinds, which is not correct, because, interpreted properly, macroevolution indicates that there is no evidence that kinds even exist, which undermines his point that baraminology and macroevolution perfectly match.
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
Bluejay writes:
Furthermore, God made the beasts... doesn’t perfectly match The beasts evolved... anyway.
Oh, contraire. First, why would an ancient document even use the word "evolved". Second, from a theistic evolutionist perspective, God did make the beasts but used biological evolution as one of his tools.
First, it’s au contraire (it’s French).
Second, did you catch that Hawley’s page says God made the beasts... perfectly matches macroevolution? That match is far from perfect, even if it can be argued to be a match at all.
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
Bluejay writes:
There are so many conflicting views on what a fact is and what a theory is, that any position you take on this issue is largely semantic.
Oh contraire again. There is no conflicing view about these words in the scientific community, and this is obviously the one he is referring to.
I happen to be a professional member of the scientific community, and I can state with considerable certainty that you are very wrong. In philosophy, they make a big deal about what counts as knowledge, what counts as fact, and what counts as theory; but, in science, most of us really aren’t all that fussy.
Some people say fact refers only to the data you collect (e.g., turtle specimen #122 weighs 0.718 kg).
Some people say that evolution is both a fact and a theory (e.g., it is a fact that things evolve, and the Theory of Evolution is our best explanation for how they evolve).
Some people, like myself, argue that gravity is not actually a theory at all, but just a pattern of observations that lacks a theory-level explanation (space-time curvature is, I think, the best hypothesis currently available).
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
quote:
Scripture reveals the exact height of Noah’s flood, Fifteen cubits (only 22 feet) upward did the waters prevail (Gen 7:20), which is in exact accordance with Orthodox Jewish interpretation and archaeology.
In 2,900 BC, a major river flood destroyed the southern city states of Sumeria. The two rivers were the Tigris and Euphrates. Twenty two feet would be appropriate for a river flood. This is in accordance to archaeology, so I bet this is what he's getting at.
If this is all he meant, then I guess I’ll retract my complaint.
But, when someone says, X is in accordance with archaeology, the insinuation is that the field of archaeology agrees with X (i.e., Noah’s flood was only 22 feet high), and not that there is evidence for something similar to X (i.e., we found evidence of a 22-foot-high flood in Sumeria). It’s misleading, at the least.
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
I'm sure this comment relates to flood geology claimed by all young earth creationists. It does show who his target audience is.
That doesn’t give him the right to call all layered sedimentary rocks a proof of Flood geology or to say that it was dreamed up by a teenage prophet poser.
And, the guy who found that Taq polymerase makes PCR practical and more useful for scientists spent much of his time on LSD because it reportedly made him see more clearly. This doesn’t change the fact that Taq polymerase actually works.
Arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, and not on the personal flaws of the people who come up with them. For some reason, Hawley (along with many other creationists/IDists) apparently has not figured this out yet.
-----
My assessment is that Hawley---while good-intentioned and helpful---is still making the same fundamental errors that the creationism/IDism movement in general makes. To use his metaphor, he is still using the same broken flashlight he claims other creationists are using: he's just pointing it in different directions.
Edited by Bluejay, : Addition at the end.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jeff Davis, posted 10-04-2010 12:09 PM Jeff Davis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 10-05-2010 12:21 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 23 of 27 (584937)
10-04-2010 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jeff Davis
10-03-2010 3:09 PM


Survival Of The Fittest
-Charles Darwin never used the word "evolution" in Origin of Species nor did he use the phrase, survival of the fittest.
Darwin did not use the phrase "survival of the fittest" in the first edition, but in later editions (certainly in the sixth edition) he had adopted it from Spencer, who coined it. From chapter III:
I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient.
And in the same edition, he has actually retitled chapter IV: "NATURAL SELECTION; OR THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jeff Davis, posted 10-03-2010 3:09 PM Jeff Davis has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 27 (585000)
10-05-2010 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Blue Jay
10-04-2010 3:51 PM


Bluejay writes:
gravity is not actually a theory at all, but just a pattern of observations that lacks a theory-level explanation (space-time curvature is, I think, the best hypothesis currently available).
Are you saying that general relativity is not a theory level explanation of gravity? I find that opinion surprising. I've never heard GR being called anything but a theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Blue Jay, posted 10-04-2010 3:51 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Blue Jay, posted 10-06-2010 3:44 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 25 of 27 (585009)
10-05-2010 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jeff Davis
10-03-2010 3:09 PM


I've already tackled the point about on Flood Geology. Her's another to check on:
quote:
-Scripture reveals the exact height of Noah’s flood, Fifteen cubits (only 22 feet) upward did the waters prevail (Gen 7:20), which is in exact accordance with Orthodox Jewish interpretation and archaeology.
Perhaps we should look at Genesis 7:20 in context, using some major translations:
NASB:
19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.
So not 15 cubits here. 15 cubits higher than the mountains.
NIV:
19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.
20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.
Again, 15 cubits higher than the mountains.
NKJV:
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.
20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.
Again, the 15 cubits is not the height of the waters, it is the increase in height after the "mountains" or "high hills" are covered.
It's looking as if Hawley is intentionally ignoring the context given by Genesis 7:19.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jeff Davis, posted 10-03-2010 3:09 PM Jeff Davis has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 26 of 27 (585211)
10-06-2010 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by NoNukes
10-05-2010 12:21 AM


Hi, NoNukes.
NoNukes writes:
Are you saying that general relativity is not a theory level explanation of gravity?
So, I'm not a gravity expert, of course. But, my understanding is that GR describes a relationship between the curvature of space-time and momentum, but doesn't actually give a mechanism to explain this relationship.
Like Newtonian physics before it, it's a formula that usually yields the correct answer, but we don't really know why. And, we also don't really know why it breaks down in certain situations.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 10-05-2010 12:21 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Jeff Davis
Junior Member (Idle past 4918 days)
Posts: 29
Joined: 09-05-2010


Message 27 of 27 (585512)
10-08-2010 2:35 PM


Creation Science's Dirty Little Secret
I just got my copy of his book. It's not like I thought. It's main theme is Thomas Aquinas' general revelation and special revelation discussion and he calls it dual revelation.
Here's the dirty little secret. Almost all young earth creationists embrace Henry Morris's flood geology where the sedimentary rocks are remnant global flood deposits. Morris actually borrowed it from early 20th century creationist George Mcready Price, yet did not acknowledge that in his 1961 book. He finally acknowledged it in the 1980s. In his 1961 book, he deceptively claims he got this info from ancient writers, such as Augustine. What people do not know is Price was a Seventh Day Adventice and Price came up with this brand of flood geology from his spiritual role model Seventh Day Adventice co-founder Ellen White. In her teenage years, she had a vision that God took her back in time to the flood to watch and she then exclaimed God told her fossils and the rocks were proof of this.
The significance of this is that almost ALL young earth creationists pin their entire "science" upon this particular flood geology. I'm sure none of them know it came from a teenage seventh day adventist.
best,
Edited by Jeff Davis, : No reason given.
Edited by Jeff Davis, : No reason given.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024