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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 486 of 760 (619660)
06-10-2011 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by shadow71
06-10-2011 9:35 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
Not to be a cynic but it appears Mr. Pigliucci, an active atheist apologist is in fact telling us that we need to revaulate the MS.
Newton described gravity. Newton was right.
Einstein re-described gravity. Einstein was right.
Einsteins model of gravity was more accurate and helped explain things left out by Newton.
However, without Newton's work, Einstein's work could not be done.
That is the nature of science.
Darwin's original model for evolution is incomplete. It's WAY better than what was there before.
There have been several tweaks in the 150 years since this.
There will be more tweaks to come.
However, none of the tweaks reverses existing models. The evidence doesn't change.
Creationism requires a radical change in the evidence. That's why it continues to fail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by shadow71, posted 06-10-2011 9:35 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 500 by shadow71, posted 06-12-2011 4:59 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 503 of 760 (619850)
06-12-2011 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 500 by shadow71
06-12-2011 4:59 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
Creationism does not require a radical change.
LOL. You can not be serious.
ALL of science is based on one great assumption: "Reality is real"
In order to adopt Creationism, you must void that assumption.
Doing so completely undoes EVERYTHING that science has ever done. Every experiment, every observation, every discovery, every tool, every measurement, every invention, every deduction. All of it - gone.
If Creationism is correct, then when flipping a coin 1,000 times, instead of getting roughly 50% heads and 50% tails, you are just as likely to get a donkey appearing in mid-air.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by shadow71, posted 06-12-2011 4:59 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 507 by shadow71, posted 06-12-2011 7:29 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 516 by shadow71, posted 06-13-2011 4:25 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 508 of 760 (619863)
06-12-2011 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 507 by shadow71
06-12-2011 7:29 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
The assumption that "reality is real" has nothing to do with how evoultion came about or how it works.
If evolution is in fact planned by a Creator, how does this change how Science investigates what has and is happening.
If the Unvierse and all in it was created by a Supernatural Being, that does not in any way negate the scientific findings.
It only negates the belief of SECULAR HUMANISM that decrees all scientific findings must be natural, not Supernatural.
So "Reality is real" is not affected by whether it is created by a Supernatural Being, or it started by natural means.
This assertion is only valid IF your claim is that the Universe was created by a "supernatural being" who then had absolutely no further interaction whatsoever.
In which case, the assertion is also useless.
It's exactly as valid as this claim: "I, Nuggin, created the Universe and everything in it exactly the way it is."
You can neither prove nor disprove that.
You might as well claim that the Universe was created by a supernatural being which was first created by the Universe. Equally worthless assertion.
Now, if you are asserting that there is a supernatural wizard, that he created the Universe and then had ANY interaction with it whatsoever, then you must completely void "reality is real".
You must accept that at any given moment, the outcome of any given event, is basically completely random. Nothing is predictable at all.
This cosmic wizard can step in at ANY TIME, in ANY WAY, and do ANYTHING. Flick a light switch, an elephant appears in your pocket. Totally possible under your new rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by shadow71, posted 06-12-2011 7:29 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 523 of 760 (619999)
06-13-2011 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 516 by shadow71
06-13-2011 4:25 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
Why would the fact that evolution is planned by a Creator invalidate date all of the evolutionary scientific findings?
I explained this earlier, but I'll repeat myself for clarity.
If you are assertion is that there is a Creator who made the Universe as is, then was completely hands off - then your assertion does not violate science, however it is also completely worthless.
Saying "The Universe was created by a wizard" is no different than saying it was created by a Unicorn or a gnome. Or that there were 50 wizards. Or that it was an accident. Or on purpose.
So long as all those assertions take place prior to the Big Bang, and do not extend into actual reality, they mean nothing.
If, however, your assertion is that there is a Wizard and that Wizard interacts with reality in ANY WAY - guiding/causing/preventing things from happening - then there are some pretty heavy consequences.
Accepting that there is a magical wizard who is unbound by any rules, and is infinitely capable and completely unknowable, means that there is NO PREDICTABLE OUTCOME for ANYTHING EVER.
It means that at ANY TIME this wizard can suddenly cause a completely UNPREDICTABLE outcome to occur.
It means that NO DATA ever collected, no evidence ever found, no reasoning or logic, no observation, none of it - has any value whatsoever.
It means that ALL outcomes (both rational and irrational) and completely valid potential results of ALL actions.
You eat a sandwich, therefore Niagra Falls turns to fire.
You have exact change at the drive thru, France gets turned into a marshmallow.
Accepting that there is a force with limitless power interacting with the universe in completely irrational ways means that NOTHING humanity has ever done could have occurred.
It's a wildly ridiculous notion which would require literally abandoning everything as though it never happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by shadow71, posted 06-13-2011 4:25 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 557 by shadow71, posted 06-16-2011 12:33 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 524 of 760 (620000)
06-13-2011 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by Wounded King
06-13-2011 4:56 PM


Re: Define your terms
I think this runs into a definitional issue of what exactly everyone means by macroevolution.
The increasing complexity of side programs used within Microsoft Word.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by Wounded King, posted 06-13-2011 4:56 PM Wounded King has seen this message but not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 559 of 760 (620430)
06-16-2011 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 557 by shadow71
06-16-2011 12:33 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
can you tell me what there was, what existed before the Big bang?
Nope, but that doesn't mean that Jews are *magic*.
Lacking a particular piece of knowledge does NOT mean that fairy tales are real.
Religion is for the intellectually lazy. It was invented to shut up the kid that says "why?".
Smart kid: "Why is fire hot?"
Dump parent: "I don't know, because God says so, that's why. Shut up"
Anyway this whole deflection does NOTHING to invalidate my point that your position requires that EVERYTHING is completely random and unpredictable.
You believe that ANY OUTCOME is possible from ANY event.
Start your car and a gold hippo will fall from the sky. PERFECTLY REASONABLE result in your model of the Universe. Nothing to even scratch your head at.
Can you point to a SINGLE event that backs up this belief system? Something that really happened, not something out of a fairy tale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by shadow71, posted 06-16-2011 12:33 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 561 of 760 (620432)
06-16-2011 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by zi ko
06-16-2011 12:37 PM


Re: Better theories?
What he is only saying (no what he is having in the back of his head) is only that evolution is information driven. If you think this is uncientific, you have to say why.
Because science is extremely specific with its vocabulary.
The people making this claim have no definition of "information", no means of testing "information", no examples of "information".
They have basically just said, "If we can't say God did it, then lets just call God 'information'. Maybe that's science."
It's not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by zi ko, posted 06-16-2011 12:37 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 608 by zi ko, posted 06-25-2011 11:20 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 609 of 760 (621378)
06-25-2011 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 608 by zi ko
06-25-2011 11:20 AM


Re: Better theories?
Is this your way to serve science by distorting others sayings? So information = God!!! !!!. Great!
Notice that my complaint is a that your side of the debate is a lack of definition for the word "information".
Your response does not provide a definition. It just accuses me of distorting what you are saying.
Really? Am I? In what way? How about you provide a working definition for "information" complete with examples and some method of testing.
Then detail exactly how it is different from the word "God".
Or, you could just reply again with the same lame "you're being mean" post and we'll know you've got nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 608 by zi ko, posted 06-25-2011 11:20 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 623 by zi ko, posted 06-26-2011 10:22 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 625 of 760 (621498)
06-26-2011 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 623 by zi ko
06-26-2011 10:22 AM


Re: Better theories?
Definition of information:
Data that (1) has been verified to be accurate and timely, (2) is specific and organized for a purpose, (3) is presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and (4) that can lead to an increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty.
The value of information lies solely in its ability to affect a behavior, decision, or outcome. A piece of information is considered valueless if, after receiving it, things remain unchanged. For a technical definition of information see information theory.
Fantastic. Now pick one of the four definitions, put it in context of information theory and explain how exactly that applies to Jewish Wizard Magic and we're off to the races.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 623 by zi ko, posted 06-26-2011 10:22 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 626 by zi ko, posted 06-26-2011 2:27 PM Nuggin 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