Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-14-2017 5:00 AM
336 online now:
CosmicChimp, frako, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie, Tangle (6 members, 330 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,107 Year: 28,713/21,208 Month: 779/1,847 Week: 154/475 Day: 1/46 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56789
10
Author Topic:   Nature belongs to ID
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2171
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 136 of 146 (663285)
05-22-2012 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Vanessa
05-22-2012 6:45 PM


Re: work in progress
Vanessa writes:

I refute the current explanation because I know a better one. In the 1980s in the Far East I learned a different explanation of evolution. A compelling and clever theory that did not rely on meteor strikes or mutations as mechanisms of development.

As others here have stated, you must be able to actually tell us what this purportedly superior theory is before you can expect anyone to become an adherent.

Or in simple English words - put up or shut up, or in Missouri words "show me" that's the way it works here, that's the way it works in science, that's the way it works in grad school.

Deal with it.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Vanessa, posted 05-22-2012 6:45 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.0


(2)
Message 137 of 146 (663286)
05-23-2012 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Vanessa
05-22-2012 6:45 PM


Dope dreams or what?
In the 1980s in the Far East I learned a different explanation of evolution. A compelling and clever theory...

Without details and evidence, how are we to judge this "different explanation?"

For all we know, from what you have provided, it could be no more than...


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Vanessa, posted 05-22-2012 6:45 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13368
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 138 of 146 (663290)
05-23-2012 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Vanessa
05-22-2012 6:45 PM


Re: work in progress
quote:

This is exactly what I want.

I have to say that it does not appear to be the case. In fact it seems to be very much not the case. We haven't seen you offer any good reasons to think that your claims are true.

quote:

I refute the current explanation because I know a better one. In the 1980s in the Far East I learned a different explanation of evolution. A compelling and clever theory that did not rely on meteor strikes or mutations as mechanisms of development. It is based on evidence and rational argument. It made predictions which at the time did not seem possible, yet they have come true and continue to do so. I argue from a position of knowledge. I think there is something better because there is.

If it is "better" in the sense of better explaining the evidence then you need to actually support that claim. You certainly haven't done so in this thread. And despite your claim to argue "from a position of knowledge" you seem to know very little about the relevant biology (to the point of failing to even understand even a simple Mendelian view of genes).

If the question is about "what is" and not what you personally like, then an understanding of biology and an understanding of the evidence is absolutely necessary to argue from a position of knowledge. You can't be in a position to claim that your preferred theory fits better with the evidence without the understanding needed to adequately evaluate how it fits with the evidence.

quote:

know the theory I heard 25 years ago may be false, but it clearly demonstrates that an alternative is possible. I have only been on this site a couple of weeks. I did not intend to explain the theory I heard, I came here because I was dismayed that the current theory of arbitrary events is purported to be the only possible scientific explanation. This is arrogant and deeply misleading to people who trust in science. As I do.

Let us be honest, simply hearing a view that you like and which makes sense to you is not sufficient to conclude that that idea is scientifically viable. You should not expect us to believe that your preferred "theory" is scientific just on your say-so.

I would suggest, indeed, that the arrogance is largely yours. Like the vast majority of anti-evolutionists I have observed you seem to start with the belief that your opinions are correct and reality has to agree.

I can say with a great degree of confidence that there is at present no scientifically viable alternative to the current theory of evolution considered broadly. Certainly there is still a lot of refinement to do but at present there is no great evidential challenge, nor any sign of there being one. This is not arrogance, it is an honest assessment of the facts - and if I am not an expert, at least I have a better understanding of the evidence and the support of the overwhelming majority of experts.

You on the other hand, assume that we must accept your opinion that there are scientifically viable alternatives as unquestionably true despite being unable to even offer an example for evaluation or showing an understanding of the relevant science.

In short, you are simply indulging in personal attacks here instead of supporting your claim. And if you cannot support your claim, then you are quite definitely being arrogant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Vanessa, posted 05-22-2012 6:45 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3028
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 139 of 146 (663292)
05-23-2012 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Vanessa
05-22-2012 5:47 PM


Re: work in progress
I also participate in a C programming forum where programmers, mainly beginners and students, come asking for help. It still mystifies me, but one beginner after the other just says that their program doesn't work and we need to solve it for them right away, "whaa!" No explanation what they mean by "it doesn't work" and sometimes they don't even post their code. From the very beginning, they try to force us to play guessing games with them, which we, working professionals having to work far too many hours and with very precious little time to spare, do not have any patience with.

So far here, I see you not being very forthright and forcing us to play guessing games with you. OK, maybe there are more members here with enough spare time to have patience with your guessing games, but I don't think you should count on that. If you have something to say, then you should say it! If you have a point to make, then you should make it! If you have something to present, then you should present it! And then be ready and willing to discuss it.

I also started with this "issue" (since it's a creationist fabrication) in the 1980's, circa 1981 to be exact. Sure, I first encountered creationism circa 1970 when, as a fundamentalist "fellow traveller", I first encountered the general assertion about scientific evidence for the Truth of Genesis (eg, 6,000-year-old earth, Noah's Flood) and two specific claims, one of which I immediately identified as totally bogus (that in preparation for the moon mission a NASA computer calculated the moon's position back for thousands of years and then back again, coming up one day short, which was accounted for by "Joshua's Lost Day" -- obviously and totally bogus since it attributed to computers clairvoyant powers which are clearly impossible; even several Christian sites also refute that bogus claim) and the claim of living fresh-water molluscs being carbon-dated as thousands of years old (OK, I was just plain skeptical, but that also turned out to be bogus, since those molluscs were in water from limestone springs, so their shells were made out of "old carbon" as was pointed out by the source article; this is the well-known "reservoir effect", in which organisms feed off of old sources of carbon rather than from the atmosphere).

But then circa 1981, I saw posters at the university of an upcoming creationist presentation (complete with a Chick Pubs' graphic; yes, I had also read the original Big Daddy? back in 1970, but now we only have the remake purportedly authored by Kent Hovind). I had completely rejected creationism in 1970, so what was my reaction to those posters? "Wow! They're still around? They must have something going for them after all! I wonder what that is!" Unfortunately, I had duty that evening, so I could not attend, but I started researching and reading and studying. And the more that I looked into their claims, the more I saw that they were still bogus. In response to a request around 1990, I wrote my history down and have reposted it at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/warum.html ("warum" is German, my second language, for "why?"). One event I vividly remember (and described on that page) was a show on fundamentalist Pat Robertson's old Christian Broadcasting Network which frequently held debates. This one night, it was a debate between a creationist and an "evolutionist" (in quotes, because that term is a creationist invention which is overloaded with all kinds of perjoratives that are unknown by their opponents who accept the label). The "evolutionist" presented photos of several hominid fossils, all of which the creationist declared to be "100% ape, nothing human about them!" Then he showed a human and a chimp pelvis. From two different angles, both pelvises were very distinctly different; there was no way at all that you could mistake one for the other, they were that very distinctly different. Then he showed a hominid pelvis. From the one angle, it was very definitely human, but from the other angle, it was very definitely ape. What was the creationist's response? He completely ignored the human-appearing angle and concentrated completely and solely on the ape-appearing angle and declared it to be "100% ape, nothing human about it!" Just like that Christian woman you described. Just like you. That one scene told me everything I ever needed to know about creationism.

But despite that, I continued to study. The next half decade was spent reading and learning. In 1984, just by chance I learned about the Committees of Correspondence and of the National Center for Science Education, became a member, and obtained the back issues of their two publications. I also learned of Bill Thwaites' and Frank Awbrey's truly honest "two-model class" at San Diego State University -- half the classes were taught by leading creationists from the then-nearby Institute for Creation Research (ICR, quite literally the guys who wrote the book on "creation science" and "Flood Geology") followed by Thwaite and Awbrey's lectures on the same subject matter; I ordered from the university bookstore a copy of their class notes. In face of the actual facts, creationism never had a chance. Campus Christian clubs demonstrated against the class and eventually under that pressure the university had to discontinue the class. For all their push for "balanced-treatment", creationism still required a creationist teacher to promote it; when dealt with honestly and truthfully (Hey, you're a big advocate for the truth, right?), creationist doesn't have a prayer *.

Even though I had a lot of experience as a "fellow traveller" (revisit mid-1950's McCarthyism if you need a reference, or just simply ask me) in the early 1970's when the "Jesus Freak" movement was at its zenith **, after that I drifted out of touch as I moved on.

Next I remember was circa 1977 or 1978. I had been assigned to Grand Forks Air Force Base in July 1977 (Base Chaplain's introductory joke: "There are indeed four seasons in North Dakota: June, July, August, and Winter" and, foolish us, we believed that that was a joke.) My wife and I had only one car between us, with 15-to-28 miles from base to habitation, depending on the exact timing, so I was stuck on base, in the rec center, waiting for whatever duty I had had assigned that day. One mindless TV show after another. There was a show going on wherein people were tossing frisbees to each other from one amusement park ride to another. So someone asked if he could change the channel and nobody nay'd.

This religious broadcast was absolutely classic. The preacher presented a situation. You (personally) are invited to be a member of a meeting of members of every single different religious group. Everybody in that group presents his own case. Your own case (as per the preacher's perspective) is that your own presentation is GOD'S OWN INVIOLABLE WORD while everybody else's is just stupid shit.

I remember sitting there that morning in that rec center TV room. As soon as that Christian evangelist speaker said that, my reaction was "what the fricking, fucking, frak did that idiot just say?" That had to have been the most idiotic thing that I had ever heard! But then I looked around me. And I didn't see any body who was able to realize what idiocy we had just witnessed.

After that point, it wasn't until 1981 that I allowed myself to again become aware of the resident idiocy.

After the mid-1980's, posting on CompuServe for several years, Yahoo Groups, and elsewhere, I have posted continuously.

Since the "1980's", what have you done?


{* FOOTNOTE:
Very first broadcast of the TV series, M*A*S*H, involved a boxing match being set up between I Corps' reigning champion and 4077's own Trapper John. As reported by Radar (from decades of memory):
Radar: A jeep got in his way. He punched it.
Trapper John: He punched a jeep?
Radar: He knocked it out!

As Trapper John is training, he asks for advice from Father Mulcahy ("Dago Red" in the original movie and book, by one "Richard Hooker", an obvious pseudo-nym), who had coached boxing previously (yet again quoted from decades-old memory):
Mulcahy: A prayer.
Trapper John: A prayer?
Mulcahy: You haven't got one.
}

{** FOOTNOTE:
"Jesus Freak". When you live through something, you don't always understand the entire history. Mid-to-late-1960's was pretty much the age of the hippies. Growth of mysticism, which later became "New Age" was part of that, as well as use of certain drugs. A "freak" was somebody who used drugs -- a "straight" was somebody who wasn't a "freak"; one of several ways in which terminology has changed. At the end of the 1960's and into the 1970's, many hippies burned out on that drug-fueled life-style and they started to gravitate towards Christian fundamentalism. A fringe (at best) religious group suddenly found itself being flooded with new converts. It has been described here years ago (meaning that I cannot find that post now) that historically those churches only had to train those born into the faith, so they had a study plan lasting for decades in place, but with this incredible mass of new converts to bring up to speed immediately, those churches had to abandon their tried-and-true study plans and replace them with pick-and-choose sound-bites.

OK, at first, "Jesus freak" was apparently intended to be perjorative, but the new converts readily adopted that label for themselves, so it's no longer perjorative. And at first in the early 1970's, normals were being constantly accosted by "Jesus Freaks" intent on proselytizing and converting, a cultural experience which I am sure is the general public's source of aversion to "true Christians" -- they want to whine and complain that nobody likes them, well, duh!, when all you ever do is to attack the beliefs of others and to be as offensive as possible, duh????.

Currently, my sister and her husband are members of Chuck Smith's Calvary Church which in Orange County, Calif, was the center of "Jesus Freak" activity four decades ago. I am reminded of Michael Crichton's first novel, Andromeda Strain. A new virus is introduced into the environment and it is extremely virulent, like the Jesus Freaks were circa 1970. Think back to that novel. A "virus" from outer space is introduced to the earth's surface. It is extremely virulent, killing everybody immediately. OK. So a virus kills immediately. And how far does it spread? Not very. How far does it spread? Not very far. OK.

Now how's about a less virulent strain of that virus? It doesn't kill immediately. Maybe it doesn't even kill at all. Which one has a better chance of spreading? The one that kills immediately? Or the less virulent one that doesn't kill immediately, or at all? Duh?

To carry on my analogy, let's consider Doonesbury. Sometime in the past (due to my divorce and vagracies of the local newspapers (who, troubled by the political content of Doonesbury, move it elsewhere), there was one where Michael Doonesbury's young daughter questioned why she had to attend church, and his response was something to the effect that she had to "put in her pew time".

In that sense, as I attend the annual Calvary Chapel Christmas Service with my sister (just for my sister's sake), I look at that past center of "Jesus Freakery" and I realize the truth. It's the same truth about Unitarians. Do you know the joke about "Unitarians"? What are "Unitarians"? Agnostics with children. Agnostics who want to put their children through their pew time. Those old "Jesus Freaks"? They grew up. They had families. They had children and grandchildren who needed "pew time". Jesus Freaks ready for the Rapture that was coming any minute now! Jesus Freaks in the 1980's when the Rapture was guaranteed even more than ever! Oh, OK, still no Rapture. Uh. Huh?

}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Vanessa, posted 05-22-2012 5:47 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

    
Vanessa
Member (Idle past 1852 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-06-2012


Message 140 of 146 (663293)
05-23-2012 2:46 AM


Great. I will present an alternative proposal for evolution.
Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Tangle, posted 05-23-2012 3:39 AM Vanessa has not yet responded
 Message 142 by RAZD, posted 05-23-2012 6:32 AM Vanessa has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5235
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 141 of 146 (663297)
05-23-2012 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Vanessa
05-23-2012 2:46 AM


Vanessa writes:

Great. I will present an alternative proposal for evolution.

Great. I'll notify the Nobel Prize committee members.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Vanessa, posted 05-23-2012 2:46 AM Vanessa has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 142 of 146 (663309)
05-23-2012 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Vanessa
05-23-2012 2:46 AM


the hypothesis
Hi Vanessa,

Great. I will present an alternative proposal for evolution.

and don't forget to post evidence supporting it.

Again I recommend a new thread for this hypothesis so that discussion of it does not take over this thread.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Vanessa, posted 05-23-2012 2:46 AM Vanessa has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 143 of 146 (663316)
05-23-2012 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Vanessa
05-22-2012 11:57 AM


Vanessa writes:

I'm surprised there was any reference on Google, because I made it up for this forum to better clarify my argument.

Can I suggest that making things up isn't an effective approach?

The definition of evolution on this site is narrowed down to a single interpretation - a theory of development through mutation. I will not accept, nor use that definition of evolution - it is an insult to Nature.

Two points.

First, you are wrong that the definition of evolution as "a theory of development through mutation" is used by evolutionists, either here or anywhere. Mutation is definitely a key part of evolution, but it has an equally important partner. Evolution, expressed simply, is change over time through a process of mutation (which is random) and natural selection (which is highly specific).

Second, if you want to prove evolution wrong then you have to prove it wrong as actually defined. It will only waste your time to disprove a theory of evolution that you invented yourself.

Nowhere in Nature does life develop through mutation. It is wrong to assume (and call it Naturalism) that all life on Earth developed this way.

If you only mean that mutation by itself is insufficient then I think we all agree with you. But if you're instead arguing that mutation doesn't occur then, well, I don't know what to say. That would make you the kind of person who couldn't be persuaded the sky was blue.

... auto-naturalism as a scientific philosophy never existed.

It is the primary scientific philosophy of evolution, it is time to name accurately.

Good luck with that.

I see there were a lot of posts since yesterday morning when you posted this - no need to reply to this one if the discussion has moved on.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Vanessa, posted 05-22-2012 11:57 AM Vanessa has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(5)
Message 144 of 146 (663318)
05-23-2012 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Vanessa
05-22-2012 5:47 PM


Re: work in progress
Hi Vanessa,

Just wanted to reply to this one thing:

Vanessa writes:

If the truth of life were found out and it did not agree with current evolutionary theory could you put aside your beliefs?

I think I speak for the most of evolutionists here when I say that I don't believe in evolution. I accept evolution as a theory because I have been persuaded by the evidence.

What I believe in is following the evidence wherever it leads.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Vanessa, posted 05-22-2012 5:47 PM Vanessa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Vanessa, posted 05-23-2012 9:35 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Vanessa
Member (Idle past 1852 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-06-2012


Message 145 of 146 (663322)
05-23-2012 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Percy
05-23-2012 8:55 AM


Re: work in progress
Percy writes:

What I believe in is following the evidence wherever it leads.

What a wonderful response!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Percy, posted 05-23-2012 8:55 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(4)
Message 146 of 146 (663337)
05-23-2012 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Vanessa
05-22-2012 5:47 PM


Re: work in progress
Vanessa writes:

There is an expression "Science progresses one funeral at a time." No scientist, in fact no person in authority, wants that authority undermined, overturned, quashed.


That seems to be a misquote and a thorough misunderstanding of Max Planck:
quote:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Planck meant the opposite of what you're saying. It's the ones who don't want their ideas changed that have to die out.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Vanessa, posted 05-22-2012 5:47 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
56789
10
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017