|
Author
|
Topic: The Science in Creationism
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1463 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
Message 961 of 986 (784968)
05-26-2016 3:29 PM
|
|
|
Lots I'd like to refute in some of the other summaries but I'll refrain. This thread was mostly about design as implying a designer but my own favorite argument about loss of genetic diversity as a result of evolution also was a big part of it. That is now continuing on Genomicus' thread on Molecular Population Genetics and Mutation as a cause of genetic diversity. Although I did try to include some examples of design as evidence, I think this thread needed a lot more of that. I'm sure it wouldn't matter to the diehard evolutionists in any case, who are going to go on insisting that mechanical physical unconscious processes are quite sufficient for the job, but there IS evidence for design, at least characteristics of design that can be discussed as definitional, that distinguish it from nondesign or the random chaos and disorder which is the opposite of design. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 962 of 986 (784980)
05-26-2016 8:50 PM
|
|
|
In a Last summary note, two sad ironies
In a last summary note, it must be observed that there are two sad ironies that Secular Fundamental Humanists have missed. Firstly, if this were 1000 years ago, we might be able to buy the idea that consciousness is in fact, a product of the mechanical functions of the brain. Simply because there would not have been a way to test that conclusion If it were, 500, 200, or 100 years ago, they may have been able to make that same claim. But we now have all the technics and methods to study the brain and yet they STILL have no way to show that link, between the brain and consciousness. Certainly this is a sad iorny, that demonstrates that the so-called Scientific Method is either lacking or unnecessary at times to observe simple truth, since we AWARE and CONSCIOUS of the fact that it exists and the SM cant explain how it works Funny stuff Secondly, if consciousness is only a production of brain function and the Scientific Method can't identify it's link and chain of causality, this would imply that the brain is so complex in DESIGN that the chances that blind causes brought it about would be astronomical It would imply that Natural Causes are more intelligent, than the brain trying to FIGURE out how it works or produces awareness Funny stuff eh? Are you smarter than a monkey? Or are you willing to admit consciousness is a truth that exists separate from brain function? Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2392 days) Posts: 564 Joined: 02-12-2015
|
|
|
Message 963 of 986 (784982)
05-26-2016 10:10 PM
|
|
|
It ends the way it started
Nearly a thousand posts ago (and as the very first poster) I asked the most critical question if one is going to demonstrate "The Science in Creationism" Still unanswered -- which is ample proof that there is no science in creationism
quote:
Dawn, would you mind giving me say 3 examples of things that would falsify your belief in the Biblical version of YEC and also 3 things that would falsify the Ussher chronology world wide flood? (assuming you believe in those) Thanks
JB
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 303 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Still No Evidence
I observe that Dawn's "last summary note" contains absolutely no evidence for creationism. In this respect it is indeed the perfect summary of Dawn's posts. At least Faith tried, though trying the same thing that failed the last half dozen times looks less like enterprise and more like obstinacy, or indeed amnesia. Still, at least she can communicate her trivial errors in the English language, whereas Dawn cannot.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2124 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 965 of 986 (784984)
05-26-2016 10:25 PM
|
|
|
Abject failure...
This thread was started with the object of showing that creationism is scientific. That effort has failed. Instead we are being told that the scientific method is flawed and we need to degrade its definition to include any old nonsense. Behe got nailed on this same tactic during the Dover trial--he had to admit that his personal definition of science was sufficiently broad to include astrology. Creationists should just admit that what they are claiming is religious belief, and stop trying to co-opt the good reputation that science has earned over the centuries. Instead they seek to legitimize their religious beliefs by claiming they are doing science, and using the scientific method, while they are doing the exact opposite.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
Re: Still No Evidence
I observe that Dawn's "last summary note" contains absolutely no evidence for creationism. In this respect it is indeed the perfect summary of Dawn's posts. At least Faith tried, though trying the same thing that failed the last half dozen times looks less like enterprise and more like obstinacy, or indeed amnesia. Still, at least she can communicate her trivial errors in the English language, whereas Dawn cannot. So then you can provide a chain of causality from the brain to consciouness, correct? If not then you did not read what I wrote. So provide the scientific method that shows us the link and chain of causality, please, I'm all ears Dawn Bertot
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 967 of 986 (784987)
05-26-2016 11:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 960 by Modulous
05-26-2016 12:32 PM
|
|
Re: Strange inverted reasoning from Darwin to Dawn for Da win
Comprehension requires competence. Competence does not require comprehension. For instance, an ant does not need to understand how it knows where food is. It just walks towards food. It walks towards the food competently, without any comprehension as to why or how it walks where it walks. Is it possible that the world once had no reasons? Tide comes in tide comes out to the benefit of nothing. How did reasons happen? A grammatical nightmare, "How did why be?". The answer, I don't know exactly. Let's simply call it 'replicating information interacting with an environment '. At this point there were reasons for things. How did replicating information come about - no idea. From what I can tell it all comes down to shapes of molecules and crystal interacting with the shapes of other molecules and crystals, and the effects of these interaction etc. This isn't science so much as philosophy. But once such a replicator existed reasons existed. The two concepts, I propose are interlinked. If the replicator could interact with the environment then slight changes in the replicator as it replicates imperfectly could have different effects on the environment. Say the replicator has a shape that when organic chemicals bump into it often creates a chemical, X, that lowers the pH level locally. Maybe that gives the replicator a little more time to gather materials for replication before. So now we can say 'the reason the replicator is that shape is so as to gather chemical X which extends its lifespan'. This philosophical account is based on science, but it is not intended to be considered a scientific account of history. Thus reasons without entities to represent them, just like with ants. Competencies without comprehensions. Builders without brains, watchmakers without eyes. Teleology What about the telic response? Is it science? It is Aristotlean Science. Let's agree to that compromise, shall we? It's really just ancient Greek philosophy, but it's among the best stuff. What are the causes of something? There are 4 Aristotlean causes for a thing. We look at life and we see there are 'reasons within reasons' (or order and purpose) and we presume there must be reasons there are reasons within reasons, so: 1) Material explanation (what is its substance): It is flesh. 2) Formal explanation (what makes it uniquely it): It moves around, it reproduces, it has parts that all work together towards keeping it moving around and reproducing, it has purposes, reasons, order, there are repeating patterns in reproduction cycle... 3) Efficient explanation (where did it come from, directly?): Ancestors. 4) Final (or telic) explanation (to what end? / cui bono?): erm, cos organic life is for erm, eating? No wait we're alive....erm, admiring? Who is watching but us? AHA! GOD. QED That's the best they've got and unfortunately Dawn didn't even make it so far as Aristotlean science. Dawn observed the reasons and purposes and order and defined this as 'design' and through the power of grammar conjugated this noun/verb into 'designer', relying heavily on the associative power of the meaning of words to make the implication that the 'designer' is the 'creator' and wanted to call this process science because its true. Well the observations count, but observations aren't 'Creationist observations' or 'Evolutionist observations', they're just 'observations'. So these observations, scientifically made or not, are nothing to do with Creationist science. They're just science. Adding a linguistic trick to the end doesn't make it any more credible to me, though it fools others. I know this is technically out of order, but please bare with me Modulous. I know you are fully convinced there will be no judgement at the end of this life and I am aware you ACTUALLY believe that. But do me a favor. If it happens that you are wrong, please bring the above explanation for not believing with you and I'll bring Romans 1:20. Not to prove I was right, for in even in that moment the Lord will be loving tword you, as he always is in any situation. Not that I won't have several things to answer for as well, but to see the expression on his face and the resulting smile that well up on his face as you give your very in depth "evidential explanation", as to why you did not believe in his existence as compared to Roman's 1:20 Just a thought, but please reconsider why and how what you believe before that time Thanks a bunch Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 960 by Modulous, posted 05-26-2016 12:32 PM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 968 by Coyote, posted 05-26-2016 11:14 PM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2124 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Re: Strange inverted reasoning from Darwin to Dawn for Da win
And with this post, as with so many others, you affirm that what you are doing is peddling religious belief. Religious belief is the exact opposite of science.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 969 of 986 (784989)
05-26-2016 11:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 968 by Coyote
05-26-2016 11:14 PM
|
|
Re: Strange inverted reasoning from Darwin to Dawn for Da win
And with this post, as with so many others, you affirm that what you are doing is peddling religious belief. Religious belief is the exact opposite of science. Then you were not paying attention during the actual debate. What I said to Modulous was just a side note But if you'd like to show me the chain of causality from the brain to consciousness, I'm all ears And besides this you make religious belief sound dirty. Was that your intention indirectly Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 968 by Coyote, posted 05-26-2016 11:14 PM | | Coyote has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 970 by Coyote, posted 05-26-2016 11:46 PM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2124 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Strange inverted reasoning from Darwin to Dawn for Da win
Dawn writes: But if you'd like to show me the chain of causality from the brain to consciousness, I'm all ears
That has nothing to do with whether there is science in creationism.
Dawn writes: And besides this you make religious belief sound dirty. Was that your intention indirectly
Religious belief uses methods exactly opposite to those used by the scientific method. You are trying to tear down the scientific method to sneak your religious belief in as science. It isn't working. Like other creationists, you seem to think that by attacking science you somehow support your religious beliefs. That is false. To support your religious belief scientifically you have to present evidence and use the scientific method--and that's something you have not done.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 971 of 986 (784991)
05-26-2016 11:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 970 by Coyote
05-26-2016 11:46 PM
|
|
Re: Strange inverted reasoning from Darwin to Dawn for Da win
That has nothing to do with whether there is science in creationism. So you can't with the Scientific Method show a chain of causality from the brain to consciousness. There should be some chain we can point to that shows even a couple of links, since all the elements are there for us to examine. So until you can come up with some reality that shows its a result of just natural causes, I'll have to go with the reality that it is not a part of simply natural processes Scripture also tells us it is from a designer. Do you have a better explanation of consciousness? Im all ears
Religious belief uses methods exactly opposite to those used by the scientific method. You are trying to tear down the scientific method to sneak your religious belief in as science. It isn't working. Like other creationists, you seem to think that by attacking science you somehow support your religious beliefs. That is false. To support your religious belief scientifically you have to present evidenceanduse the scientific method--and that's something you have not done. I'm not attacking science, I'm telling you what it is actually. It's an investigation of the human mind into natural processes. I don't need to attack the Scientific Method to know that, I only point out its flaws because it IGNORES simple obvious truths set out in reality For example, do I need to falsify the fact of consciousness to demonstrate that consciousness is an actual reality or can I know that by the simple observation of simple science? If I don't need to then I guess the next thing we need to do is find some chain of causality. But when I do that the scientific method won't work either. SO WHAT NEXT, IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD SHOULD WE TRY Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 970 by Coyote, posted 05-26-2016 11:46 PM | | Coyote has replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2124 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Re: Strange inverted reasoning from Darwin to Dawn for Da win
Whatever.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 971 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-26-2016 11:56 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 430 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Strange inverted reasoning from Darwin to Dawn for Da win
Dawn Bertot writes: So you can't with the Scientific Method show a chain of causality from the brain to consciousness.
You seem to be saying that, "The scientific method can not do X, therefore creationism is science." That's roughly the equivalent of, "Pigs can't fly, therefore creationism is a pig."
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 974 of 986 (785096)
05-27-2016 5:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 973 by ringo
05-27-2016 1:26 PM
|
|
Re: Strange inverted reasoning from Darwin to Dawn for Da win
Well no that's not what I'm saying Sharon. I'm saying that if the Scientific Method can't identify or provide a causality link between the brain and causality, it has not provided that which it calls evidence, which it should be able to do, since all the necessary elements exist. But at the the same time we know it ACTUALLY exists. So from an evidential standpoint, we now know we can know things that are outside the scope of the So called Scientific Method. As your analogy failingly tries to imply, the purpose of the thread was NOT to prove absolutely the existence of a designer. But it was for the purpose of demonstrating that truth can be known above and beyond the extremist scientific method. Hence, this would constitute science even if it is not complicated. And how could anyone demonstrate other wise The intricacy of the mechanism called the brain is so detailed complex and harmonious, that the Scientific Method can't explain it nearly Now if that is not indirect evidence of design I don't know what might be. design is a reality just like consciousness or thought So yes there is science in the process of creationism or ID. It's really that simple, unless you would like to demonstrate otherwise Our goa Sharon, in this thread was to provide evidence that Our PROCESS involved science, not prove absolutely the conclusion to your satifaction Now how hard was it to accomplish, it was no trouble at all. Child's play Dawn Bertot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 973 by ringo, posted 05-27-2016 1:26 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 976 by Tangle, posted 05-27-2016 6:01 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied | | | Message 977 by ringo, posted 05-28-2016 11:39 AM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 975 of 986 (785097)
05-27-2016 5:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 973 by ringo
05-27-2016 1:26 PM
|
|
Re: Strange inverted reasoning from Darwin to Dawn for Da win
X Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 973 by ringo, posted 05-27-2016 1:26 PM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2