Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2017 3:09 AM
280 online now:
Dr Adequate, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 276 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,408 Year: 29,014/21,208 Month: 1,080/1,847 Week: 3/452 Day: 3/115 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2425
26
2728
...
31Next
Author Topic:   Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation
Faith
Member
Posts: 26759
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 376 of 455 (786057)
06-15-2016 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by Tangle
06-15-2016 3:40 AM


Epistemological digression
Of course if there are areas of reality that aren't subject to scientific testing because they have nothing to do with the physical world but another realm of reality altogether, and you've arbitrarily rejected them for simply being a different kind of reality, that's pretty irrational of you isn't it?

There are no areas of reality that are beyond scientific testing. This is science's job. If you can show me a reality that is not being examined by science, I'll test it myself for you.

But the other reality I have in mind CAN'T be "shown" to you because it isn't physical. It IS beyond scientific testing because it isn't physical. How would you test for the reality of nonphysical beings like angels and demons or "ghosts?" People try and the results are ridiculous because these, if real, would be nonphysical and not subject to testing. An explorer of space by telescope or travel could brag they've been way out there and never seen God, proving there is no God, but if God is invisible Spirit the expectation of seeing Him is irrational and ludicrous.

You can't scientifically test for any of this. The only way we know these things exist is through witnesses who have been there when some of it has "manifested" in physical form, either a spiritual being like an angel or demon, or the demonstration of power in miraculous events. Did Jesus feed thousands of people from a few loaves and fishes? The only proof possible is believing the witnesses who saw it happen. Did the resurrected Jesus appear to the apostles? Did an angel appear and talk to the prophet Daniel? You either believe the witnesses or you don't. If you disbelieve you haven't proved anything. Spiritual beings choose to manifest or not, or God chooses it, you can't invent a test for something that has a mind and a will to foil your test. God gave sparing evidences through witnesses for those who believe; He has no interest in convincing people who refuse to believe the witnesses.

so that whatever is true in them is always being subsumed under a Big Fat Lie that skews it all beyond any real scientific usefulness. The science in them would stand without the lie, but that would require some intricate epistemological surgery.

It's not a single lie though is it Faith? If it was a single issue, it's vaguely possible that it could be wrong and if it was wrong it would be corrected - because all errors in science ultimately get corrected.

They can't be corrected if they can't even be proved in the first place, as nothing that has to do with the remote past can be proved. It remains hypothetical and you believe it because you WANT to believe it, and because you can invent multiple scenarios that seem plausible to you. You just have to interpret the phenomena encountered in Evo-friendly terms. There's no way to prove them wrong, or any seeming wrongness can always be interpreted away anyway because you are dealing with things that can no longer be observed. Sure you can prove that a set of bones must have belonged to a particular kind of beast, but you can't prove anything about how the bones got there, you can only construct Likely Stories. You can't PROVE past EVENTS. The Flood explains the strata and the fossils beautifully, but you don't want to believe the Flood occurred, that's all there is to it.

It's actually multitudes of 'lies' in all independant scientific disciplines that all rather miraculously converge on a single 'truth'. So physics, astronomy geology and biology all provide supporting evidence for an old earth and none for a young earth.

This is actually not so, it's evo wishfulness. Creationists have given lots of evidence for a young earth, and I have done so here as well. Geology and biology offer many such evidences. My own arguments give such evidences.

Are all the millions of scientists involved in a massive conspiracy to corrupt and lie about everything from Rocks to space travel?

Rocks for sure, yes, they deceive themselves and all the rest of us about the rocks, that are easily explained in terms of a worldwide Flood within a few thousand years. Worry about space travel after you've appreciated that the evidence for the Flood is everywhere on the planet.

It's pure fantasy Faith, it's utterly impossible for you to be right and literally millions of man-years of cross-disciplinary, peer-reviewed science to be totally wrong in every aspect of its work.

They have a great knowledge of many scientific facts; what they don't have is a viable theory about the events that produced those facts. The theory they do have is the fantasy.

If it was wrong great chunks of our technology would not work.

This is where you need to perform the epistemological surgery I was talking about. Technology has nothing whatever to do with the Old Earth or the ToE. Throw those away and technology stands on its own.

Even you at your deepest level of denial and delusion must know this.

I'm sorry, what I know I've sketched out above. The delusion is on the side of the ToE and the Old Earth.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2016 3:40 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2016 10:55 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 380 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2016 11:23 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26759
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 377 of 455 (786060)
06-15-2016 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by PaulK
06-15-2016 10:18 AM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
It's pretty unlikely that you'd get the exact mutations needed even to restore the lost phenotypic variations (of a typical case - phenotypic changes are not essential to speciation) let alone restore interfertility.

This is true.

And yet if we still have a phenotypically distinct population that does not interbreed with the parent population, then of course we have a new species. That should be obvious.

How is it going to be "phenotypically distinct" if produced by mutations? To get phenotypic distinction you HAVE to lose the genetic substrate for the phenotypes that aren't part of the new phenotypically distinct population, losing mutations or whatever else doesn't contribute to that distinctive phenotypic presentation.

So why would it be "obtuse" to reject your claim ? On the face of it, it is an obvious falsehood.

You need to stop calling me a liar. My argument is perfectly honest and consistent and I disagree with your theory honestly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2016 10:18 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2016 11:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13375
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 378 of 455 (786062)
06-15-2016 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Faith
06-15-2016 10:36 AM


Re: Epistemological digression
quote:

The Flood explains the strata and the fossils beautifully, but you don't want to believe the Flood occurred, that's all there is to it.

But you know that is not true. You know that the Flood fails to explain the fossil record as you admitted:

Message 10

quote:

It is because there is no clear way to explain the supposed order of the fossil record that I now avoid it.

And I remind you of the fact I pointed out in that thread. The order in the fossil record is an observation that has withstood more than 200 years of investigation on a worldwide scale. It is a fact visible in the present. It cannot be lightly dismissed just because it is inconvenient for your argument.

Of course you are hopelessly wrong about the Flood explaining the strata "beautifully", too but that is a subject for another thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 10:36 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13375
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 379 of 455 (786063)
06-15-2016 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by Faith
06-15-2016 10:52 AM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
quote:

How is it going to be "phenotypically distinct" if produced by mutations?

It will still lack the lost variations - at least most of the fixed traits will remain fixed - and it will likely have new variations not found in the parent species.

quote:

To get phenotypic distinction you HAVE to lose the genetic substrate for the phenotypes that aren't part of the new phenotypically distinct population

Which would stay lost, unless you are assuming that mutations would automatically restore it.

quote:

You need to stop calling me a liar. My argument is perfectly honest and consistent and I disagree with your theory honestly.

I didn't call you a liar. I just pointed out that your claim was obviously false. And it clearly is, since your objections make no sense at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 10:52 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5258
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 380 of 455 (786065)
06-15-2016 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Faith
06-15-2016 10:36 AM


Re: Epistemological digression
Faith writes:

But the other reality I have in mind CAN'T be "shown" to you because it isn't physical.

Then it isn't part of reality.

But the other reality I have in mind CAN'T be "shown" to you because it isn't physical. It IS beyond scientific testing because it isn't physical. How would you test for the reality of nonphysical beings like angels and demons or "ghosts?" People try and the results are ridiculous because these, if real, would be nonphysical and not subject to testing.

Correct, non-real things can't be tested, because, well, they have no reality. We call things that have no reality 'non-existent'.

Religions make claims about their beliefs that should have measurable affects in the real world - miracles, prophecies, power of prayer etc. Sadly, when examined they prove to be nonsense.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

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

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 10:36 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 11:28 AM Tangle has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26759
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 381 of 455 (786066)
06-15-2016 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by Tangle
06-15-2016 11:23 AM


Re: Epistemological digression
Oh brother. You confuse reality with physicality. Sure, that way you can just ignore the whole other realm of the spirit.

Sorry, there is no way to reliably test the spiritual so your claim that it's been done and disproved it is a sad delusion.

But as I said there is lots of evidence from witnesses to the phenomena you claim is nonexistent, and witness evidence IS evidence whether you like it or not. Try believing the best attested witness reports some time, it should be an eye-opening revelation for you.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2016 11:23 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2016 11:46 AM Faith has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5258
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 382 of 455 (786067)
06-15-2016 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by Faith
06-15-2016 11:28 AM


Re: Epistemological digression
Faith writes:

Sure, that way you can just ignore the whole other realm of the spirit.

Correct. Until something can be shown to actually exist, it can be safely ignored.

Sorry, there is no way to reliably test the spiritual so your claim that it's been done and disproved it is a sad delusion.

I never claimed that the spiritual world has been tested, in fact I said it can't be, because to be tested it first has to be part of reality and actually exist.

But as I said there is lots of evidence from witnesses to the phenomena you claim is nonexistent, and witness evidence IS evidence whether you like it or not. Try believing the best attested witness reports some time, it should be an eye-opening revelation for you.

If these things are true there would be stacks of real evidence for them and you'd be producing it all over this forum - sadly there is none. But if you've been hiding evidence for the supernatural somewhere just waiting for the opportunity to produce it, now would be a good moment.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

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

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 11:28 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 11:54 AM Tangle has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26759
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 383 of 455 (786069)
06-15-2016 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by Tangle
06-15-2016 11:46 AM


Re: Epistemological digression
Miracles, prophecies and prayer you claimed to have been tested. You can't test these things. Prayer isn't always answered, or the answer is not what you asked for, so how could you prove that? God is sovereign, He does what He judges to be right whether it meets our desires or not.

There is no reason miracles would leave any lasting evidence, so you have to trust the witnesses. There is no way to test them.

Prophecies have been fulfilled many times according to the Bible but you still have to believe the prophets are being honest and if you refuse to believe that you'll never see the fulfilled prophecies. There are "theologians" who refuse to believe that prophecy is possible so they reinterpret the prophecies to be lies by the prophets invented after the events they prophesied. Sure, that way you'll never see a fulfilled prophecy.

That's all you're doing.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2016 11:46 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Coyote, posted 06-15-2016 12:07 PM Faith has responded
 Message 385 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2016 12:34 PM Faith has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 384 of 455 (786070)
06-15-2016 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by Faith
06-15-2016 11:54 AM


Re: Epistemological digression
quote:
Prophecies have been fulfilled many times according to the Bible but you still have to believe the prophets are being honest and if you refuse to believe that you'll never see the fulfilled prophecies. There are "theologians" who refuse to believe that prophecy is possible so they reinterpret the prophecies to be lies by the prophets invented after the events they prophesied. Sure, that way you'll never see a fulfilled prophecy.

It does not pay a prophet to be too specific.

L. Sprague de Camp


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 383 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 11:54 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 12:37 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5258
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 385 of 455 (786072)
06-15-2016 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by Faith
06-15-2016 11:54 AM


Re: Epistemological digression
Faith writes:

Miracles, prophecies and prayer you claimed to have been tested. You can't test these things.

Of course you can. If I say tomorrow the sun won't rise, you can test my prophecy. If I said I had might amputated limb regrown, you could test that, if I said I prayed for a new Porsche 911in pink and one appeared in my garage you could test that.

There's no problem at all testing real things Faith.

but you still have to believe

Yup, instead of evidence, you just believe.

If you think what you believe is real, show it to me and I'll test it. If it's just what you believe is real, then there's no point 'cos it doesn't exist in the real world does it? It's not real, t's just a belief.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

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

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 11:54 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 12:39 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26759
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 386 of 455 (786073)
06-15-2016 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by Coyote
06-15-2016 12:07 PM


Re: Epistemological digression
It does not pay a prophet to be too specific.

A true prophet needn't worry.

Isaiah prophesied even the name of the Persian king --Cyrus -- who would centuries later, after the Babylonian exile, decree the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The prophecy is in Isaiah 44:28, fulfilled as reported in 2 Chronicles 36 and Ezra 1, 3 4, 5, 6.

The prophet Daniel prophesied about the future empires that would succeed the Babylonian: the Medo-Persian, Greece under Alexander, and the Roman Empire.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Coyote, posted 06-15-2016 12:07 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2016 12:43 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26759
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 387 of 455 (786074)
06-15-2016 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Tangle
06-15-2016 12:34 PM


Re: Epistemological digression
There's a big difference between your "just believe" and my "believe the witnesses."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2016 12:34 PM Tangle has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13375
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 388 of 455 (786075)
06-15-2016 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by Faith
06-15-2016 12:37 PM


Re: Epistemological digression
Shall we take the prophecy off to another thread ? Because it is certainly off-topic here.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 12:37 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 12:49 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26759
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 389 of 455 (786076)
06-15-2016 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by PaulK
06-15-2016 12:43 PM


Re: Epistemological digression
Complain to Tangle. I'm not interested in pursuing this topic myself.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2016 12:43 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2016 12:52 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13375
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 390 of 455 (786077)
06-15-2016 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by Faith
06-15-2016 12:49 PM


Re: Epistemological digression
You brought it up. But I guess you don't dare discuss it properly.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 12:49 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 12:57 PM PaulK has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2425
26
2728
...
31Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017