Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-23-2017 9:38 AM
398 online now:
caffeine, Faith, jar, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Porosity (8 members, 390 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,908 Year: 16,514/21,208 Month: 2,403/3,593 Week: 516/882 Day: 34/103 Hour: 4/11

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   The Ten Laws of Creationism and Intelligent Design
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2788
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 46 of 75 (803874)
04-05-2017 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Davidjay
04-05-2017 11:43 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Birds becoming mammals becoming fishes, with spouts on the tops of their heads, as with mamalian whales...

Davidjay, you have already proven that you know nothing about evolution. There is no need for you to prove that you are a blithering idiot as well!

Do you really seriously want to claim that that blithering nonsense is what evolution teaches?

Please, please, please, please, please learn something!

In the meantime, thank you very much for thoroughly discrediting your false religion and for contributing to the growth and spread of atheism. Of course, if that is not your intent, then you may want to think about what you are doing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 11:43 AM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Diomedes, posted 04-05-2017 12:43 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 55 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 5:34 PM dwise1 has responded
 Message 71 by Davidjay, posted 04-20-2017 10:11 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 628
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 6.4


(2)
Message 47 of 75 (803884)
04-05-2017 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by dwise1
04-05-2017 12:03 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Davidjay, you have already proven that you know nothing about evolution. There is no need for you to prove that you are a blithering idiot as well!

Too late.

Actually, I think the guy is just trolling us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by dwise1, posted 04-05-2017 12:03 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5859
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 48 of 75 (803886)
04-05-2017 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Davidjay
04-05-2017 11:38 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Nice pic of the receeding flood and how it gouged out the landscape, Actually the Grand Canyon, is a better example of the receeding flood

You didn't address my archaeological evidence.

Nor did you explain why "receeding floods" (sic) didn't cause such obvious geographical features in most other places.

Nor did you address the age difference between the purported flood and the channeled scablands.

There is also a substantial age difference between the channeled scablands of Washington and the Grand Canyon.

In other words, you are ignoring huge amounts of evidence in favor of belief.


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.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 11:38 AM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 5:49 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 49 of 75 (803892)
04-05-2017 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Davidjay
04-05-2017 9:02 AM


Re: Mathematics of Evolution
Someone HERE stated that there is mathematics associated with 'evolutionary' theory. Never heard anyone ever state that before.

How have you managed to keep your ignorance so pristine for so long?

Evolution is purely a supposed chance situation where sufficient magical beneficial mutations take place to develop a supposed better species by luck and chance.

No.

Instead of making stuff up, why didn't you do any research? That way you wouldn't tell such blithering lies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 9:02 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 50 of 75 (803893)
04-05-2017 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Davidjay
04-05-2017 11:43 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Never seen any fossil evidence personally ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 11:43 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 51 of 75 (803894)
04-05-2017 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Davidjay
04-05-2017 8:18 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
As a scientist, I have an obligation to put forth mathematics that you evolutionists do NOT have, and evidence that you evolutionists do not have.

Funny, your profile says that your occupation is "Christian missionary", which is about as far from "scientist" as you can get.

Are you by any chance an enormous liar?

If evolutionists had proofs they would have put them forward years ago. They have no missing links, they have no transition species, they have nothing.

Well, I guess that answers the liar question then.

So, supplementary follow-up question. You're religious, don't you ever worry about burning in Hell while Satan spits the word "LIAR!" into your face forever?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 8:18 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1281
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 52 of 75 (803895)
04-05-2017 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Davidjay
04-05-2017 9:02 AM


Re: Mathematics of Evolution
Someone HERE stated that there is mathematics associated with 'evolutionary' theory. Never heard anyone ever state that before.

This one took me aback a little. I would not have been surprised if you wanted to claim that the maths of evolutionary theory is all wrong; but to claim you've never heard someone say there is a maths of evolutionary theory after over a decade of arguing about this stuff is a bit... odd.

A lot of the basics of statistics were developed by evolutionary biologists. Probably the most important figure in the development of statistics is Ronald Fisher*; and the motivation behind a lot of the mathematical tools he developed was in making evolutionary theory more mathematically rigorous.

JBS Haldane's A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection is public domain and available online, being almost a century old. It's not light reading, but it's pretty dense on maths, if that's what you're looking for.

*my personal bias may be showing in this assessment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 9:02 AM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 04-05-2017 3:42 PM caffeine has not yet responded
 Message 56 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 5:41 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2788
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 53 of 75 (803900)
04-05-2017 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Davidjay
04-05-2017 11:08 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
In Message 41 I wrote:
DWise1 writes:

Davidjay writes:

Theres no mathematics to evolution, ...

... We also have that infamous quotation from a Wistar Institute conference in the 1960's, to the effect that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology. I cannot place my hand on it right at this moment, but I'm sure that you're familiar with it since it's so popular among creationists. Sir Peter Edawar was involved, as I recall.

I'm sure that you have read the creationist quote-mining of what he said, but have you gone to the original document and read what he actually said? It turns out that he was complaining about neo-Darwinism because it was almost purely mathematical! He was complaining that fitness was just a number, which told you nothing other than if something was more fit then it would survive, which he said was tantamount to a tautology. The part that creationist quote-miners leave out is that what he was really interested in was why and how an particular organism's particular traits made it more fit. His complaint was that the math of neo-Darwinism abstracted away all that really interesting information that he wanted to see. Which is very different from how the quote-mining creationists want you to interpret that.

So then, "no mathematics to evolution"? Edawar complained that there was too much maths to evolution, that it was almost purely mathematics. So which is it?

Frankly, I think that Sir Peter Edawar knew a helluva lot more than you do.

And, OBTW, a tautology is always true.

I found that reference in a response that I wrote on this forum in 2013. It turns out that it was Waddington who had been misquoted. Here is what I had written:

quote:
Natural selection is, at best, a tautology. Anyone can state that the fittest will survive as long as you can define what "fit" means after you know who does and does not survive.

That old canard, "natural selection is a tautology", appears to date back to Luther Sunderland's Darwin's Enigma (1978) and his quote-mining of a paper. As it was quoted to me by a creationist on CompuServe on 1990 April 11:
quote:

{DARWINS'S ENIGMA Fossils and Other Problems by Luther D. Sunderland p.32-33}
Arthur Koestler wrote about the unscientific nature of Darwinism and said that the education system was not properly informing people about this:
quote:
In the meantime, the educated public continuse to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection- quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology. 37{Arthur Koestler, Janus: A Summing Up (New Jork: Vintage Books, 1978), p.185}

In a symposuim at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, prominent English evolutionist Dr. C.H. Waddington made some very pointed criticisms of neo-Darwinism as being a vacuous tautology. In commenting on a paper by Murray Eden entitled, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory," Dr. Waddington said:

quote:

I am a believer that some of the basic statements of neo-Darwinism are vacuous;... So the theory of neo-Darwinism is a theory of the evolution of the changing of the population in respect to leaving offspring and not in respect to anything else. Nothing else is mentioned in the mathematical theory of neo-Darwinism. It is smuggled in and everybody has in the back of his mind that the animals that leave the largest number of offspring are going to be those best adapted also for eating peculiar vegetation, or something of this sort; but this is not explicit in the theory. All that is explicit in the theory is that they will leave more offspring.

There, you do come to what is, ineffect, a vacuous statement: Natural selection is that some things leave more offspring than others; and you ask, which leave more offspring than others; and it is those that leave more offspring; and there is nothing more to it than that.

The whole real guts of evolution-which is, how do you come to have horses and tigers, and things- is outside the mathematical theory. 38
{P.S.Moorehead, and M.M.Kaplan, Eds., Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, The Wistar Institute Symposim Monograph N. 5 (Philadelphia: Wistar Institute Press, 1967), pp.13,14}







I draw your attention to the ellipsis (ie, the "..."), since the quote-miner had hidden so very much there. In response, I looked up that Wistar Institute Symposium monograph and read what had actually been written. This is from my reply two days later:
quote:

Here is what your source (I assume Sunderland) left out in that ellipsis:
quote:

I am a believer that some of the basic statements of neo-Darwinism are vacuous; { start of omitted text } and I think there is a confusion here, possibly, about whether we are talking about Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. Dr. Medawar mentioned this phrase, 'the survival of the fittest,' and it is a very elementary, old-fashioned, long outdated concept; but, of course, this is what Darwin was talking about. By 'fittest,' he meant best able to carry out the functions of life, best adapted to some environmental situation and some way of life. By a fit horse, he meant a horse that could gallop fastest and escape best from wolves, or whatever it might be. That is a real theory which is perfectly capable of refutation.

What has happened to it since, in the process of turning this into a lot of mathematics, is that 'fitness' has been redefined, leaving out anything to do with way of life, simply in terms of leaving offspring. { end of omitted text } So the theory of neo-Darwinism is a theory ...



{and at the end of the comment}
quote:

The whole real guts of evolution -- which is, how do you come to have horses and tigers, and things -- is outside the mathematical theory. { start of omitted text }So when people say that a thing is vacuous, I think they may be thinking of this part of it, this type of statement. The sheer mathematical statement is largely vacuous. The actual way this is applied, not by the mathematical theorists but by the biologists working with the subject, is not vacuous at all."{ end of omitted text }
{P.S.Moorehead and M.M.Kaplan, Eds., Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, The Wistar Institute Symposim Monograph N. 5 (Philadelphia: Wistar Institute Press, 1967), pp.13,14}


So Dr. Waddington was criticizing neo-Darwinism and not Darwinism or evolution itself; the omitted text shows him making a clear distinction between Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. Furthermore, his criticism of neo-Darwinism was specifically because certain ideas of Darwinism, which makes it non-"vacuous," had been redefined out of neo_Darwinism in order to "turn this into a lot of mathematics." It is the "sheer mathematical statement" that is "largely vacuous," not Darwinism or evolutionary thought as it is practiced.

This redefinition occurred when population genetics was applied to evolutionary thought. The original Darwinian concept of 'fitness' did deal with how an organism might be considered more or less 'fit,' whereas the neo-Darwinian view from population genetics tends to view fitness more in terms of propagating those genes throughout the population into the next generation.

Of course, we have "in the back of {our} mind{s} that the animals that leave the largest number of offspring are going to be those best adapted also for" those things classically associated with "fitness." The criticism we are seeing is that neo-Darwinism does not EXPLICITLY include the necessary properties of "fitness," but leaves them IMPLICIT. It only explicitly includes the results of "fitness," namely differential reproduction. If we only view neo-Darwinism in terms of what it says explicitly, then we find that it actually tends to explain too much and so is harder to try to refute and test. This is the most frequent criticism of neo-Darwinism.

According to Dr. Waddington, it is the attempt to render evolutionary theory into mathematics that becomes vacuous. This is ironic, since the entire symposium was intended as an inter-disciplinary meeting to examine the applicability of mathematics to neo-Darwinism; for example, Dr. Eden, whose presentation Dr. Waddington was commenting on, was Professor of Electrical Engineering at MIT.



Dr. Waddington's complaint about neo-Darwinism was that it was too heavily mathematical. The exact opposite of your vacuous claim.

QED


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 11:08 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13181
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 54 of 75 (803908)
04-05-2017 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by caffeine
04-05-2017 2:15 PM


Re: Mathematics of Evolution
caffeine writes:

... but to claim you've never heard someone say there is a maths of evolutionary theory after over a decade of arguing about this stuff is a bit... odd.


Not if he gets all of his information from creationists.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by caffeine, posted 04-05-2017 2:15 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 55 of 75 (803921)
04-05-2017 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by dwise1
04-05-2017 12:03 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Dwise, please reframe from calling me a blithering idiot. Scientists try to be objective rather subjective. Name calling does not win you converts in the debate, or any debate. If anything it shows you have lost the debate..... and your opponent has won.

Creationism has laws, and principles. Evolution is based on luck and chance, and its statistical so called law is that eventually a lucky combination will produce itself by accident if given enough time. It can be condensed into the religious saying of, all things are possible with evolution, just give it or her enough time. If not a billion years, wait a trillion years.

Design always wins over lack of design, always.

Intelligence always wins over lack of intelligence.


Evolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by dwise1, posted 04-05-2017 12:03 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2017 10:48 AM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 67 by dwise1, posted 04-06-2017 11:14 PM Davidjay has responded

    
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 56 of 75 (803922)
04-05-2017 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by caffeine
04-05-2017 2:15 PM


Re: Mathematics of Evolution
Caffeine, do read between your lines, as a theory of a theory gets wilder and wilder..... and the reason your so called mathematician type tried to come up with something is that evolutionary doctrine is as vaque and inaccurate and inexact as inexactness gets. Its is not RIGOROUS or in any way mathematical.

I love exactness, not inexactness and inexact probabilities given definitive parameters that never stay the same. Evolutionary theory is filled with too many maybes, could have, might have, possibily this or maybe possibly that, could have been a million years, maybe billion years, maybe trillion years.

I love math and science and laws, not inexactness from the desperate


Evolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by caffeine, posted 04-05-2017 2:15 PM caffeine has not yet responded

    
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 57 of 75 (803924)
04-05-2017 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Coyote
04-05-2017 1:09 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Coyote, if you want the true history of the Flood, just start a new thread, on it and I shall answer. You can post your billions and trillions of years, and I can post my immensely smaller exact numbers.

Not a problem, just go to Proposed New Topics....

Herein we must stay on TOPIC, and further confirm the Ten Laws, somebody gave..... they sound pretty good to me, even though I never heard of them before.

So we have confirmation. If you deny one, do so logically and rationally. Thanks


Evolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Coyote, posted 04-05-2017 1:09 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 5:54 PM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 65 by caffeine, posted 04-06-2017 1:17 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 58 of 75 (803925)
04-05-2017 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Davidjay
04-05-2017 5:49 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Dr Adequate

As I love consistency and endurance and truthfulness, Yes I am a Christian Missionary, and have remained one since my graduation from University with a BSC...... even though the not so nice evolutionary professors tried to fail me for not believing their dogma. We can talk about that forced indocrination, ona NEW THREAD.

And Yes, of course as a true scientist, I had to test and try out and experiemnt whether the principles and laws of the Lord are applicable. Its not mere talk and bluster as with evolutionary imaginations in a dream world, but real life, follwoing the precepts.

It was proven, and confirmed. The Lords laws of love and life work and are proveable and repeatable, and viable.

If you want to be truthful or find out, just try them out yourself personally.

Got to fly..

Thanks for the response, but lets get back to confirming the Ten Laws of Creationism, that someone found.


Evolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 5:49 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Porosity, posted 04-05-2017 7:51 PM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2017 8:33 AM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2017 10:53 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
Porosity
Member
Posts: 126
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 59 of 75 (803933)
04-05-2017 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Davidjay
04-05-2017 5:54 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
As I love consistency and endurance and truthfulness,

Then you are at the cross roads.
Are going to be honest or are you going to be a creationist, for it is impossible to be both.

Good news is, these forums are a great place to interact with knowledgeable people who can walk you through reason and rationality where you can actually understand things rather than simply to believe them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 5:54 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 60 of 75 (803981)
04-06-2017 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Davidjay
04-05-2017 11:43 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Davidjay writes:

Never seen any fossil evidence personally, I have seen a lot of artists depictions and imaginations, and frauds and counterfeits for the sake of further research funding.

I don't know that it's necessary to see the fossil evidence personally, only to understand that the fossil record is a record of change over time. And as I mentioned earlier, there are no "trillions of years." The world is only 4.5 billion years old, and life a little less than that. The fossil evidence indicates that life was unicellular for much of its history until around 550 million years ago.

Birds becoming mammals becoming fishes, with spouts on the tops of their heads, as with mamalian whales... Nah I'm not buying it.

Birds never became mammals, and mammals never became fish. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, mammals evolved from reptiles which evolved from fish. Whales and dolphins are not fish, they're mammals.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 11:43 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017