Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist: Before you start debating evolutionists..
compmage
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 31 of 51 (8625)
04-16-2002 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Cobra_snake
04-16-2002 12:57 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"Personally? Never. I have seen others 'claim' this, however it is not a 'claim' given that it can be backed up by evidence."
It is sometimes claimed without evidence.

Might well be but I have never seen it claimed without evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"Again I have never personally implied this but those that have have been able to show that it is fact."
I'd certainly be interested in these proposed "facts".

I don't have them because I never implied this. I do remember a certain "Dr" Hovind..ring a bell?
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"See above."
See above. I want the supposed conclusive evidence that shows such accusations are valid.

Again since I never called creationists incompetent or liers I don't have this evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"Yes because I have yet to see a creation "scientists" follow the scientific method. It is therefore misleading to call them scientists, hence the quotations."
Au contraire, it is not misleading at all to call creation scientists just that, given that many of them have postgraduate degrees from prominent universities. Even if Creation SCIENCE is not scientific, that does not detract from the fact that said scientists are just whay they claim to be.

Fair enough. Although I would then be far happier just calling them creationists to avoid any percieved insult from the quotations. I am not willing to call them scientists when refering to their work in a mostly religious endevour, especially when they attempt to pass creation science off as real science.
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"I do, everytime I argue with a creationist
(Just incase you don't pick it up, this is a joke)"
It's actually a pretty good joke.

I'm glad you liked it
------------------
compmage
[This message has been edited by compmage, 04-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-16-2002 12:57 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 32 of 51 (8626)
04-16-2002 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cobra_snake
04-16-2002 12:30 AM


Hi Cobra: I know you originally addressed this to Percy, but I'm bored, have no meetings until this afternoon, and I've already signed off on all the bi-monthly P&L and expense documentation - so you're stuck with my undivided attention. Sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
P: "I think what you're really asking is why abiogenesis and evolution are considered separate topics, and are speculating that perhaps it's because the facts poorly support chemical evolution."
CS: Yes, it is my opinion that evolutionary scientists would have no difficulty with including abiogenesis in their theory if in fact abiogenesis was supported by empirical facts and/or observations.
I don't agree, here, if by "evolutionary scientists" you mean biologists. Abiogenesis is pure organic chemistry, nothing more. Biologists might crow about another example of natural processes being proven, but it still wouldn't be a part of evolution. Chemicals don't evolve. Don't confuse evolutionary science with a non-existent "theory of everything". It isn't, and isn't intended to be. Evolution explains the diversity of life. Period.
quote:
P: "But within a scientific context there is no other possibility. Matter interacts through chemical reactions. That's it. That's all there is. That's the entire list of ways in which matter interacts. There are no other possibilities (I'm ignoring nuclear interactions, of course, since they take place at temperatures and pressures far beyond what life can endure). Therefore, the first life came about through chemical reactions."
I was under the impression that the notion of "scientism" or "materialistic naturalism" was a relatively recent notion. Thus, this new philosophy is a recent invention, not a fundamental principle of science.
This is kind of a non-sequitur. In addition, "materialistic naturalism" seems to be redundant. Is there "non-material or supernatural naturalism"? I think you're confusing the empiricism of the scientific method with "philosophical naturalism", which is a philisophical position stating that "nothing exists outside of nature". Science merely states that science isn't capable of measuring or detecting anything outside of nature - not that the supernatural doesn't exist. This is a very crucial distinction. "Scientism" and "philosphical naturalism" are both subsets of an essentially atheistic worldview. Science itself does not adhere to either position - theist or atheist. Science is by definition agnostic, I guess.
quote:
P: "This seems like one of those times where the confusion of Creationists on the nature of science comes to the fore."
CS: You mean kinda like the Second Law?

I'll let Percy answer this one.
quote:
P: "Science only considers the forces of nature. Once you begin considering other forces, such as supernatural forces, you're no longer doing science."
CS: True, science considers only the forces of nature when dealing with operational science, but I see no reason to place that type of restriction upon origins science.
First off, what is "operational science"? I've never heard that term before. Secondly, if you DON'T place the restriction that "science deals with nature only" on origins science, you have removed the entire idea from the realms of science, and placed it firmly into theology. If it isn't natural (and therefore the rightful purview of science) then it is by definition supernatural - and hence the realm of faith and theology. With a bit of metaphysics ("What is life?") thrown in for good measure.
quote:
P: "The foundation of the scientific method is the gathering of evidence. For science to consider supernatural forces it is only necessary to gather and present evidence of such forces."
CS: But I must ask, what is evidence? And why can't the creation be evidence of the creator (as apparently SETI agrees)?
Simply put: you cannot use your conclusion ("creation happened") as proof of your postulate ("a creator exists"). This is commonly called circular or tautological reasoning. I would very much like to hear your explanation how SETI (a technological search for signs of extra-terrestrial technology) has anything to do with a supernatural creator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-16-2002 12:30 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 33 of 51 (8660)
04-17-2002 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Cobra_snake
04-16-2002 12:21 AM



Percy writes:
I'm afraid it is also the opinion of physicists and chemists and all scientists everywhere that evolution does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT).

Cobra_snake replies:
Yes... but these physicists and chemists and such are most likely almost to a person evolutionists.
You're missing the point. 2LOT resides within the realm of physics and chemistry, and physicists and chemists are the scientists with the best understanding of that law. Independent of whether they accept evolution or not (and virtually all do), they understand better than anyone else that evolution doesn't violate 2LOT.
But this takes us off the original point I was making. If Creationists had a legitimate case concerning 2LOT then they would be taking their arguments to scientific journals and conferences instead of to school boards and public debates before laypeople.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to differ with your opinion here, as I don't think Creation scientists are attempting to be dishonest in their use of the Second Law...I find it unfortunate that you have come to this conclusion, because I feel that you have been convinced of this by evolutionary scientists who wish to portray creation scientists as either dishonest or incompetent. Fact is, I've never seen a creationist argument about thermodynamics that didn't include the relevance of closed vs open systems.
Have you ever read material from ICR or CRS, the two most prominent YEC organizations? Visit their websites and let me know how often they mention closed systems when describing 2LOT. Duane Gish of ICR used to travel the country debating evolutionists, and at each stop he would describe 2LOT without mentioning closed systems.

Yes, and creation scientists always take this into account when discussing the 2LOT. However, they point out that the raw energy from the sun is like a bull in a china shop- it does work, but constructs nothing. Thus, creationists argue that there must be a mechanism to convert this raw energy from the sun into productive energy in order to allow evolution to take place.
This is nonsense, not a 2LOT argument. Simple common sense reasoning reveals the fallacy. This "bull in a china shop" energy from the sun is what powers all life here on earth, including reproduction. This supposed "raw energy" from the sun does not require any transformation into "productive energy" - it's already productive energy.
As for evolution, when a reproductive mistake (mutation) occurs the energy behind the chemical reactions producing that mistake is ultimately the sun. Life is just chemical reactions, and heat is one of the most common ways to encourage chemical reactions, simple dumb-old brute-force heat.
You might try thinking about this while you try to figure out the difference between "raw energy" and "productive energy". I assume by "productive energy" you were thinking about things like electricity. Well, try plugging your plant into the wall and see if it does better than putting it in a well-lit window. Productive energy is whatever form of energy does the job, and for most organic life here on earth the sun's energy is right on the money.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-16-2002 12:21 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 34 of 51 (8661)
04-17-2002 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Cobra_snake
04-16-2002 12:21 AM



Cobra_snake writes:
True, but creationists deny that microevolution extended equals macroevolution, and indeed even evolutionists seem to argue this point.
No, they don't. You must have misunderstood some debated issue within evolution. An evolutionist who didn't accept the accumulation of small change into eventual significant differences would be analogous to an atheistic Creationist. It wouldn't make any sense.

Percy writes:
Look, life is really complicated, but at heart it's just chemicals reacting with one another. When the result of these chemical reactions is an organism different from the parent then evolution has taken place.

Cobra_snake replies:
The question is whether or not these small changes can account for all of life as we see it.
What's to prevent it? If I keep putting one foot in front of the other I could eventually end up in San Francisco. Of course, I couldn't walk to Tokyo because of the Pacific Ocean. What is your evolutionary analog to the Pacific Ocean?
Like I said, life is just chemical reactions. If chemical reactions are not the vehicle for evolution, then what is? If your answer is God then you're not necessarily wrong, but you're certainly not doing science. At least not until you have empirical evidence for God.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-16-2002 12:21 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 35 of 51 (8662)
04-17-2002 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cobra_snake
04-16-2002 12:30 AM



Cobra_snake writes:
I was under the impression that the notion of "scientism" or "materialistic naturalism" was a relatively recent notion. Thus, this new philosophy is a recent invention, not a fundamental principle of science.
The foundation of science and the basis of the scientific method is empiricism, usually traced to the 17th century philosopher Francis Bacon. However, an idea's value is not a function of its age but of its power and cogency. Even if empiricism had been developed yesterday, you have to address it on the merits instead of dismissing it as a mere youth.

True, science considers only the forces of nature when dealing with operational science, but I see no reason to place that type of restriction upon origins science.
That's nice, but the foundational principles of science are the same regardless of the particular field of study.

But I must ask, what is evidence? And why can't the creation be evidence of the creator (as apparently SETI agrees)?
Well, let's go back to Paley. Paley finds a watch in a meadow and deduces that it was manufactured by humans. He has a lot of evidence for humans, and in fact is one himself. He knows they exist for he is among them daily, and he is intimately familiar with their abilities.
What is your equivalent evidence for a creator?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-16-2002 12:30 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 36 of 51 (8663)
04-17-2002 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Cobra_snake
04-16-2002 12:43 AM



Cobra_snake writes:
The quotes don't generally seem to be evolutionists tearing down their own science, but rather suggesting that a particular prospect/mechanism of evolution is not supported by the evidence.
Ah, I see we have a revisionist in our midst.
If this is true then why are the quotes often accompanied by statements like, "Scientists are coming to recognize the serious problems with evolutionary theory." Or the ever popular, "More and more scientists are abandoning the theory of evolution."
How about this quote provided by Redstang critiquing how radiometric dating is done (he didn't say where he got it, so obviously I don't know where it comes from, either):
" ... the thing to do is get a sequence of dates and throw out those that are vastly anomalous." (Curtis et al)
The Creationist quoting tactic is not intended to highlight obscure debates within evolutionist circles, which is where most of these quotes come from and with which almost no Creationist is familiar or interested, but rather to paint a highly misleading and inaccurate portrait of a theory in trouble and on the run.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-16-2002 12:43 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 37 of 51 (8664)
04-17-2002 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Cobra_snake
04-16-2002 12:21 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

Right, my understanding is that the 2LOT states that systems will tend to become increasinly disorderly.
"While there is more than one way that 2LOT can be expressed, the form most relevant for this discussion says that the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Sometimes Creationists will even express it along these lines, saying that entropy cannot decrease, but they'll always leave out the part about a closed system."
"But evolution does not take place in a closed system because the earth is not a closed system."
Oh believe me, I've heard this quite a bit in the literature I've read, so I know.
"It receives enormous amounts of energy from the sun everyday, and that energy is the engine driving almost all (I have to say almost because geothermal is another source of energy) life activity on earth, including evolution."
Yes, and creation scientists always take this into account when discussing the 2LOT. However, they point out that the raw energy from the sun is like a bull in a china shop- it does work, but constructs nothing. Thus, creationists argue that there must be a mechanism to convert this raw energy from the sun into productive energy in order to allow evolution to take place.

Life, at a fundamental level, is enabled by chemical reactions.
Given the approriate raw materials (i.e. chemicals), the bull-like
heat/radiant energy from the sun can be quite effective in prviding
energy to help promote chemical reactions.
As for a mechanism to convert this raw solar energy ... well I'm guessing that photosynthesis fits, and must have developed very early in the history of life on earth.
... but it's all rather redundant ... if a law in physics is
said to be invalid under particular circumstances ... like
in a open system rather than a closed ... then the law is invalid
and cannot be used to make predictions about that situation.
Newton's laws of motion are valid within a single inertial reference
frame ... outside of such constraints they do not produce the
correct predictions ... it would be wrong to reference them is
a discussion outside of their remit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-16-2002 12:21 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 38 of 51 (8669)
04-17-2002 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Percy
04-12-2002 4:05 PM


quote:
Evolution produces organisms more fit to survive. It is absolutely blind toward any sense of progress, either from lower to higher or from simple to complex. The sole guiding factor is the ability to pass genes on to the next generation. Evolutionary success means passing genes on, evolutionary failure means not passing genes on. Whether the descendent organisms are simpler or more complicated, whether they are "higher" or "lower" (whatever that means), is irrelevant.
Sometimes evolution proceeds from more complex to less complex.
For example, the evolutionary history of the horse shows that it used to have multiple toes on each limb, but now only has one toe, with vesigial splint bones on either side of the main, large tarsal (cannon) bone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 04-12-2002 4:05 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 39 of 51 (8670)
04-17-2002 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Cobra_snake
04-16-2002 12:21 AM


I wanted to come back to this once more in case you still don't believe Creationists misrepresent 2LOT:

Cobra_snake writes:
I'm afraid I'm going to have to differ with your opinion here, as I don't think Creation scientists are attempting to be dishonest in their use of the Second Law...I find it unfortunate that you have come to this conclusion, because I feel that you have been convinced of this by evolutionary scientists who wish to portray creation scientists as either dishonest or incompetent. Fact is, I've never seen a creationist argument about thermodynamics that didn't include the relevance of closed vs open systems.
Here are some examples of misrepresentation of 2LOT by ICR. They're in chronological order and represent increasingly sophisticated distortions and/or misrepresentations.
Doesn't mentioned closed system requirement:
EVOLUTION, THERMODYNAMICS, AND ENTROPY - IMPACT No. 3
Describes the controversy over Creationism's misrepresentation of 2LOT, then goes on to misstate 2LOT anyway:
ENTROPY AND OPEN SYSTEMS - IMPACT No. 40
States that earth is an open system, but implies that pre-coded program and an energy conversion mechanism are required:
THERMODYNAMICS AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE - IMPACT No. 57 THERMODYNAMICS AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Part II) - IMPACT No. 58
Mentions the dishonesty issue, then goes on to again misstate 2LOT anyway:
DOES ENTROPY CONTRADICT EVOLUTION? - IMPACT No. 141
Why do Creationists do this? Because the argument has proven so successful with lay audiences. You yourself are a perfect example of the success of this approach. There is nothing in 2LOT to rule out evolution, but it just sounds so plausible, and so you and millions like you have become convinced that 2LOT says evolution isn't possible and that evolutionists are burying their head in the sand on the issue and hoping it will go away.
This issue doesn't feel like it's going away anytime soon, but I do hold out hope. The moon dust issue hung around for a couple decades before finally disappearing, and the The Puluxy River footprints issue was popular for a while, but eventually even Creationists began dismissing these arguments. It will probably have to be the same with 2LOT. Certainly the ID people like Behe understand 2LOT is not a problem for evolution - would you listen to them?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-16-2002 12:21 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 40 of 51 (8690)
04-18-2002 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Cobra_snake
04-16-2002 12:21 AM


Hello Cobra, couple of comments concerning your 2LOT statements.
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
First, I would like to clarify my position. I am not convinced either way whether or not evolution violates the 2LOT. However, I am convinced that the idea of an atheistic cosmos is contradictory to the 2LOT (if the universe isn't a closed system, I don't know what is!)
I think that I responded to you on this one in a different thread. There is a big problem here with your arguement that actually reflects on the entire creationist arguement using 2LOT. It has to do with reversible vs irreversible thermo. Simply put if a reaction is irreversible the delta S is always positive, however if a reaction is reversible in a thermo sense then the delta S can be positive or negative. Thermodynamics allows for the transfer of entropy (entropy is just another measurement of energy flow in the same way that enthalpy is) within a system. In other words, one area or compartment of a system may decrease in entropy while another increases in entropy allowing for the increase in entropy of the system as a whole. Entropy definitely does transfer within the universe so regions within a solar system could have a decrease in entropy without effecting the net increase in entropy in the solar system and the universe as a whole. This also happens in your body, everytime that you form a sulfer-sulfer bond in a protein the reaction results in a slight DECREASE in entropy at the site of the reaction as the delta S for the reaction is negative. The delta S for the entire system (you and yoru environment) is still positive so there is no violation. Part of what describes this is called the Clausian Inequality (at least in my thermo book and my PChem book).
quote:
I'm afraid I'm going to have to differ with your opinion here, as I don't think Creation scientists are attempting to be dishonest in their use of the Second Law.
Actually you are correct with some but incorrect with others. I have heard some of the most disingenuous claims by creationists who have had themo in their denial of reversible thermo and its effects.
quote:
Right, my understanding is that the 2LOT states that systems will tend to become increasinly disorderly.
A closed system taken as a whole, yes. However that says nothing about the distribution of entropy within that system.
quote:
"While there is more than one way that 2LOT can be expressed, the form most relevant for this discussion says that the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Sometimes Creationists will even express it along these lines, saying that entropy cannot decrease, but they'll always leave out the part about a closed system."
I find it unfortunate that you have come to this conclusion, because I feel that you have been convinced of this by evolutionary scientists who wish to portray creation scientists as either dishonest or incompetent. Fact is, I've never seen a creationist argument about thermodynamics that didn't include the relevance of closed vs open systems.
I have, most of the ones at Answers in Genesis, ICR, and True Origens either skip the closed system or skip the reversible thermo or both. Some of them just completely bollox it up.
quote:
"It receives enormous amounts of energy from the sun everyday, and that energy is the engine driving almost all (I have to say almost because geothermal is another source of energy) life activity on earth, including evolution."
Yes, and creation scientists always take this into account when discussing the 2LOT. However, they point out that the raw energy from the sun is like a bull in a china shop- it does work, but constructs nothing. Thus, creationists argue that there must be a mechanism to convert this raw energy from the sun into productive energy in order to allow evolution to take place.
Actually there is a little bit of a problem here as well. The light coming from the sun is actually energy in a very ordered state. At least that used by most plants. This makes it low entropy energy. The waste energy given off from plants which used light from the sun (ie heat) is about the most dissordered energy around, ie very high in entropy. Yes, photosynthesis does convert the energy, but photosynthesis is actually a reasonably defined biochemical process, evolutionarily speaking.
[QUOTE]"Look, life is really complicated, but at heart it's just chemicals reacting with one another. When the result of these chemical reactions is an organism different from the parent then evolution has taken place."
The question is whether or not these small changes can account for all of life as we see it.[/B][/QUOTE]
[/quote]
Yes that is the debate. However, 2LOT is not a bar to the small changes accumulating.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-16-2002 12:21 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 51 (8741)
04-20-2002 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by compmage
04-11-2002 11:00 AM


"Step 2: Scoring. Count up the number of times you answered "yes". If this number is zero, proceed to step 3. Otherwise slam your head against the wall as many times as you answered "yes" and go back to step 1."
--What a hoot. Got an 'A' there. Though of course any Evolutionary knowledgable person would question these questions:
"3. Does evolution say anything about the origin of life?
4. Does evolution say anything about the origin of the universe?"
--Clarification on 3 and 4 would have been 'biological evolution'.
"6. Does evolution proceed from simplicity to complexity?"
--They should have clarified on the point of is this an 'always' pattern as they did in question #1, because it does and it doesn't do this.
"7. Does evolution proceed from lower to higher lifeforms?"
--See last comment.
"8. Does evolution incorporate the notion of progress?"
--This either needs clarification or the answer is Yes, Evolution = Developement, Developement = Progression.
"11. Is evolution incompatible with any major religion?"
--Not too valid on the point that it is opinionated.
"12. Is it true that their are no transitional forms?"
--Much too flexible.
"Step 3: Materials. Do you have any materials authored by members of the ICR? If so throw them away. Use them here and you will be held responsible for the baltant lies and stupidity in them."
--Well aren't we biased!
"Step 4: Conventional Science Quotes. Are you planning to present quotes from conventional scientists that seem to express disagreement with evolution? If so, make sure that you have them from the original sources and that they are quoted in full and in context. If you have misquotes and typical creationist butcher jobs, you will be destroyed without mercy.
Step 5: Creationist Quotes. If you have quotes from creationists, they'd better be supported. And if the creationists claim educational or scientific backgrounds, degrees, titles, and such, you'd better check them and make sure they are accurate. If we catch you quoting liars, we will treat you as a liar yourself.
Step 6: Anecdotes. If you have stories of things that you think bolster your case, be prepared to cite verifiable specifics. Be assured that you will be checked up on."
--No problem.
--Is it just me or does it come to mind that Dr. Pepper isn't very fond of Creationism on any grounding? I guess that after looking at some of the steps, compmage should slam his head against the wall as many times as I made comment on the questions, or is this Dr. Peppers job? Heck, why not both do it.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by compmage, posted 04-11-2002 11:00 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by compmage, posted 04-22-2002 2:03 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 42 of 51 (8766)
04-22-2002 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by TrueCreation
04-20-2002 8:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"6. Does evolution proceed from simplicity to complexity?"
--They should have clarified on the point of is this an 'always' pattern as they did in question #1, because it does and it doesn't do this.

Wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with simplicity or complexity.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"7. Does evolution proceed from lower to higher lifeforms?"
--See last comment.

Same, but for lower and higher lifeforms. Nothing to do with evolution.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"8. Does evolution incorporate the notion of progress?"
--This either needs clarification or the answer is Yes, Evolution = Developement, Developement = Progression.

Wrong again. Evolution does not equal development. Evolution equals change.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"11. Is evolution incompatible with any major religion?"
--Not too valid on the point that it is opinionated.

Evolution doesn't comment at all about the nature of god(s). Any incompatibility is in the eyes of the religious (opinion).
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"12. Is it true that their are no transitional forms?"
--Much too flexible.

Only flexible if you are trying to assert that there are no transitionals.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Step 3: Materials. Do you have any materials authored by members of the ICR? If so throw them away. Use them here and you will be held responsible for the baltant lies and stupidity in them."
--Well aren't we biased!

Biased, perhaps. Fed up, more likely.
------------------
compmage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by TrueCreation, posted 04-20-2002 8:32 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by TrueCreation, posted 04-22-2002 10:23 PM compmage has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 51 (8816)
04-22-2002 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by compmage
04-22-2002 2:03 AM


"Wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with simplicity or complexity."
--Your only resort is to say that complexity is simply opinionated, which it is not. Nucleotide sequencing in length and composition on biochemical grounds is extreamly compex, and it is even hightened in complexity and structure as you view sequencing of more 'advanced' organisms. This process according to evolutionary theory simply fluctuates and is not a linear prospect of 'simplicity to complexity', but simply 'decent with modification'.
"Same, but for lower and higher lifeforms. Nothing to do with evolution."
--Not directly of course, see my last statements.
"Wrong again. Evolution does not equal development. Evolution equals change."
--Please consult a dictionary:
quote:
evolution Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-)
n.
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
The process of developing.
Gradual development.

Biology.
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.
--I think you see what I am pin-pointing.
"Evolution doesn't comment at all about the nature of god(s). Any incompatibility is in the eyes of the religious (opinion)."
--Exactly.
"Only flexible if you are trying to assert that there are no transitionals."
--The same pertains if you are to argue that there are. (also, transitional should have been defined)
"Biased, perhaps. Fed up, more likely."
--I'm glad that it were not you that had wrote it (unless your Dr. Pepper), he seemingly either has a missunderstanding of his own belief or chose not to include a more sufficient essay.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by compmage, posted 04-22-2002 2:03 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by compmage, posted 04-23-2002 2:16 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 44 of 51 (8827)
04-23-2002 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by TrueCreation
04-22-2002 10:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

--Your only resort is to say that complexity is simply opinionated, which it is not. Nucleotide sequencing in length and composition on biochemical grounds is extreamly compex, and it is even hightened in complexity and structure as you view sequencing of more 'advanced' organisms. This process according to evolutionary theory simply fluctuates and is not a linear prospect of 'simplicity to complexity', but simply 'decent with modification'.

However, as you state evolution doesn't say anything about 'simplicity' or 'complexity'. Any change would be evolution. Therefore evolution doesn't care about either of these. To say evolution 'creates' organism to move from simplicity to complexity is to misunderstand evolution. Evolution doesn't 'go' anywhere, it has no direction or goal.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
quote:
evolution Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-)
n.
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
The process of developing.
Gradual development.
Biology.
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; hylogeny.
A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.
--I think you see what I am pin-pointing.

I wouldn't look in a dictionary for the definition of a scientific theory. Evolution is change. Development implies a goal or a direction. Evolution has none. Any percieved 'development' stems from the assumption that our current state is the goal or is along the path toward the goal of evolution. We are not the pinicle of evolution.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Evolution doesn't comment at all about the nature of god(s). Any incompatibility is in the eyes of the religious (opinion)."
--Exactly.

Exactly. If 'you' personally misinterpret evolution and percieve an incompatability, that would be 'your' problem. It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with 'you'.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Only flexible if you are trying to assert that there are no transitionals."
--The same pertains if you are to argue that there are. (also, transitional should have been defined)

Almost every fossil species ever discovered is in some way transitional.
------------------
compmage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by TrueCreation, posted 04-22-2002 10:23 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 45 of 51 (9156)
05-01-2002 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by compmage
04-12-2002 3:08 AM


Seems to me we can not go forward beacuse debate as "mock" really is a joke but if one understands the economy of creationism one reality emerges that shows that debating clubs while worthwhile for some areas of academic progress will not socially cut the mustard that Gish and others have leveled on origns etc.
This is new with my generation. And with the "debate" there. Here I mean, I expected that those who stared it wanted a solution. There are some technically available but since Johnson and ID I have been flooded that I can barely keep my Zimmer Zipped and my mouth not tongue in cheek. A sneaker net still works even though IT has moved on to call this a dino legacy of those who indeed do and can read.
Debating in 70s was cool but meanwhile I was creating a 4-H herpetology club that acutally used debate once in talking about evolution and as teen agers we had not the stamina to keep this thing going all these years and moved on to the knowledge representation. Those who build networks are aware but have not learned what a bunch of teen agers in central Jersey got by word of mouth before the having to have responsibility for a payroll over over.
There is such a thing as reverse genetic engineering. This is not what connects networks today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by compmage, posted 04-12-2002 3:08 AM compmage 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