Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack Thereof
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 27 of 212 (108772)
05-17-2004 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by almeyda
05-17-2004 8:26 AM


Almeyda,
A religion may very well be a world-view. But a world-view isn't necessarily a religion, a world-view is more accurately described as a philosophy that may include religion. Therefore religion cannot be defined as a world-view, rendering the rest of your post moot.
Your basic tactic is to attempt to expand the definition of religion so far that it encompasses evolution. In which case electrons, atoms, electricity etc. are religious icons as well. You have rendered the word "religion" in such a way that it has no meaning that is consistent with any recognised definition.
If you think explaining rainbows via differential speeds of light relative to their frequencies in different media is religion, go for it. But even other creationists are beginning to look at you in a funny way.
Science cannot observe or measure the supernatural and therefore is incapable of obtaining any knowledge about it. But by this definition science cannot render judgement on the theory of evolution either.
Science doesn't have to directly observe, it has to have evidence. Your definition is incorrect, not that it's a defintion, of course.
Science cannot TEST NOR FALSIFY the supernatural. But it can do the same for evolution. I've given you a whopping post to read regarding cladistics & stratigraphy that tests the very thing you say can't be.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by almeyda, posted 05-17-2004 8:26 AM almeyda has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 31 of 212 (108811)
05-17-2004 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by almeyda
05-17-2004 1:12 AM


Almeyda,
I would like to agree some premises before I continue to post to you.
As such, I have made some fairly non-contentious points here that I would like your agreement on, or at least your reason for disagreement. This should form a fruitful basis for further discussion.
Thanks,
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by almeyda, posted 05-17-2004 1:12 AM almeyda has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 57 of 212 (109882)
05-22-2004 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by almeyda
05-22-2004 5:21 AM


Almeyda,
Science does not exclusively deal with naturalism. Evolution does.
Rubbish. All science uses methodological naturalism. Which is why there isn't a Godly Theory of Gravity, where God is alleged to hold everything down by his force of will. Or A Religious Theory of Particle Cohesion where those silly physicists got it wrong about the strong & weak nuclear forces. God does it!
Can you name any scientific theory at all that invokes the supernatural?
If it can't be tested/falsified it ain't science. You agreed to this.
Which reminds me, I am still awaiting your agreemt on point C/, here.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by almeyda, posted 05-22-2004 5:21 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by almeyda, posted 05-22-2004 12:02 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 64 of 212 (109905)
05-22-2004 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by almeyda
05-22-2004 12:02 PM


Almeyda,
I never said anything about invoking the supernatural.
Well what exactly were you juxtaposing with "naturalism", then?
You go on.
What i said was that if the evidence around the world fits within Gods word and the biblical framework and is consistent then we can have real trust and faith in God.
No, you didn't say that at all. You said.
Science does not exclusively deal with naturalism. Evolution does.
Your comment was specifically about how science goes about it's business, & how evolution is in some way different. So, I am waiting for an example of how other scientific methodology functions without dealing exclusively with naturalism.
Moreover, "if evidence around the world fits within Gods word and the biblical framework and is consistent...". But it doesn't, & it isn't. There's no if about it. I've given you the odds of certain rocks not being less than 65 million years old, & the incredible odds of cladograms matching stratigraphy as well as they do. These studies alone falsify the biblical account.
Now, I have tried to agree premises with you on a few non-contentious points. Please adress the outstanding point of disagreement ,here, so we have a basis for future discussion. Thank you.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by almeyda, posted 05-22-2004 12:02 PM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by almeyda, posted 05-24-2004 11:50 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 66 of 212 (109966)
05-23-2004 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by almeyda
05-22-2004 12:26 PM


Almeyda,
Their theories will always continue to change therefore how can they ever trust their own ideas? ever?.
You don't think atoms consist of neutron & protons combined in a nucleus surrounded by electrons?
Are you aware of how many revisions atomic theory has undergone to get where we are now?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by almeyda, posted 05-22-2004 12:26 PM almeyda has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 73 of 212 (110080)
05-24-2004 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by almeyda
05-23-2004 11:31 PM


Re: Evolution a Religion?
Hi Almeyda,
Message 64, pls. Particularly the last bit with the link to the other thread.
TY,
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by almeyda, posted 05-23-2004 11:31 PM almeyda has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 80 of 212 (110329)
05-25-2004 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by almeyda
05-24-2004 11:50 PM


Almeyda,
Your age of rocks is not accurate as much as you want it to be. All it is is a bunch of numbers calculating pretending to be able to mark an age of millions of yrs. This is not true. There is no such dating method without adding your own opinion to the fact that can add a date of millions/billions of yrs.
Where are the calculations propped up by "my opinion", & my opinion alone?
This is the hand wavey I-refuse-to-address-the-evidence tosh we expect from creationists. It is clearly not my biased unsupported "opinion" that multiple dating methods corroborate the date of the K-T tektites, it is a raw FACT. THE MATHS SHOWS THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCH CORROBORATION TO BE OVER 70,000,000 : 1 AGAINST!
Tell, me, please, what conclusions should I be drawing from multiple lines of evidence that say the same thing? Should I hold my bible aloft, as you do, & just try & pretend it doesn't exist, or should I do the intellectually honest thing & accept it for what it is; powerful corroboration that the K-T boundary is 65 million years old?
To scupper the evidence you need to explain why the correlation exists. This involves directly addressing the issue rather than making ridiculous accusations that mere opinion is involved. If you can't, then you need to accept that it exists. This is not evidence that can be interpreted any other way. It supports the mainstream scientific view of the world & scuppers a young earth. Let me remind you there isn't a scrap of evidence that specifically supports the biblical 6,000 year old earth, yet there are many correlations like the K-T tektite example I've given you that support the mainstream view. There is precious little evidence that can be interpreted either way like you wish.
I dont have anything to add to your link question. I disagree because i believe historical science is very different to practical science. You however believe they are on the same wave length
You are moving the goalposts. Point C/ was not about the difference between historical & practical science, but the relative tentativity of hypotheses regarding the amount of evidence that supports them. Allow me to remind you.
mark writes:
C/ Nothing in science is "proven", assuming a definition of the word that involves absolute 100% surety on a given theory. All scientific hypotheses are tentative to one degree or another. A new hypothesis is highly tentative, the more predictictions that are borne out, that is, the more evidence it has in its favour, reduces the tentativity of that hypothesis. In highly supported hypotheses, which are known as theories (although the terms are interchangeable even in scietific circles, depending on context) the level of evidential support is high enough to render the theory so well supported that to withhold consent can be considered unreasonable. This is what is known as a scientific fact. In no way do evolutionists, or scientists in general, attempt to conflate a scientific fact with a definition that confers 100% knowledge.
Any example you can give I can question. If I can throw any doubt at all on your example then it can't be 100% proven, by definition. I've already done this to examples you have given, in fact they were excellent examples of what I mean.
The scientific method does not differentiate between historical & practical sciences. The methodology is the same.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by almeyda, posted 05-24-2004 11:50 PM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by almeyda, posted 05-28-2004 12:04 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 95 of 212 (110918)
05-27-2004 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by almeyda
05-26-2004 11:27 PM


Re: Evolution a Religion?
Almeyda,
I'm awaiting a reply to this, please.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by almeyda, posted 05-26-2004 11:27 PM almeyda has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 111 of 212 (111072)
05-28-2004 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by almeyda
05-28-2004 12:04 AM


Almeyda,
Sorry mark i have nothing to reply to. I do not trust any dating method that can give dates of millions/billions of yrs as they are not reliable and rely more on a presupposition that the world is billions of yrs old.
Actually they make no presupposition that the world is millions of years plus old. That's what the data points to.
All those numbers you give me is just all crap to me and is just a way of indoctrinating the world more that the earth is billions of yrs old.
Ah yes. Ye olde atheistic conspiracy. We have an irritating habit of going with the evidence, don't we? Given you have failed yet again to deal substantively with the evidence, I think "indoctrination" is a far better descriptor of creationism, wouldn't you say? I mean, we have the evidence & you have none, right? When I asked for the 6,000 year old earth evidence you were strangely silent. In fact you did what all creationists do, you tried attacking dating methods that disagree with you instead of providing evidence to support your own position. Not very impressive, mate.
Creationists have already showed me the problems with dating methods.
Like what? The four DIFFERENT methods are based upon different assumptions & therefore test the assumptions of the others. As a result, radiometric dating is based upon tested assumptions just like the rest of science. The odds of it being wrong is incredible.
Did your creationist buddies explain to you the colossal odds of different dating methods hitting the same dates & therefore eliminating their untested assumptions? No, thought not. You just read what you wanted & that was enough for you, wasn't it? Whatever you do, don't read anything those evil atheist conspiratorial scientists have to say, or those evil atheist conspiratorial mathematicians, or those evil atheist conspiratorial biologists, or those evil atheist conspiratorial geologists, palaeontologists, molecular biologists, etc. will you?
Your problem, in common with all YEC's, is that you are more interested in denying science that doesn't fit with a literal interpretation of the bible. It is noted throughout my discussions with you that you haven't offered a SINGLE answer that tackles the data itself. Your tactic is to offer no refutation based on logic & evidence, but to simply offer your incredulity as sole reasoning. This is appalling intellectual dishonesty. It is also a defining character of creationists in general.
If you do ever get around to supplying me with evidence of a 6,000 year old earth, I will be sure to apply your standards of evidence to it.
And all other methods of dating including the ones for a young earth.
Hit me with the dating methods that conclude the earth is 6,000 years old, big boy! Oh, we already seem to have been here, don't we? I remember the eery silence only too well.
Hollow words. Lying for Jesus. Again.
And all those numbers calculating do not prove anything. My opinion, you have yours.
Again, the incredulity. My "opinion" is supported by evidence, literally tons of it. Your's has none. The calculations show that the K-T boundary is 65 myo, give or take, & it shows this to a remarkable degree of confidence. We call it "evidence", & "maths". We learn about it at school. As such, my opinion counts for something because it is supported, yours counts for nothing because it isn't. You are not going to be allowed to conflate my opinion with yours & reduce it to the lowest common denominator. This is not some post-modernist exercise where all "opinions" are equal.
I have massively corroborated evidence that the earth is old involving zero untested assumptions, you have nothing but wishful thinking backed up by a bible refuted by science.
Now, will you please address this point.
Thank you.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by almeyda, posted 05-28-2004 12:04 AM almeyda has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 121 of 212 (111442)
05-29-2004 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by almeyda
05-29-2004 7:09 AM


Almeyda,
Anyway creationists have showed me the flaws in dating methods, evidence against old earth etc.
Again, I ask, like what?
I don't talk to bare links, in any case it is against forum guidelines to post them.
In your own words what is wrong with the dating methods? Why do they agree so strongly?
For the umpteenth time of asking, please adress this post. If you no longer have any disagreement with point C/ , please note your assent in the thread linked to.
Thank you,
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by almeyda, posted 05-29-2004 7:09 AM almeyda has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 141 of 212 (111997)
06-01-2004 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by almeyda
06-01-2004 3:23 AM


Re: IRe: almeyda
Almeyda,
God does not exist because you believe in evolution.
Just because you've welded yourself to a scientifically contradicted literal interpretation of an organised religion doesn't mean everyone has to have the same intellectual accident as you.
See, its like humanism.
If humanism is religion, & humanists "believe" in the current atomic theory, does that make the belief in atoms religious?
No deity will save us.
You said it!
What if evolution never ever was invented. Creation would be taught in schools.
Until there was an evidence based theory rather than a notion based on blind faith, it was.
hmm so your theories changed right?
Almeyda, you have to be one of the most deliberately inconsistent pig-ignorant creationists out there, & the evo's here know that's saying something. ALL SCIENCTIFIC THEORIES ARE OPEN TO REVISION. Jesus Christ, are you that THICK?
Take atomic theory, from it's origins in ancient Greece through the plum pudding theory of the nineteenth century, to the standard model, & finally quantum physics. Are you seriously telling me that you reject the notion that atoms are made of electrons, neutrons & protons, & the electrons are quantised regarding their energy levels? If the answer is "no", then you are a hypocrite of the worst kind. You hold something you disagree with to a different standard than something you do. Not a good intellectual place to be. But then you're a creationist, so I suppose you're used to it.
You know just about everything at the scopes trial has now been discarded by evolutionists.
No, I don't. Cite please.
Creation is nothing more than getting pushed away from society not because of the evidence but because the implications of it being true.
Nope, creationism HAS been rejected BECAUSE of the evidence, nothing more. It is directly contradicted by multiple lines of evidence from multiple disciplines. These findings cannot be interpreted either way, they CONTRADICT a literal reading of Genesis.
You are simply engaging in projection, assuming your opponents reject things because they simply don't want them to be true, as you do yourself. Atheists/evo's require evidence in support of what they accept. I am afraid something that is not only evidentially unsupported, but directly contradicted isnot going to cut the mustard with anyone except the religious.
God does exists we must listen to the Bible. He owns all, made all, and will judge all. What man in their right mind would want to live under Gods holy rules?. What a boring life that is dont you think?. Oh well. I wonder whos going to get the last say in this matter.
Are you finished preaching?
If God's "holy rules" involves no sex before marriage, then it is much more exciting breaking his alleged rules than following them. Unless you find sex boring, of course.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by almeyda, posted 06-01-2004 3:23 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by almeyda, posted 06-02-2004 5:22 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 144 of 212 (112337)
06-02-2004 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by almeyda
06-02-2004 5:22 AM


Re: IRe: almeyda
Almeyda,
Useless appendix, vestigal organs (at the time of the scopes trial they actually stated that 180 parts were vestigal structures)
They are vestigial. Vestigial doesn't = functionless.
Horse evolution (promoted as major/serious evidence of evolution)
It is. Why do you think it isn't?
Piltdown man
Granted.
Neandethal man
?
Embryonic recapitulation, Haekels fraud etc.
Embryonic recapitulation does occur. That's why baleen whale embryos have teeth, the toothless anteater embryo has teeth, human embryos have tails, whale embryos have hind legs when in reality they don't even have hind fins as adults.
Haekel may have sexed up his drawings, but phylogeny can be seen ontogenetically.
Its no different today. Today theres Lucy and all these other evidences that will soon be discarded just as all these were.
A triumph of wishful thinking over reality.
The basic evidence that led people to conclude evolution occurred is as true today as it was then.
But it's neither here nor there, really. I understand that all scientific theories are open to revision, & you hypocritically accept some theories that have been revised over & over, but reject evolution because it has had the same done to it. By way of illustration: do you accept or reject atomic theory as atoms being made of a nucleus, consisting of protons & neutrons, surrounded by energetically quantised electrons, making any given atom mostly empty space?
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 06-02-2004 05:13 AM
This message has been edited by mark24, 06-02-2004 05:15 AM
This message has been edited by mark24, 06-02-2004 10:05 AM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by almeyda, posted 06-02-2004 5:22 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Parasomnium, posted 06-02-2004 6:11 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 146 of 212 (112339)
06-02-2004 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Parasomnium
06-02-2004 6:11 AM


Re: IRe: almeyda
oop, ty for the heads up

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Parasomnium, posted 06-02-2004 6:11 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 196 of 212 (117807)
06-23-2004 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by DarkStar
06-22-2004 8:37 PM


Re: What does the fossil record suggest?
Darkstar,
That a vast number of fossils exist, with the obvious exception being any evidence of macroevolution which would require a vast number of transitionals to also be present in the fossil record. They are not there. While there are claims of some fossils being transitionals, opposing views debunk this notion. Therefore, no transitionals, no evidence of macroevolution ever having occurred. If vast numbers of transitionals were found, inspiring a true concensus on the reality of transitionals, or if macroevolution was ever observed, I would be willing to alter my opinion. Until that time, macroevolution remains an unsubstantiated myth perpetuated by wishful thinking.
I think it's time to take a look at the Benton et al paper, Assessing Congruence Between Cladistic & Stratigraphic Data.
Given that the phylogenies under study are independent of stratigraphy, it is possible to compare the two to see how well they match. There are two main reasons for disagreement. 1/ The phylogeny is wrong, & 2/ the fossil record is so poor that the daughter species is found in older rock than the parent. Given that this is the case, we should expect a very low SCI (SCI is the ratio of consistent to inconsistent nodes in a cladogram) value if evolution were not indicative of reality. ie. Nodes (in complex trees) match by chance rather than signal. In other words, the null hypothesis is that the SCI value will be a low value.
Stratigraphic Consistency Index
The SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3).
Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids.
SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), mammallike reptiles (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and mammallike reptiles. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), mammallike reptiles (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%)."
Why is the SCI so high? Why do cladograms & stratigraphy match on the whole if evolution is not indicative of reality? Given that cladograms & stratigraphy match relatively well, how do you explain this significant correlation?
Given there is a clear signal of "evolution" in the rock stratigraphy & morphology combined, it therefore stands to reason that where these phylogenies would infer large scale morphological change (Cetaceans, basal tetrapoda, & basal amniotes, for example), evolution can be reliably inferred. Even more reliably than phylogenetic analyses, cladistics & stratigraphy on their own, that is.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 8:37 PM DarkStar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Loudmouth, posted 06-25-2004 2:30 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 200 of 212 (118675)
06-25-2004 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Loudmouth
06-25-2004 2:30 PM


Re: What does the fossil record suggest?
Loudmouth,
Sure, why not. When ark replies I'll take it over into a new thread.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Loudmouth, posted 06-25-2004 2:30 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by MrHambre, posted 06-25-2004 6:27 PM mark24 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