Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8843 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2018 9:38 AM
284 online now:
jar, MrTim, PaulK, RAZD, Tanypteryx (5 members, 279 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 834,305 Year: 9,128/29,783 Month: 1,375/1,977 Week: 68/445 Day: 14/54 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Author Topic:   What evidence is needed to change a creationist
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2839 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 106 of 144 (459975)
03-11-2008 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by RAZD
01-23-2008 8:44 PM


Re: Brad's one-cent
Ok but then what about the difference of Charles D. and F. Galton?

Gould made a big deal about Charles having said that evoLUTION is by accumulative small changes (which would be in any generation, for sure) but his cousin used the words "must" vs "may" under the concept of "transilent variation" instead.

As best I can understand Galton's polyhedron in reality it does not seem (regardless of Wright's complaint to Fisher (and Mayr's response to/about pop gen)) to require the resting on the long vs the short side (of the necessary geometry) to necessarily have to occur, in any and every generation.

Gould had quoted Galton to the words about that there is a big difference between evolution as it must proceed by small infintesimal accumulative variations and that it may so change.

Edited by Brad McFall, : wrong word; some stuff


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2008 8:44 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
helenavm
Junior Member (Idle past 3601 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 04-18-2008


Message 107 of 144 (463758)
04-19-2008 6:49 PM


I am an on the fence creationist. I have believed in ID as a non-scientist and a Christian. I am not a fundamentalist, nor do I believe in the young earth or the biblical creation story.

One of my main questions deals with an issue that makes no rational sense to me outside of some kind of ID. If there is anyone who can direct me to a post or a website or a book that can explain how animal camouflage is actually explained by random natural selection I might start to change my opinion on intelligent design.

How does a particular species develop a camouflage strategy that involves mimicking a completely different creature or changing it's appearance to resemble it's surroundings without an "intelligence" of some kind behind it? How does random chance let a species know what other species it needs to look like if there is no communication with the environment?

Is it really just a long process of trial and error until a successful type of camo takes hold? What directs the mutations in the first place toward certain camouflage ? I am having trouble understanding how this can be completely random.


Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Chiroptera, posted 04-19-2008 7:01 PM helenavm has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6431
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 108 of 144 (463759)
04-19-2008 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by helenavm
04-19-2008 6:49 PM


Welcome to EvC, helenavm.

If there is anyone who can direct me to a post or a website or a book that can explain how animal camouflage is actually explained by random natural selection....

Your wish is my command.

The basic idea is that animals naturally vary in their characterists, and random mutations occur that cause the animals (or plants) to look a little bit different from their parents. This can be observed, by the way.

Well, an animal that is ever so slightly harder to be seen by a predator (or prey) will be ever so slightly able to avoid getting eaten (or catching food) than one that is ever so slightly easier to be seen, and so will, on average, produce just a few more offspring, so that the next generation will contain more individuals than before that are harder to see. This repeats until the camouflage is excellent.


Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev
This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by helenavm, posted 04-19-2008 6:49 PM helenavm has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Buckfan328, posted 05-13-2008 5:27 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Buckfan328
Junior Member (Idle past 3604 days)
Posts: 5
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-13-2008


Message 109 of 144 (466222)
05-13-2008 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lithodid-Man
12-24-2007 3:33 AM


In short, no evidence would convince me otherwise, thus making me a maddeningly difficult person to argue with. I think a great deal of evidence favors Creation particularly abiogenesis and the lack of a consistent evolutionary fossil record so say the ability to produce life from non-life and a better explanation for the lack of a fossil record I would find to be very difficult to counter even if I felt bound by the biblical account.
Presently I think that unquestionably the genetic evidence is the most difficult for Creationists to answer particularly things like the apparent chromosomal fusion between two existing ape chromosomes to form a human chromosome. Interestingly at the same time, I think some of the work in master regulatory transcription factor genes offers a potential solution to a difficult problem for Creationists: how did we get such biological diversity in such a short period of time from the ark? I also find the dating methods to be difficult to deal with since I am a biologist who hates math and not a physicist. I have heard from creationist physicists who I trust that there are reasonable arguments to be made against it but I am essentially taking them at their word since one can only be an expert in so many topics.

Ultimately, science is fallible because scientists are fallible and I believe God's word to be infallible so when they seem to be in conflict I will of course go with the latter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-24-2007 3:33 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by cavediver, posted 05-13-2008 6:15 PM Buckfan328 has not yet responded
 Message 112 by Blue Jay, posted 05-13-2008 7:29 PM Buckfan328 has not yet responded
 Message 113 by subbie, posted 05-14-2008 1:37 PM Buckfan328 has not yet responded

  
Buckfan328
Junior Member (Idle past 3604 days)
Posts: 5
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-13-2008


Message 110 of 144 (466224)
05-13-2008 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Chiroptera
04-19-2008 7:01 PM


I like your post Chiroptera even though I am a Creationist. I also think that the idea that God could not only create the amazing creatures that we see on the earth today but could create creatures with the capacity for change and the mechanisms of natural selection to accomplish it that you mentioned to be a source of awe as well. Not just a wonderfully fit creature, but a creature with the genetic capacity to adapt over the generations to fit changing environmental conditions...thats amazing. So I agree if Creationists believe that we are in a "claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes" then they are truly missing out. One little cell is amazing enough in its own right to consume hundreds of lifetimes of a person's study and wonder.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Chiroptera, posted 04-19-2008 7:01 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1450 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 111 of 144 (466230)
05-13-2008 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Buckfan328
05-13-2008 5:19 PM


In short, no evidence would convince me otherwise

In other words, despite your claims, you are no scientist. Why then do you claim to be a scientist?

I think a great deal of evidence favors Creation particularly abiogenesis and the lack of a consistent evolutionary fossil record

Do you really believe that this constitutes EVIDENCE for Creationism??? :eek: Again, I have to seriously question your claim to be a scientist. I mean, fine, you may think that the results of abiogeneis research are sufficiently weak to make claims of a non-naturalistic origin to life plausible... but evidence for Judeo-Christian Creationism??? Do you want to think about that for a while?

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Buckfan328, posted 05-13-2008 5:19 PM Buckfan328 has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 112 of 144 (466234)
05-13-2008 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Buckfan328
05-13-2008 5:19 PM


Hi, Buck. Welcome to EvC!

Buckfan328 writes:

Ultimately, science is fallible because scientists are fallible and I believe God's word to be infallible so when they seem to be in conflict I will of course go with the latter.

Because you consider yourself a scientist, you acknowledge with this statement that you are fallible. I choose not to attach any credence to your belief in the Bible's infallibility, because the beliefs of a fallible man are fallible by definition.


I'm Thylacosmilus.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Buckfan328, posted 05-13-2008 5:19 PM Buckfan328 has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 113 of 144 (466320)
05-14-2008 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Buckfan328
05-13-2008 5:19 PM


I for one find your post rather refreshing.

Very few creos acknowledge at the outset that no evidence will ever convince them of anything that they find contrary to their religion interpretations. Instead, many or most will insist that they are being scientifically objective and the evidence supports what they believe.

In addition, very few creos acknowledge that there is even any evidence in support of evolution at all, much less that some of it is difficult for creationism to explain.

I also give you points for describing arguments of others while at the same time acknowledging that you have no basis for accepting the arguments other than the fact that someone sympathetic to your position made them.

Your admission that the bible trumps everything and your understanding that there's evidence against your position actually makes you one of the more reasonable creos I've come across.

I guess I have only one question for you. At the end you said,

quote:
Ultimately, science is fallible because scientists are fallible and I believe God's word to be infallible so when they seem to be in conflict I will of course go with the latter.

Have you considered the possibility that it's your interpretation of god's infallible word that might be wrong? After all, millions of people who believe in the same god that you do have no problem whatsoever with any aspect of the Theory of Evolution.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Buckfan328, posted 05-13-2008 5:19 PM Buckfan328 has not yet responded

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 381 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 114 of 144 (467964)
05-26-2008 12:07 AM


What evidence is needed to change a creationist?

To put it short, the same evidence that you want people to "believe in" relativity.

Difficulty itself will not gain any credibility. So in case you have difficulties showing the same evidence, stop calling yourself a scientific theory. Simple as that.

Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Rahvin, posted 05-26-2008 1:14 AM Hawkins has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 993 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 115 of 144 (467970)
05-26-2008 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Hawkins
05-26-2008 12:07 AM


What evidence is needed to change a creationist?

To put it short, the same evidence that you want people to "believe in" relativity.

Difficulty itself will not gain any credibility. So in case you have difficulties showing the same evidence, stop calling yourself a scientific theory. Simple as that.

Relativity?

Relativity is one of the most solid theories in science, like the Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Evolution. Are you sure you're talking about what you think you're talking about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Hawkins, posted 05-26-2008 12:07 AM Hawkins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Hawkins, posted 05-26-2008 1:30 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 381 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 116 of 144 (467972)
05-26-2008 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Rahvin
05-26-2008 1:14 AM


The true face of Evolution
If you don't understand what I mean, leave it there.

Hate to burst your bubble but sometimes I'd happy to.

------

quote:
What I see is very clear. Secular scientists are very reluctant to make predictions about the future b/c the future is FALSIFIABLE, and they would make a fool of themselves by doing so.

It's a great point. While not only that evolution can't stand as a theory, but also that there simply none is developed regarding to evolution, no theory, no rule no nothing. As a result, they don't have a theory to be tested against, and they don't have a theory to use to do the required scientific predictions.

To simply put, unlike science, evolution never tries to fit data into a theorized model or preset formula, such that it has the flexibility to explain any data at will and by will. So whatever they call 'evolution' is, you can't use it to predict what's the next to evolve under the current earth environment and according to their preset "theory" because their 'theory' is no theory.

They keep collecting fossils and predict fossils and telling fairtales about fossils but none can justify their "theory" that environment+time=evolution. And their research is never about environment, it's never about time neither, no matter it's counted directly or indirectly, it's nothing about environment nor time but fossil, fossil and fossil.

Their essence is, to arrange similar things together and by skiping the required rules/theory then talk you into believing that things going successively (but without following preset rules like a true scientific theory shall be). And their argument is "this is true because no better explanation can be found".

That's why it can't be used to predict the future occurrance because there's no rule there to chain up that "successive samples". More like to place 2 laptop PC from 2 vendors and declare that one is evolved from the other, you can't predict "what's next" because your 2 PCs are not chained by a rule rather you talk others into believing that "one evolves" from the other.
-----

-----
While I doubt that it's a scientific theory, you need actually theorize the rules that your observations will follow. On the other hand, in other areas such as stock market, finance, politics, war tactics and so forth, you can loosely call any explanation on observations theory, but they are not scientific theory. And more strictly, even in those areas, "rules" need to be set up to further establish the so called theory to explain what would happen under what conditions.

That's what I am arguing about. You can't just explain away things by your will and call it "scientific theory", and observations will remain a speculation instead of a theory, as you can't testify any rules established to claim that "environment changes" animals. Moreover and in this case, I doubt that the environment is ever observed (either directly or indirectly), as if environment is observed, you'll be able to answer the question what will evolve under what environment, and to claim that exactly that observed environment changes the animals.
-----

Hello "scientists", now tell me what a scientific theory is. Your best theory is that you don't have a theory at all. And the best argument you can leverage is that "there's no better explanation". So when you bring your 2 laptop PCs to some tribes in Africa, you'll be Einstein.

While you are advised to save your empty words and to show the math instead, like every true scientific theory does.

Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Rahvin, posted 05-26-2008 1:14 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Coyote, posted 05-26-2008 2:11 AM Hawkins has not yet responded
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2008 2:20 AM Hawkins has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 117 of 144 (467973)
05-26-2008 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Hawkins
05-26-2008 1:30 AM


Theory
Hello "scientists", now tell me what a scientific theory is.

Try these on for size:

    Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Addendum: Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

    Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. Source

    When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Perhaps if you understood science better you could see some of the errors in your post. There are a lot.

By the way, is it the latest creationist talking point to try to differentiate "science" and "evolution"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Hawkins, posted 05-26-2008 1:30 AM Hawkins has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19510
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 118 of 144 (467974)
05-26-2008 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Hawkins
05-26-2008 1:30 AM


The true face of Ignorance
Welcome to the fray Hawkins,

It's a great point. While not only that evolution can't stand as a theory, but also that there simply none is developed regarding to evolution, no theory, no rule no nothing. As a result, they don't have a theory to be tested against, and they don't have a theory to use to do the required scientific predictions.

Unfortunately for you, nature is completely uninhibited by your ignorance and arrogance.

Evolution is very simple: there are two basic processes that are occurring and which can be observed in the real world around you.

First we have the process of evolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- this process is a fact, it is observed, and it occurs in every living species.

Second we have the process of diversification -- the division of parent populations into non-gene mixing daughter populations that then go on to become different species, accumulating different changes in hereditary traits in their different populations from generation to generation -- this process too is a fact, it is observed, and it occurs in the life around you.

The Theory of Evolution can also be simply stated: it is the theory that these two basic processes -- evolution and diversification -- are sufficient to explain all the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, from the natural history of fossils and geology, and from the genetic record.

They keep collecting fossils and predict fossils and ...

Finding those predicted fossils. Those finds are not fairy tales. How do you explain those finds? How do you explain finding Tiktaalik roseae?

Then there is the genetic research that shows time and again that the same pattern of hereditary descent from common ancestor populations that is found in the fossil record is also found in the genetic record.

And their research is never about environment, it's never about time neither, no matter it's counted directly or indirectly, it's nothing about environment nor time but fossil, fossil and fossil.

And you are very very ignorant or very silly or very deluded, possibly even insane. Evolution does not depend on a single fossil to be studied in the field or in the lab, studies that are being carried out by thousands of scientists in thousands of locations around the world. You might try going to your local university and actually asking a biologist rather than make such inane comments. There is a cure for ignorance ...

Hate to burst your bubble but sometimes I'd happy to.

Kind of hard to bust reality, and lack of knowledge about the topic your are talking about is a rare way to proceed.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clarity.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Hawkins, posted 05-26-2008 1:30 AM Hawkins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Hawkins, posted 05-26-2008 3:05 AM RAZD has responded

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 381 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 119 of 144 (467976)
05-26-2008 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by RAZD
05-26-2008 2:20 AM


Evolution is very simple
"Evolution is very simple:"

As simple as ABC and 123 that you need faith to believe in. And of course there's no reason why ABC and 123 go so controversial.

Now you can see who's on the boat of ignorance and arrogance.

Let me make more precise for you here, you delutional "scientists".

Evolution is made on the speculation that, macro-evolution makes chances for the natural selection to generate the results. However, no testable model can be built so far to give a more concrete conclusion.

Common ancestry is another speculation based heavily on "no better explanation".

Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2008 2:20 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2008 7:44 AM Hawkins has not yet responded

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 381 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 120 of 144 (467982)
05-26-2008 5:07 AM


And no offense here to the dedicated scientists. I just wanna brainstorming on that there's no rule contained inside the empty evolution by far scientifically speak than the level it should be treated.

To me, another prophecy comes true here, I am not trying to argue about it thou.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

And because of the lack of any rules ever developed to justify "environment changes animal" that they can't make what the liar's claim to be ABC and 123 more quantitatively to avoid its resorting to "talking science".

Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Larni, posted 05-26-2008 5:36 AM Hawkins has responded

  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018