Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-10-2017 7:19 PM
350 online now:
JonF, NoNukes (2 members, 348 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 823,997 Year: 28,603/21,208 Month: 669/1,847 Week: 44/475 Day: 44/58 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Author Topic:   A Logical account of creation
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 514 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 136 of 170 (537383)
11-28-2009 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by cavediver
11-28-2009 9:43 AM


Re: Scientific laws
so I don't think we even need to look for the article, when the author in question is giving us his own view...

Alas, but it would do well to teach others to not take ANY quote form a creationist site.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 9:43 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by traste, posted 02-26-2010 1:35 AM hooah212002 has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 137 of 170 (537384)
11-28-2009 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Peg
11-28-2009 9:33 AM


Re: you are ignorant
i dont know how science officiates such ideas/theories/laws

how did Newtons/Gallileo or Eisteins laws become official?

Well, don't forget that a 'law' is merely a concensus on observation, and is considerably below a theory in terms of scientific standing. Laws become widely accepted by those scientists widely accepting the underlying observations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 9:33 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 2752 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 138 of 170 (540337)
12-24-2009 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by cavediver
11-27-2009 3:42 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Cavediver wrote:

No, he was talking about uracil - can you not read?

Actually I can, but I,am not sure about you. Actually he is talking about RNA world theory, because he implied that RNA is the first self replicating molecule.

Who was this scientist? Please provide his name and where he made the quote.

I,am sure that he exist, but I,am not sure that you know him.

Really? Please provide evidence of this. Given the RNA Hypothesis, you might have thought that there would be an idea that this is not true... but that would have required 'thought' and I don't see a lot of that in these posts...

Oh, really !!! Is this the way you argue "horse laugh style" and then claimed that you are a critical minded and deep thinker person?? I,am sure that you just don't know how those molecular systems work yet you assume that you know. Actually as one evolutionist stated that "protein needs DNA for there formation but DNA cannot exist with out the preexisting protein. The formation of protein and DNA is a very elementary topic, in those we understand how protein and DNA work together, in other words they are interdependent, but I know that you will just ignore those inter dependency due to the reason well known to you.

Edited by traste, : inserting word


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by cavediver, posted 11-27-2009 3:42 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Iblis, posted 12-24-2009 1:28 AM traste has responded

    
traste
Member (Idle past 2752 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 139 of 170 (540338)
12-24-2009 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by cavediver
11-28-2009 5:29 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Cavediver wrote:
Ah, I see. So it wasn't New Scientist stating this - it was made within an article - do we have a full, none-quote-mined copy of what Ruse said? Or are the creationists all just copying each other's quote-mine yet again?

So what is wrong in quoting?? The journal only implied that Darwinian evolution failed to explained in light of modern discoveries that is why it said that many scientist of "highest intellectual credentials" do not accept evolution as a genuine scientific theory. So what is your problem??

Edited by traste, : using db codes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 5:29 AM cavediver has not yet responded

    
Iblis
Member (Idle past 1505 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 140 of 170 (540339)
12-24-2009 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by traste
12-24-2009 12:29 AM


Re: Scientific laws
I,am sure that he exist, but I,am not sure that you know him.

What's wrong with you?

I'm pretty sure he does know him, because it's frigging Carl Woese, discover of Archaea as a separate kingdom, developer of the current 3-kingdom 23-division classification system, and one of the fathers of the whole "RNA World" hypothesis !!! It's from a review, and he's not talking about the theory itself, he's talking about the way it is presented by Walter Gilbert in 1986, as a property of the soup without specifying a power source. Several potential power sources were known then, such as hot lava, and many more, such as iron pyrites and radioactive beaches, have been proposed since.

The reason you don't know who he is is because he threatens creationists who try to associate his work with their nonsense. For this reason, the places doing your quote-mining for you fail to mention his name and also garble selected words in the pseudo-quotes, just as in your example. ("failed to explained") This is the sort of dishonesty we have come to expect from those whose faith consists of intently "believing things they know to be untrue."

So far as I know, his threats don't include legal action or any such "fair warning" activity. He is a microbiologist and winner of the Leeuwenhoek Medal, the highest prize in the field. He knows about you now, as Google will spider this site in the next few hours or less. He won't have any trouble finding out who and where you are, as the University of Illinois proxies much of the net and mirrors most of the rest.

Do you have any clue how much trouble you are in? He is a microbiologist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by traste, posted 12-24-2009 12:29 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by traste, posted 02-16-2010 4:07 AM Iblis has not yet responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 2752 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 141 of 170 (547080)
02-16-2010 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Iblis
12-24-2009 1:28 AM


Re: Scientific laws
The reason you don't know who he is is because he threatens creationists who try to associate his work with their nonsense. For this reason, the places doing your quote-mining for you fail to mention his name and also garble selected words in the pseudo-quotes, just as in your example. ("failed to explained") This is the sort of dishonesty we have come to expect from those whose faith consists of intently "believing things they know to be untrue."

Study the rules of logic and you will understand why many proponents of creation qoute many propopnents of evolution. Do you know why? Because they themselves express doubts of there beliefs, but I understand that those doubts is still still in favor of there beliefs. In short any statements againts them is in favor of them..

Edited by traste, : adding words


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Iblis, posted 12-24-2009 1:28 AM Iblis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Huntard, posted 02-26-2010 5:48 AM traste has not yet responded

    
traste
Member (Idle past 2752 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 142 of 170 (548174)
02-26-2010 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by hooah212002
11-28-2009 9:44 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Hi,

Alas, but it would do well to teach others to not take ANY quote form a creationist site.

But you should also consider the fact that your knowledge in evolution is not your own. You also qoute them from the people who believe in evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by hooah212002, posted 11-28-2009 9:44 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Huntard, posted 02-26-2010 1:51 AM traste has responded
 Message 145 by anglagard, posted 02-26-2010 2:50 AM traste has not yet responded
 Message 155 by hooah212002, posted 02-27-2010 6:57 PM traste has responded

    
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 143 of 170 (548178)
02-26-2010 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by traste
02-26-2010 1:35 AM


Re: Scientific laws
traste writes:

But you should also consider the fact that your knowledge in evolution is not your own. You also qoute them from the people who believe in evolution.


We don't twist their words around to make them say things they are not. Also, have you ever seen an "evolutionist" quote mine a creationist (not as a demonstration on why to avoid such a thing)?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by traste, posted 02-26-2010 1:35 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by traste, posted 02-26-2010 2:17 AM Huntard has responded

    
traste
Member (Idle past 2752 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 144 of 170 (548182)
02-26-2010 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Huntard
02-26-2010 1:51 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Hello,

We don't twist their words around to make them say things they are not. Also, have you ever seen an "evolutionist" quote mine a creationist (not as a demonstration on why to avoid such a thing)?

My main point here is the logical consequences of there arguments, like for example if somebody would say a is b and in the second sentences, would say, well I'm not really sure if a is b, and yet insist that a is b because he or she believe it, that is doubtful. Take note also that in the court of law your statements can be use againts you, that is the method being use to determine that somebody is lying.

Edited by traste, : deleting words


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Huntard, posted 02-26-2010 1:51 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Huntard, posted 02-26-2010 4:46 AM traste has not yet responded
 Message 148 by Taq, posted 02-26-2010 4:38 PM traste has responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2171
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 145 of 170 (548186)
02-26-2010 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by traste
02-26-2010 1:35 AM


Re: Scientific laws
traste writes:

But you should also consider the fact that your knowledge in evolution is not your own. You also qoute them from the people who believe in evolution.

So I take it your 'knowledge' of Christianity and Biblical interpretation as being against science was something you were born with and was never ultimately influenced by the Seventh Day Adventist, Pentecost, or Southern Baptist Church?

Your knowledge of either Christianity or science, by the same standard, is not your own either.


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. Its us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by traste, posted 02-26-2010 1:35 AM traste has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 146 of 170 (548199)
02-26-2010 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by traste
02-26-2010 2:17 AM


Re: Scientific laws
traste writes:

My main point here is the logical consequences of there arguments, like for example if somebody would say a is b and in the second sentences, would say, well I'm not really sure if a is b, and yet insist that a is b because he or she believe it, that is doubtful.


That's is why all scientific conclusions are tentative. I've never read any scientist's report that said something must be so.

Take note also that in the court of law your statements can be use againts you, that is the method being use to determine that somebody is lying.

Like in the Dover case, you mean?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by traste, posted 02-26-2010 2:17 AM traste has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 147 of 170 (548202)
02-26-2010 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by traste
02-16-2010 4:07 AM


Re: Scientific laws
traste writes:

Study the rules of logic and you will understand why many proponents of creation qoute many propopnents of evolution. Do you know why?


Yes, it's so they can pretend they said something they didn't.

Because they themselves express doubts of there beliefs...

Of course, they are honest scientists, afterall.

...but I understand that those doubts is still still in favor of there beliefs.

No, they're not. The genuine doubts that is, not the quotemined nonsense creationists bring up.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by traste, posted 02-16-2010 4:07 AM traste has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7271
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 148 of 170 (548289)
02-26-2010 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by traste
02-26-2010 2:17 AM


Re: Scientific laws
My main point here is the logical consequences of there arguments, like for example if somebody would say a is b and in the second sentences, would say, well I'm not really sure if a is b, and yet insist that a is b because he or she believe it, that is doubtful. Take note also that in the court of law your statements can be use againts you, that is the method being use to determine that somebody is lying.

Let's use an example. This is a well known Darwin quote mine that has been used by creationists for years:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (Darwin 1872)

This would seem to indicate that Darwin believed the eye could not have evolved, and this is exactly the trap the creationists have led you into. However, reality is quite the opposite. Darwin went on to say:

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. . . .

In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class."

As you can see, the first part of the quote was rhetorical. Darwin was setting up a problem, and then demonstrated how that problem is solved. Creationists have dishonestly pulled quotes out of context in order to make someone say the opposite of what they meant. This is why you should not pull quotes from creationist sites, or at least find the original source and see for yourself if the quote is in context.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by traste, posted 02-26-2010 2:17 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by traste, posted 02-27-2010 2:32 AM Taq has responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 2752 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 149 of 170 (548359)
02-27-2010 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Taq
02-26-2010 4:38 PM


Re: Scientific laws
Hello,

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (Darwin 1872)

As you see Darwin observed the difficulties of the evolution of the eye, what we need is a document to show that the eye undergone gradual changes( by means of Darwinian mechanism) but as we see no such document exist, if it really exist then we can observed a partially formed eye. Like for example an eye with out a retina, an eye eye with out a cortex. Can you find me one?

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. .

If reason really tell Darwin that the eye evolved, then he should observed the following
evolutionary stages of the eye. The following are the stages, which Darwin though necessary to support his idea.

1.photosensetive cell.

2.aggregates of pigment cells with out a nerve.

3.an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin.

4.pigment cells forming a small depression and then a deeper depression.

5.the skin over the depression gradually taking a lens shape.

6.evolution of the muscles that allow that alllow the lens to adjust.

Maybe you would reason out that all of these are viable because we observed it living things today. As Professor Jerry Coyne reason out;

"The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.5

And Dennet put the idea in a dominant way he said;

" rare accident giving one lucky animal a mutation that improves its vision over that of its siblings; if this improvement helps it to have more offspring than its rivals, this gives evolution an opportunity to raise the bar and ratchet up the design of the eye by one mindless step. And since these lucky improvements accumulatethis was Darwins insighteyes can automatically get better and better and better, without any intelligent designer.7

But other scientist are not comfortable of these views like for example; Melnick he concluded that eye could not undergone evolution by means of Darwinian process he said;

"its immense complexity and diversity in nature, as well as its beauty and perfection in so many different creatures of the world, defies explanation even by macroevolutions most ardent supporters.8 And university of Salford biologist Laurence R. Croft said;

"precise origin of the vertebrate eye is still a mystery. The fascinating thing about the evolution of the eye is its apparent sudden appearance."

In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection.

Here is the problem of this reasoning. "The monophyly of the Articulata (= Annelida + Panarthropoda), proposed by Wgele et al. (1999), is contradicted by all molecular data that support either Ecdysozoa (including Panarthropoda), or Lophotrochozoa (including Annelida), or usually both."

In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance

If those things really exist how does division of the parts and coated by pigments show the gradual transition?

With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class."

Again if you are correct then fossil record must support these view even Darwin acknowledge it "the crucial importance of this requirement to the theory of evolution was fully understood by Darwin, who stated that, in searching for the gradations through which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look at its lineal progenitors. Indeed we ought; though he himself could not do so. It is deceptive to the reader to create a seriation beginning with eye spots as seen in unicellular organisms and call them, as does Duke-Elder (1958), the earliest stage of evolution."

Did scientist observed those transitional forms? Croft observed that" it remarkably similar. Indeed the basic features of the eye in different vertebrates are very much the same despite great variations in their mode of life and adaptation to habitat. Furthermore, unlike other organs such as the heart, there is no long evolutionary history with the eye. In essence the eye of a newt is as complex and fully developed as that of a man."

Just a reminder do not hold on the idea that natural selection formed those new organ because this idea is seriously challenge today. Isn't it good to hold only what is testable.? Certainly.

Edited by traste, : editing db codes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Taq, posted 02-26-2010 4:38 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Granny Magda, posted 02-27-2010 7:05 AM traste has responded
 Message 154 by Coyote, posted 02-27-2010 1:22 PM traste has responded
 Message 167 by Taq, posted 03-02-2010 10:46 AM traste has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2352
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 150 of 170 (548375)
02-27-2010 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by traste
02-27-2010 2:32 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Hi traste,

Poor. very poor.

You start out with the hoariest and most pathetic quote mine in the whole of creationist propaganda. Really, correcting this is tedious in the extreme. Perhaps you should concentrate on this bit;

quote:
Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

It is a pathetic spectacle to watch creationists abuse this quote yet again.

You then go on to a lengthy and unattributed copy-and-paste effort from Creation.com. You should know that this is not accepted here.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : See cavediver's post below.


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by traste, posted 02-27-2010 2:32 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by anglagard, posted 02-27-2010 7:24 AM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply
 Message 152 by cavediver, posted 02-27-2010 8:10 AM Granny Magda has responded
 Message 156 by traste, posted 02-27-2010 9:44 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017