Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is NOT science: A challenge
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 286 of 591 (131043)
08-06-2004 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Syamsu
08-06-2004 11:26 AM


Re: Evolution does NOT deal with the origins of life
Syamsu, I have asked you before to acknowledge that "Evolution does NOT deal with the origins of life". You have not done this. You not only didn't do as I asked(which isn't that big a deal), but you didn't even aknowledge that it's been addressed to you 10 TIMES now.
Until you acknowledge this point, I won't dance in circles with you.
All dealt with before, you make no argument. We can observe that evolutionists generally lack knowledge about creation. Evolution theory shouldn't have this effect of weakening knowledge about creation, according to you, but it does. That it does is because evolution theory is advertised and sometimes formulated in denial of creation. On the other hand I can say that descent with modification does not constitute a religion of any kind.
Syamsu, there is no arguement here. You just make claims without any evidence, when evidence is thrown in your face you just plain don't acknowledge it in your reply. Until you at least acknowledge the point that is in the TITLE of this post, there's no point in continuing.

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit. http://www.BadPreacher.5u.com (incomplete, but look anyway!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Syamsu, posted 08-06-2004 11:26 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Syamsu, posted 08-06-2004 11:54 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

NOTHINGNESS
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 591 (131045)
08-06-2004 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by compmage
08-05-2004 4:29 PM


Who created God?
Hi Compmage,
People always ask this question, but they do not realize that they are basically doing the same thing , which is -believing that an uncaused nothingness, created something.
What is the difference between believing in an uncaused 'designer', creating something. And what you believe-an uncaused nothingness, creating something? Same principle.
The Big Bang created -time-and space. Since time has a beginning, and space(universe) has a beginning, then something caused it. You can believe that the 'uncaused nothingness' created it, but I also have the right to believe that the 'uncaused designer' created it. Same results, different initiators.
We can agree to disagree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by compmage, posted 08-05-2004 4:29 PM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by NosyNed, posted 08-06-2004 6:31 PM NOTHINGNESS has replied
 Message 291 by Glordag, posted 08-06-2004 11:11 PM NOTHINGNESS has not replied
 Message 292 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2004 11:17 PM NOTHINGNESS has replied
 Message 304 by compmage, posted 08-07-2004 7:16 PM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 288 of 591 (131082)
08-06-2004 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by NOTHINGNESS
08-06-2004 3:54 PM


Agreeing to disagree
We can agree to disagree.
Yes, that makes sense at this point. However, what you are doing is saying that there is something that doesn't have a firm natural explanation for it and therefore you want to put God in as the answer.
This is called "God-of-the-gaps" (gotg). God is the answer where there is a gap in knowledge.
So far it has worked out to be a bad idea. The gaps keep getting closed. This one might be too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-06-2004 3:54 PM NOTHINGNESS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-06-2004 9:25 PM NosyNed has replied

NOTHINGNESS
Inactive Member


Message 289 of 591 (131131)
08-06-2004 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by NosyNed
08-06-2004 6:31 PM


Re: Agreeing to disagree
Yeah, I guess it's almost like the missing link. You have to believe in something you can't see
Take care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by NosyNed, posted 08-06-2004 6:31 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by NosyNed, posted 08-06-2004 10:47 PM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 290 of 591 (131178)
08-06-2004 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by NOTHINGNESS
08-06-2004 9:25 PM


Missing Link
No, it's not actually. In the case of the missing link a lot of the chain is there and we can see that there is a pattern. That, after all, is the only way that you can tell a link is missing.
In your case, the definition of what is missing is specicfically unobservable. Only the natural is observable and God is specifically supernatural. There are no other links there so you can tell where to look or what you are looking for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-06-2004 9:25 PM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

Glordag
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 591 (131188)
08-06-2004 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by NOTHINGNESS
08-06-2004 3:54 PM


Re: Who created God?
quote:
The Big Bang created -time-and space. Since time has a beginning, and space(universe) has a beginning, then something caused it. You can believe that the 'uncaused nothingness' created it, but I also have the right to believe that the 'uncaused designer' created it. Same results, different initiators.
Well, saying that an "uncaused nothingness" created the Big Bang is a bit of a stretch. It's really impossible to say how the Big Bang came about, so I won't pretend to speculate. For all I care, "God" could have created the Big Bang. I have no conflict with this idea, as there isn't any evidence to the contrary. Now, we have some pretty firm ideas about how everything came about after the Big Bang, and I DO have a problem (a serious one) with people claiming that these ideas are false without any supporting evidence. I choose to believe what we can observe as true, is that so difficult?
Edit: I realize that the last bit doesn't really pertain to your post, so I apologize for the fact that I made it sound like I was attacking some point you didn't make. I was merely using your post to make a point of my own.
This message has been edited by Glordag, 08-06-2004 10:13 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-06-2004 3:54 PM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 292 of 591 (131194)
08-06-2004 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by NOTHINGNESS
08-06-2004 3:54 PM


The Big Bang created -time-and space. Since time has a beginning, and space(universe) has a beginning, then something caused it.
That can't be true, though.
For something to be "caused", there must be "before" - causes must preceed effects, yes?
But there's no "before" before time, by definition. Therefore spacetime cannot be said to be caused, because there's no point in time avaliable for the cause to occur.
Yet, we know that spacetime exists, and is does not extend infinitely into the past, so we can conclude that spacetime must be uncaused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-06-2004 3:54 PM NOTHINGNESS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-07-2004 2:39 AM crashfrog has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 293 of 591 (131213)
08-06-2004 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by One_Charred_Wing
08-06-2004 3:49 PM


Re: Evolution does NOT deal with the origins of life
But I dealt with that before. You seem to fail to understand that the first life is not neccessarily the origin of life in a creationist sense. The origin is the point (or points) at which it becomes a relative certainty that there would be life later on. This point of origin precedes the first life, in creationism there is a distinction between origin of life, and appearance of life.
It's no argument to say evolutionists don't deal with origins or creation, because evolutionists are still compelled to know about things to do with creation, for science generally, and common knowledge. You can say that within evolution theory there need not be any knowledge of creation, and that's fine, but the case is that evolutionists are in effect surpressing knowledge of creation, there the ideological / religious element of evolutionism comes into play.
Evidence of the lack of knowledge of creation of evolutionists was presented in this thread. The rest of evidence should come from your general reading of evolutionist literature, whether or not they put up evolution in denial of creation or not. My reading is that they do put evolution theory up in denial of creation, despite evolution theory not neccessarily being inconsistent with a creationist account.
So we can say that descent with modification is not neccessarily a religion, but that much of the theory about it has become prejudiced towards materialism / atheism / social darwinism and the like, and prejudiced against belief in God / the significance of things going one way or another (and choices)/ etc. ,and many times these ideological elements of evolutionism are intermixed in scientific discourse.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 08-06-2004 3:49 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Clark, posted 08-07-2004 12:16 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 296 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 08-07-2004 12:35 AM Syamsu has replied

Clark
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 591 (131218)
08-07-2004 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Syamsu
08-06-2004 11:54 PM


Re: Evolution does NOT deal with the origins of life
Hello Syamsu,
I'm not impressed with this prejudice against God by Evolutionists, being such a bad thing. I see it, but why? Why is there that prejudice? Perhaps because Evolution really does refute the Bible and other supernatural nonsense?? Too often we, Evolutionists pussyfoot around the issue that the TOE actually does tell us some things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Syamsu, posted 08-06-2004 11:54 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Syamsu, posted 08-07-2004 1:03 AM Clark has replied

almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 591 (131220)
08-07-2004 12:30 AM


Evolution does deal with the origins of life. Thats why theres such areas of evolution called chemical evolution. And prebiotic evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by nator, posted 08-10-2004 9:32 PM almeyda has not replied

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 296 of 591 (131221)
08-07-2004 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Syamsu
08-06-2004 11:54 PM


Re: Evolution does NOT deal with the origins of life
But I dealt with that before. You seem to fail to understand that the first life is not neccessarily the origin of life in a creationist sense.
Yes, but from a secular science point of view it is. I'm not asking you to agree with it here, I'm just asking that you understand what an opposing view thinkss. Please confirm that you understand.
It's no argument to say evolutionists don't deal with origins or creation, because evolutionists are still compelled to know about things to do with creation, for science generally, and common knowledge.
Chemists deal with the origins of life. Biologists are simply in a different field; that doesn't mean they are biased against Creationism. Would you accuse a meteorologist of doing just that? They don't deal with origins either, so by your logic they're also EVIL.
You can say that within evolution theory there need not be any knowledge of creation, and that's fine, but the case is that evolutionists are in effect surpressing knowledge of creation, there the ideological / religious element of evolutionism comes into play.
How are they suppressing creationist knowledge(more like lack thereof)? They're not supressing, they're just disagreeing; they're right judging by the evidence, too. You haven't showed ONE CASE of 'suppressing' creation ideas yet. It seems your idea of suppression is holding a different opinion and getting more people to buy your idea. There's no bias in being right.
Evidence of the lack of knowledge of creation of evolutionists was presented in this thread.
This is just not true. You have shown hard-headed and unwavering ignorance of secular science's workings, and no matter how often we try to correct you, you just keep parroting the same stuff over and over again. We've taken into account HOW Creationism works, we just don't think it's right judging by the evidence.
My reading is that they do put evolution theory up in denial of creation, despite evolution theory not neccessarily being inconsistent with a creationist account.
You stated the truth backwards. Creationist accounts sprung up with the sole purpose of denying FACTS that have been documented by biologists long before Creation Science was thought up.
So we can say that descent with modification is not neccessarily a religion, but that much of the theory about it has become prejudiced towards materialism / atheism / social darwinism and the like, and prejudiced against belief in God / the significance of things going one way or another (and choices)/ etc. ,and many times these ideological elements of evolutionism are intermixed in scientific discourse.
Okay. In other words, the theory itself is not against anything. We agree. That was my original point. Ideologies may come from stupid people trying to misuse evolutionary theories, but the ToE itself is NOT a religion, like you agree. We agree on the answer to the Original Post, so there's no point in argueing.

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit. http://www.BadPreacher.5u.com (incomplete, but look anyway!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Syamsu, posted 08-06-2004 11:54 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Syamsu, posted 08-07-2004 1:29 AM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 297 of 591 (131227)
08-07-2004 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Clark
08-07-2004 12:16 AM


Re: Evolution does NOT deal with the origins of life
I think part of the prejudice can be explained with the history of evolution theory. Darwin distinguished natural selection from artificial selection. Distinguishing artificial from natural this way, tends to exclude the supernatural by definition (and not by any evidence), because the creative effort of human breeders is essentially similar to a creative effort of the supernatural. It would inevitably create a conceptual mess to note any creativity whatsoever, when you excluded creativity of people.
Other reasons may be because scientists want to languish in a college atmosphere of no responsibility for consequences of actions forever, general discomfort with the rules and regulations of religion. Greed for progress, trying to destroy the restraints of religion, or restraints of any kind of conscience, things like that. The reasons for prejudices are never really very clear. The prejudice is a bad thing, because it crosses over to social darwinism, and like ideology.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Clark, posted 08-07-2004 12:16 AM Clark has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Clark, posted 08-07-2004 2:04 AM Syamsu has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 298 of 591 (131235)
08-07-2004 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by One_Charred_Wing
08-07-2004 12:35 AM


Re: Evolution does NOT deal with the origins of life
No from an evolutionist point of view origin=appearance. Secularly the origin is from nothing or zero. People have to find the root cause of this or that in every day life also, it is a secular practice.
I think your arguments are clearly in avoidance of the reality of evolutionist science. You make the narrow observation that evolution is not neccessarily insonsistent with creationism, and then you proceed to deny any and all reality of how evolutionary science relates to knowledge of creation in practice. Why should I accept such an obstinate, and sabotaging attitude?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 08-07-2004 12:35 AM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 08-07-2004 7:34 PM Syamsu has replied

Clark
Inactive Member


Message 299 of 591 (131242)
08-07-2004 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Syamsu
08-07-2004 1:03 AM


Re: Evolution does NOT deal with the origins of life
Darwim definitely knew the implications of his theory. Might be why he sat on it for 30 some years. He KNEW he was excluding the sueprnatural. I mean, that's why this site exists right?
Is it really about removing the restraints of religion though? Who cares about that? I mean, is that why evolutionists exist, to refute creation? Or do they exist because that's what the evidence demonstrates?
To me, the question is, is natural selection enough of a creative force to explain the diversity of life on earth? It seems the best natural explanation of what's going on. Can you deny this? You don't like the natural explanation. Care to offer a better one?
I have more to say, but I'm tired. I'll talk more tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Syamsu, posted 08-07-2004 1:03 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Syamsu, posted 08-07-2004 5:28 AM Clark has not replied

NOTHINGNESS
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 591 (131252)
08-07-2004 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by crashfrog
08-06-2004 11:17 PM


Before "Time"
I guess that if the 'uncaused nothingness and the uncaused Designer' need to keep adding a nuber before it, then we would never have this universe because they both beliefs would cancel each other out because they were uncaused?
Since an infinite past would involve an actual infinite number of events, then the past can't be infinite.
Imagine I had an infinite number of rocks in my posession, and that I wanted to give you some. In fact, I gave you an infinite number of rocks.
One way I could do that would be to give you the entire pile of rocks. In that case I would have zero rocks left for myself. Another way to do it would be to give you all the odd numbered rocks. Then I would still have an infinity left over for myself, and you would have infinite too.
You would have just as many as I would-and in fact, each of us would have just as many as I would-and, in fact, each of us would have just as many as I originally had before we divided into odd and even (emphasise on the basis of infinite) or I can give you all the rocks numbered four and higher.
That way you would have an infinite of rocks, but I only have three. These illustrations demonstrate that the return of an actual infinite number of things leans to contradictory results.
Example:
1) I give all rocks = infinity minus infinity = 0
2) I give all odd number rocks = infinity minus infinity = infinity.
3) I give all four and greater = infinity minus infinity = three
The Idea of an actual infinite is just conceptual so mathmaticians can deal with infinity quantities and infinite numbers in the conceptual realm.
However- and heres the point, its not descriptive of what can happen in the real world. You can't have an infinite numbers of events in the past.
Substitute past events for rocks and you can see the absurdities that would result. So the universe can't have an infinite number of events in the past, it must have had a beginning.
For that reason, mathematicians are forbidden fro doing subtraction and division in transfinite arithetic, because this would lead to contradictions. The idea of an actual infinity is just conceptual; it exists only in our minds.
Working within crtain rules, matheaticians can deal with infinite quantities and infinite numbers in the conceptual realm. HOWERVER, IT'S NOT DESCRIPTIVE OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN IN THE REAL WORLD.
This is called the -IMPOSSIBILITY OF TRAVERSING THE INFINITE-"
iT WOULD BE AS IF SOMEONE HAD MANAGED TO COUNT DOWN ALL OF THE NEGATIVE NUMBERS AND TO ARRIVE AT ZERO AT THE PRESENT OENT.
Take care.
This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-07-2004 01:46 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2004 11:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Glordag, posted 08-07-2004 3:48 PM NOTHINGNESS has replied
 Message 308 by crashfrog, posted 08-08-2004 12:30 AM NOTHINGNESS 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