Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science support creationism?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 95 (155357)
11-03-2004 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Buzsaw
11-02-2004 9:02 PM


Re: Requesting an explanation.
The point of your post 8 seems to be that your personal intuitions should be given greater weight than the evidence.
However science is known to produce results that are strongly counter-intuitive. Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are two famous cases - and even probability theory manages to produce counter-intuitive results in quite simple cases (e.g. the "Gamblers Fallacy" anf the "Monty Hall Problem").
Science has succeeded because it has not taken your approach. Instead it has gone and looked even deeper at the evidence - and it continues to do so. At the least you should respect the knowledge and the work of the many scientsts who have investigated evolution over the last 150 years and not rule out their conclusions on the basis of mere intuitions.
Let me further point out that a belief does not become science if it simply happens to be true. The scientific status of a beleif is not directly related to it's truth at all - even a false beleif could be science if the evidence seems to support it strongly enough. And if the supernatural is not amenable to the scientific method then a belief in the supernatural will never be science even if it is true.
On efinal point, it is a philosphical error to insist that the complexity of our brains requires an intelligent designer. Such an argument leads us to one of three conclusions all of which are unsatisfactory - an infinite regress, self-contradiction or begging the real question. Surely it is better to accept the possibility that the brain could come about by other means rather than rulking it out on such a weak argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2004 9:02 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 11-03-2004 9:54 PM PaulK has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 95 (155620)
11-03-2004 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by NosyNed
11-02-2004 9:43 PM


Re: Too much complexity? Quantification
There is, you say, way too much complexity. How much complexity is there?
A good example is the human brain, which I understand has some 100 billion neurons, each of which interacts with about 1000 other neurons and which are serviced by a trillion or so neuroglias of which there are four different kinds with four different functions, all of this needed to run the body's nervous system. This complexity is just one example among billions in the universe. I hypothesize that this is just way too much to emerge into existence without the wisdom and creative knowledge of a super-intelligent supreme creator being.
What is the limit to the amount of change which can be generated in a 1,000 years by know mutational mechanisms?
Please, show the calculations which show that the change in the amount of complexity over say the last 100,000,000 years is greater than this limit of natural mechanisms.
If you can't do that or something similar you are making unfounded assertions based on your extremely limited understanding of the facts of the situation.
Pardon, my friend, but I apply some logic and common sense to the mix in arriving at conclusions about origins. You people can do the math, but the math aintagona cutit, imo, without applying some logic and common sense, terms which I know modern science has an eversion to.
If there ever was a time for Rrhain's *blink* this is it. Are you hinting that after all your time here you would actually raise the 2nd law of theromodynamics as any kind of impediment??
If so, say so and I'll start yet anouther thread for you to make your claims and for others to show that this too is an area that you don't understand.
If one wishes to make something constructive, one doesn't simply throw the stuff in a drum, shake it up for a long period of time and expect anything but chaotic debris to exist in the drum.
And yet another clanger ( *blink*, *blink*). Have you read nothing here Buz? Evolution is NOT a random process. Your drum analogy is meaningless. This is astonishing!
Yah, I know, entropy and all. Short question, and hopefully brief short to the point answer, so as not to run off topic. What is 2ltd and is it a bonafide operative thermodynamic law of the universe?

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 11-02-2004 9:43 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by NosyNed, posted 11-03-2004 9:19 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2004 3:29 AM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 18 of 95 (155623)
11-03-2004 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
11-03-2004 8:58 PM


Let's peek at the topic shall we?
The topic here is "Can science support creationism?"
All we need to know about the 2nd law for here is that it can't support creationism unless you or someone shows how it does.
You brought it up yet don't know what it is. It's your job to use it but you'll have to find someone who knows what it is.
Pardon, my friend, but I apply some logic and common sense to the mix in arriving at conclusions about origins. You people can do the math, but the math aintagona cutit, imo, without applying some logic and common sense, terms which I know modern science has an eversion to.
Sorry, Buz, you said "too much" that is something that has to be quantified. In other words you have to do the math to "support creationism". If you can't you'll have to drop this line of reasoning too.
In fact, the ability of evolutionary processes to produce things which we might all agree are "complex" (even if we don't have a clear definition yet) has been shown in a number of ways.
The human brain is not fundamentally different from a cat's brain, which is similar in construction and basic building blocks to a mouses brain. The brain of a lizard is made of in the same basic way as the mouse's. A lizard and a fish share some similarities in nerve structures. What is needed to get from one to the other are lots and lots of changes all of which can be shown to fit within what is possible through evolutionary changes.
You simply don't choose to believe that. If you wish to use science to "support" what you say you'll have to do more than hypothesize" that it can't happen. All you've done is say that it can't.
You haven't supported a thing you've said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 11-03-2004 8:58 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 11-03-2004 10:19 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 95 (155630)
11-03-2004 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
11-03-2004 2:57 AM


Re: Explanation response.
The point of your post 8 seems to be that your personal intuitions should be given greater weight than the evidence.
By the same token I would counter that your personal intuitions seem to have been given greater weight than the evidence of the supernatural as observed in fulfilled Biblical prophecy and in the vast amount of complexity observed in the universe.
However science is known to produce results that are strongly counter-intuitive. Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are two famous cases - and even probability theory manages to produce counter-intuitive results in quite simple cases (e.g. the "Gamblers Fallacy" anf the "Monty Hall Problem").
The trouble may then lie in that you people allow this counter-intuitiveness to rule the day, run the show, and call the shots in your ideology. Shouldn't the counter-intuitive be the exception?
Science has succeeded because it has not taken your approach.
Yes indeed. It has succeeded in brainwashing the heads fullamush in the assemblylines of higher education.
Instead it has gone and looked even deeper at the evidence - and it continues to do so. At the least you should respect the knowledge and the work of the many scientsts who have investigated evolution over the last 150 years and not rule out their conclusions on the basis of mere intuitions.
Science is microspecting the artists big wonderful masterpiece when it should stand back a bit and view the thing from a wider perspective in order to appreciate what the masterful artist has created, imo.
Let me further point out that a belief does not become science if it simply happens to be true. The scientific status of a beleif is not directly related to it's truth at all - even a false beleif could be science if the evidence seems to support it strongly enough. And if the supernatural is not amenable to the scientific method then a belief in the supernatural will never be science even if it is true.
I see what you are saying, but isn't science to do with things existing in the universe, all of it? If the supernatural could be shown to exist, how can science not factor it into what is observed in the interpretation of other things in the universe??
On efinal point, it is a philosphical error to insist that the complexity of our brains requires an intelligent designer. Such an argument leads us to one of three conclusions all of which are unsatisfactory - an infinite regress, self-contradiction or begging the real question.
1. "an infinite regress." How so?
2. "self-contradiction" Ditto.
3. "begging the real question." How?
Surely it is better to accept the possibility that the brain could come about by other means rather than rulking it out on such a weak argument.
Full circle back to my point. Your "other means" appear to be weaker than intelligent design for the complexity such as that observed in the human brain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2004 2:57 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 11-03-2004 10:12 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 21 by Coragyps, posted 11-03-2004 10:14 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2004 3:14 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 57 by tsig, posted 11-06-2004 6:00 PM Buzsaw has replied

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


Message 20 of 95 (155638)
11-03-2004 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Buzsaw
11-03-2004 9:54 PM


counter intuitive
The trouble may then lie in that you people allow this counter-intuitiveness to rule the day, run the show, and call the shots in your ideology. Shouldn't the counter-intuitive be the exception?
Well, Buz, there is this unfortunate thing about a number of counter-intuitive ideas -- they work!
Your computer is, I preseume, still working? That's QM in there. The dilation of time and increase in mass with speed is, to me anyway, counter-intuitive but they are right anyway.
That's the difference Buz, you go on your personal unsupported intuition. This has been demonstrated to be a poor way to understand the natural world (not saying anything about whatever other world you want to believe in). The demonstration has been done over and over.
In other words these ideas, counter-intuitive or not, "rule the day" because they are supported by facts in the real world. That is the final test: Does it work?
Centuries ago (and even today) people believed that a thrown object went straight in the direction it was thrown then just dropped to the ground. That was the "common sense" view. It is, in case you were wondering, totally wrong.
The idea that evolutionary processes can produce a bewildering variety of forms seems to be counter-intuitive to you. They can: your intuition is wrong.
In any case, you have no science here. You have done nothing to use science to support creationism. You are instead suggesting that you need to use "common-sense" and "intuition" even if they have been demonstrated over and over to be, if used alone, a dangerous path to a real understanding of the world around us.
Now, if you insist on using non-science I take it that you are effectively saying that science can, in fact, not used to support creationism and for that reason you wish to suggest other ways and stay away from science.
Is that the case?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-03-2004 10:13 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 11-03-2004 9:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 21 of 95 (155639)
11-03-2004 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Buzsaw
11-03-2004 9:54 PM


Re: Explanation response.
Yes indeed. It has succeeded in brainwashing the heads fullamush in the assemblylines of higher education.
But I take it, Buz, that you're typing this response on a rock with a club? Not on a computer? Full o' mush, indeed, but you seem to have managed without all that much higher ejakashin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 11-03-2004 9:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 95 (155640)
11-03-2004 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by NosyNed
11-03-2004 9:19 PM


Re: Let's peek at the topic shall we?
The topic here is "Can science support creationism?"
All we need to know about the 2nd law for here is that it can't support creationism unless you or someone shows how it does.
My original reference to it was to support my topic point. It was you who advanced it by challenging it's application to my point.
You brought it up yet don't know what it is. It's your job to use it but you'll have to find someone who knows what it is.
I know what it is. I used it to support my point. You challenged it. You are tiptoing around my response rather than answering my short question with a short answer. If you would simply answer my question, a correct answer on your part would likely show that indeed my first reference to it would advance my point of argument. I guess I can understand why you don't want to do that.
Sorry, Buz, you said "too much" that is something that has to be quantified. In other words you have to do the math to "support creationism". If you can't you'll have to drop this line of reasoning too.
Yah, Ned, I've been in this town long enough to understand that you people run the show here and unless we debate on your terms, we're automatically disqualified. Rather than cutting and pasting my point as to why the math isn't enough and addressing it specifically, you simply ignore it and insinuate that I'll HAVE TO DROP IT.
The human brain is not fundamentally different from a cat's brain, which is similar in construction and basic building blocks to a mouses brain. The brain of a lizard is made of in the same basic way as the mouse's. A lizard and a fish share some similarities in nerve structures. What is needed to get from one to the other are lots and lots of changes all of which can be shown to fit within what is possible through evolutionary changes.
That is quite irrevelant to the debate, isn't it? I used the human brain as an example of complexity. That certain animals have similar brains would be interpreted by explaining that a common creator/designer would use similar designs to effect similar functions.
You haven't supported a thing you've said.
.......And I don't think you've substantially refuted my points enough to establish your own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by NosyNed, posted 11-03-2004 9:19 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 11-03-2004 10:35 PM Buzsaw has replied

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


Message 23 of 95 (155643)
11-03-2004 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
11-03-2004 10:19 PM


Support??
Buzsaw writes:
The point of my post #8 is that the complexity of science is what drives my logic that there's simply way too much complexity for NS to have been keeping on keeping on for hundreds of millions and billions of years to produce soooooo much complexity and design in a universe which in which 2ltd is suppose to be operating. The billions of orderly things going on in the human mind alone, not to mention what it would take to bring the brain to be, existing in it's complexity, in billions of people alone would, imo, logically be just too much to explain, other than a super intelligent creator and designer in the universe to bring it about and function as it does.
My original reference to it was to support my topic point. It was you who advanced it by challenging it's application to my point.
That is your orginal reference to the 2ltd. You give no clue why you think that the 2nd law has any relevance to the issue at hand. You show no logic tieing the 2nd law to your conjecture. Untill you do there is nothing to refute. All you have is "in which 2ltd is suppose to be operating" with absolutely nothing else. It is not supporting your point. It isn't even joined to it.
I'm not tiptoeing around it. I'm waiting for you to show how it is relevant.
Yah, Ned, I've been in this town long enough to understand that you people run the show here and unless we debate on your terms, we're automatically disqualified. Rather than cutting and pasting my point as to why the math isn't enough and addressing it specifically, you simply ignore it and insinuate that I'll HAVE TO DROP IT.
The topic here, Buz, is the support of creationism by science. If you wish to play the science game you have to follow the rules. In this case a quantitive statement needs to be backed up with clear defintions of what you are talking about (e.g., complexity) and then show how the numbers work out.
If you don't want to use science then don't but it simply means that you can't show that science does support creationism.
That is quite irrevelant to the debate, isn't it? I used the human brain as an example of complexity. That certain animals have similar brains would be interpreted by explaining that a common creator/designer would use similar designs to effect similar functions.
The point is that there are less complex things than the human brain. Where is the lower limit to what can arise without devine intervention (once life is in place, since we are talking about evolution).
Are you saying you can use science to show that a mouse level of complexity can NOT evolve to a cat level of complexity? If you are please do so. In which case you will have shown that the evolutionary process we understand doesn't work. How then do you develop positive evidence for the tenants of creationism?
......And I don't think you've substantially refuted my points enough to establish your own.
Of course, not, you haven't made a point yet. You said that the 2nd law operates in our universe. So what? There is no arguement to refute yet.
If you think you have a point by saying the 2nd law operates my refutation has already been given. That is; It doesn't matter, it is irrelevant. Done with, next point.
If you want more refutation you'll have to supply more argument.
If you say a certain amount of complexity can not arise through evolutionary processes in a given amount of time and say no more than that then my refutation is "Can so! ". Done with, next point.
If you want more refutation you'll have to supply more arguement.
What is the smallest amount of complexity that can arise? How much complexity can evolve per unit time?
Once you have given some details of your argument then we are required to give a more detailed refutation. As it is there are no details whatsoever.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-03-2004 10:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 11-03-2004 10:19 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 11-04-2004 11:09 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 11-04-2004 9:25 PM NosyNed has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 24 of 95 (155725)
11-04-2004 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Buzsaw
11-03-2004 9:54 PM


Re: Explanation response.
Well you could easily SAY things that aren't true. But the fact is that I have gone ointo your "evidence" and found it wanting. What is more your own repeated retreat from discussions of the "evidence" - instead of backing up one of your basic assertions - shows that you know that you do not have a case.
Now to deal with your points
1) I never remotely suggested that counter-intuitive ideas should be given a free pass. Nor have I taken such a position.
2) Your claim of brainwashing is just another example of your hatred of the truth. You cannot answer my point that science has progressed by NOT rejecting ideas just because they are counter-intuitive.
3) Again, why not show some respect for the hard work and knowledge of scientists ? Even if you disagree you mus accept that they HAVE done a lot of work and they do know an awful lot more than you on the subject.
4) So long as the supernatural has not been shown to exist scientifically then there is no basis for taking it into account in science. Science cannot deal with every logical possible "might-be". When supernatural effects have been scientiifcally demonstrated then THOSE effects can be taken into account.
Onto the final point, your argument was that ordered complexity must have an intelligent cause.
However an intelligent cause must also be an instance of ordered complexity. How then do we explain the existence of that?
Our options are:
1) To insist on an intelligent cause again - and an intellignet cause for that intelligent cause and so on. An infinite regress.
2) To say that THAT instance of ordered complexity came about in some other way - contradicting the argument which states that that is impossible.
3) To say that there is no explanation - thus begging the question of how organised complexity originates.
None of these is a good answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 11-03-2004 9:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 25 of 95 (155728)
11-04-2004 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
11-03-2004 8:58 PM


Second Law of thermodynamics
As the name suggests the second law of thermodynamics was originally developed to deal with the movement of heat. Specifically the application to steam engines. Originally it showed that there was a finite amount of useful work that could be extracted from a heat reservoir. The second law has been generalised since then but it still deals with the fact that extracting useful work from stored energy converts that energy into a less usable form.
A good popular description of the second law is at:
http://www.secondlaw.com/
Now what does this have to do with complexity ?
Noreover I suggest that you bear in mind that if you assert that the creation of a human brain is thermodynamically possible then you are - by implication - asserting that the creation of each individual human is a literal miracle. So far as scientific investigation has shown the brain grows by ordinary biological porcesses - which do not go against the second law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 11-03-2004 8:58 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 95 (155837)
11-04-2004 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by NosyNed
11-03-2004 10:35 PM


Re: Support??
Once you have given some details of your argument then we are required to give a more detailed refutation. As it is there are no details whatsoever.
Ned and Paul: I have asked this question and neither of you seem to want to forthrightly answer it as I have requested. You're both obfuscatingly skating around it. Please answer as I have requested. Then we will talk about how relevant it is to this topic. That's why I asked it in the first place, so as to augment my topic argument.
I repeat my simple question:
Short question, and hopefully brief short to the point answer, so as not to run off topic. What is 2ltd and is it a bonafide operative thermodynamic law of the universe?
Paul's link does not define 2ld. Please briefly and to the point answer my question in your own words.
I will be outa town the rest of the day. Talk to you later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 11-03-2004 10:35 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2004 11:23 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 28 by mikehager, posted 11-04-2004 12:20 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 29 by mikehager, posted 11-04-2004 12:20 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 31 by NosyNed, posted 11-04-2004 1:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 27 of 95 (155844)
11-04-2004 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
11-04-2004 11:09 AM


Re: Support??
That is not true, I have answered forthrightly.
And you had only to go to the second page of the site I referred to to find a definition:
Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out
And it is using and channeling that tendency that allows us to utilise energy to do work - which goes back to the original usage in theoretically modelling steam engines.
Now are you going to tell me whether you believe that each individual human brain is miraculously created or not ? And if you accept that individual human brains can be formed by natural processes on what basis can you claim that any violation of the 2LoT is involved ?
This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-04-2004 11:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 11-04-2004 11:09 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 11-04-2004 10:12 PM PaulK has replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 28 of 95 (155858)
11-04-2004 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
11-04-2004 11:09 AM


Re: Support??
Buzsaw,
The second law of thermodynamics is in no way a bar to naturalistic development of the universe or life. A general statement of it is that universal entropy increases over time. There is nothing in the second law that denies the existence of pockets of localized decreasing entropy, which can naturally occur as a result of a greater net loss of entropy elsewhere. The words "disorder" and "order" when discussing the second law are loose approximations, as is the phrase "Disorder increases" (for that matter, any non-mathematical statement of the second law, including mine, is a loose approximation). Using these terms and a minimal understanding of the second law as a great philosophical or poetic concept that applies to all things at all times and in all contexts simply isn't correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 11-04-2004 11:09 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 11-04-2004 10:33 PM mikehager has not replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 29 of 95 (155859)
11-04-2004 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
11-04-2004 11:09 AM


oops
edited to remove duplicate post.
This message has been edited by mikehager, 11-04-2004 02:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 11-04-2004 11:09 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 30 of 95 (155861)
11-04-2004 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Buzsaw
11-02-2004 9:02 PM


Re: Requesting an explanation.
"The point of my post #8 is that the complexity of science is what drives my logic that there's simply way too much complexity for NS."
Leaving aside points of fact, I suppose the crux of the matter may be why you make that decision. In your opinion, when is a natural, scientific explanation to be believed and when is a supernatural, faith based explanation more desirable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2004 9:02 PM Buzsaw 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