Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why creation "science" isn't science
wj
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 365 (2705)
01-24-2002 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Cobra_snake
01-23-2002 2:15 PM


Cobra
Perhaps you should define what characteristics of observed nature would be consistent with your (unstated) theory of creation. I supposed, perhaps unjustifiably, that you would have argued that the appearance of "intelligent design" in certain aspects of nature would be consistent with your theory. But don't let me put words in your mouth.
Then we might be able to better assess whether the presence of variations in the genetic code has implications for the theory of evolution or your theory of creation.
BTW, what is the difference between me questioning the way God made species and you conjecturing what and why God would have done something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-23-2002 2:15 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 123 of 365 (2706)
01-24-2002 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Cobra_snake
01-22-2002 10:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

# 2
"Therefore, since common descent is a genealogical process, common descent should produce organisms that can be organized into objective nested hierarchies."
CONFIRMATION: Most existing species can be organized rather easily in a nested hierarchical classification. This is evident in the use of the Linnaean classification scheme.
FALSIFICATION: It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings.
As for the confirmation, I don't find it a big suprise. On a side note, Linneaus was a Christian (which you probably knew).
As for the falsification, firstly I doubt evolutionists would stop considering macroevolution fact if some mammals had wings. Secondly, I don't see why scientists think God would of done it any other way! Anyways, this point is another moot one because it fits a Creation model.

Bats are mammals, have wings, & are not intermediate between birds & mammals.
Presumably you are saying that chimpanzees have similar gene sequencies, protein similarities because God would design similar organisms in similar ways?
Not necessarily so. There is no reason Chimps particularly need to have similar gene sequences to us, in the same chromosomal positions. Firstly, molecules like cytochrome c in other living organisms can be very different from chimps & humans, so why are chimps & humans cytochrome c identical? God used many variations, but made humans & chimps identical? He made all other molecules very similar too? He never had to, all these molecules work in exactly the same way in other organisms but vary in the exact amino acid sequece. Curiously, these molecules vary the more distantly related (from paleontological evidence) the organisms are. This is consistent with mutation over time, by common descent.
There only need be one type of cytochome c, one type of haemoglobin, fibrinogen, etc. Found in any organism that has those molecules. But there are many, all varying in magnitude with genetic distance, entirely in corroberation with paleontological evidences.
Since you presume the chimp is unrelated to humans, God could have put ALL gene sequences in different orders, made the genes code for completely different but workable molecules, given the control genes a nip & tuck for ordering, & hey presto! A chimp with very little genetic similarity to humans! ...............But he didn't.
So, either Gods out to fool us, or He was never involved. Remember, humans & chimps AREN'T related according to creation "science". So why does evidence point to common descent?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-24-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-22-2002 10:19 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by nator, posted 01-24-2002 1:52 PM mark24 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 124 of 365 (2716)
01-24-2002 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Cobra_snake
01-22-2002 7:58 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[B]"So how does one test this model? What is the evidence of this theory that confirms it? How would one know if it is false? This is a scientific discussion, not a discussion by assertion. Please offer up more than vague assertions?"
The evidence lies mostly in the extreme complexity of life. And for the most part, any evidence against evolution is essentially evidence for Creation. The universe either made itself, was made, or a combination. If the universe was either made or made using methods of itself (combination), then the basic principle that we were created by an intelligent being is correct. Therefore, flaws and huge gaps in evolution are evidence of a creator.{/QUOTE
No, they aren't.
This is a "God of the Gaps" argument. Lack of evidence for one theory does not constitute positive evidence for a different theory.
quote:
Abiogenesis (despite your admittance to this being an important part of evolution) is a great example. Even you admit that Abiogenesis does not have alot of evidence going for it at the current time.
Please read more carefully. Abiogenesis is largely irrelevant
to the ToE.
quote:
"Assertion--please support it with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and how it could be falsified."
How about you use common sense instead?
Cute, but not adequate if you want to be scientific. It was "common sense" for a very long time that the Earth was flat.
quote:
"How so? To make this claim you would have to have a scientific theory that is testable, has confirming evidence and can be falsified. You have not identified such a theory. Please do so. Saying the evidence fits both models is an assertion, you need to support this assertion by providing a scientific theory that does what you assert. To date you, nor anyone else, has been able to."
"Evolution doesn't claim that. It does claim that since the first life we are able to detect, evolution accounts for the history and diversity of life on Earth. How that life started is largely irrelevant to evolution. Abiogenesis, panspermia, divine intervention, intelligent intervention, all could have started life on Earth and not affect the evidence for evolution."
You're fooling yourself. If life wasn't created by natural means then it was created by intelligent means.
It is not an either/or question. We could just not be intelligent enough to figure it out. Or, more likely, we just need more time to figure it out. Besides, Abiogenesis is largely irrelevent to the ToE.
quote:
This intelligent being would likely be God.
LOL! Why would this be "likely", exactly?
quote:
Unless of course you state that aliens brought first life here. Two problems with that theory:
1. Life would of had to start on some planet at some point in time.
Why would it "had" to have started?
[QUOTE]2. The idea that aliens brought the first cell to earth sounds much more like a fairy tale than the story of the bible, in my opinion.[QUOTE] Except that aliens wouldn't have had to come here. Organic compounds could have landed on the planet from a comet or other object.
quote:
So if one can say that (almost definitely) life did not start by aliens throwing the first cell on our planet,
Strawman argument. I don't know who claims this to be tue. Can you name them?
quote:
then we can assume beyond reasonable doubt that life had to of been started by an intelligent designer.
So, what positive evidence do you have that we were designed?
quote:
"Also, this is a strange statement given that the unifying concept of biology is evolution and yet you seem to think it can be separated from the field on a whim."
What is wrong with that assumption if the evidence fits into my model?
It isn't a model. Try again.
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-22-2002 7:58 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 125 of 365 (2717)
01-24-2002 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by mark24
01-24-2002 5:53 AM


Let us also remember that the phylogenic tree of life, which has been built over 150 years, matches the genetic tree of life, which was begun much more recently.
IOW, the closer an organism is to another organism on the tree of life, the closer they are, genetically, to one another. And vice versa. It is really quite easy to see.
Baraminology, the Biblically-based classification system that Creation "scientists" use, seems to completely ignore all of this genetic evidence. Why? They claim that Chimps and humans are not related at all, but that my tabby cat and a Bengal tiger are closely related (the same "kind").
Kind of takes the terms, "intellectual dishonesty" and "willful ignorance" to a new level, doesn't it?
------------------
"Never trust something that thinks for itself if you can't see where it keeps it's brain"--Mr. Weasley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by mark24, posted 01-24-2002 5:53 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 365 (2720)
01-24-2002 3:47 PM


Wow, I am finding debating with all of you remarkably similar to banging my head against a brick wall. Every time I make a good point it is countered by "Well you don't really have a theory so there!"
One thing I must clear up here. I don't think you all understand what I am arguing against. My main argument is:
I DON'T THINK IT IS POSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN EXISTENCE WITHOUT AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.
The ToE I am debating against is the theory that everything made itself. That INCLUDES Abiogenesis, Big Bang, and Biological Evolution. What you must understand is, if God DOES exist, I have no problem with ideas like Abiogenesis and Big Bang. God would be able to supply the miracles required for these theories. So, the explanation of Abiogenesis is important to ME. I am mainly debating against the idea of naturalism.
The bible, while not necessarily giving evidence towards my idea, is cosistent with it. Of course, your argument (whoever next replies) will be "You don't really have a model." This is despite me posting a model earlier:
"An almighty being created the universe, the earth, and life. Soon after, He created man (in his own image.) Man sinned (big suprise) and as a result the almighty being decided to cast the first humans out of the perfect world and into a world in which one must struggle to survive.
That is the world we live in today. The many species God created were created using the DNA code. He created them how he wanted them, with much variability. After the perfect world ended, errors in the code (mutations) began to affect all species. These errors along with the coded variation of species led to the world today in which we find many different species."
I challenge any of you to create (your own) evolutionary model which explains everything from the beginning of time (naturalism). Don't go into details, just a broad overview.
Also, you claim my theory doesn't have the three things you deem necessary to be a theory:
1. Testable hypotheses
2. Confirming evidence
3. Potential falsifications
I must first ask, where did you get these requirements? Secondly, I will ask you to give me answers of how evolution fits these requirements. Giving me a link to the 29 evidences doesn't count. I've already tried to show that the falsifications for the evidences were bogus, but I was not able to get past #4 before you again blasted me with the claim that my model has nothing to do with science. I would like the explanations in your own words.
I will address the other points as soon as I get back. In the meantime, have fun creating your own model for evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by mark24, posted 01-24-2002 7:42 PM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 129 by lbhandli, posted 01-24-2002 9:23 PM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 154 by Quetzal, posted 01-26-2002 3:25 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 365 (2725)
01-24-2002 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Cobra_snake
01-22-2002 3:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
This model also agrees with another scientific idea in an alternate way. Common descent can easily be exchanged with common designer.
Firstly *pedant mode engaged*
It doesn`t agree with another scientific Idea it competes with it....
i.e It is common designer OR common descent, not both....
*pedant mode disengaged*
What it agrees with is the evidence for common descent, a bit different.
There is a very detailed models of the solar system developed by Ptolemy claiming a geocentric solar system it agrees with (or can be modified to account for) all the evidence. Is the universe geocentric? Most cosmologists tend to think not. A heliocentric solar system is commonly accepted today, why? Because it is the simplest possible model that fits the data.
Why is common descent a better explanation of the data than common designer? Because it is simpler in its reliance on natural phenomena only (i.e no goddidit).....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-22-2002 3:58 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 128 of 365 (2733)
01-24-2002 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Cobra_snake
01-24-2002 3:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

I challenge any of you to create (your own) evolutionary model which explains everything from the beginning of time (naturalism). Don't go into details, just a broad overview.

The Tuberculotic Phlegm Theory:
The Galactic Goat created the universe, when He sneezed.
The Galactic Goat isn’t subject to laws of physics, & that snotty bubble ended up being a lot larger than the goat itself. All the matter in the universe today was created in the first instant that the GG breathed into the mucus bubble (within which the known universe is contained). A rapid period of expansion followed as the GG emptied His tuberculotic lungs into the snot ball.
The hugeness of the universe was created at that time, & the KNOWN universe merely expands within it. The reason the known universe is actually accelerating in its expansion, is because it is gravitationally attracted to the phlegm walls that contain it.
Some nasal hairs of the GG are actually DNA, these were liberally deposited within the universe during the big sneeze, thus solving the genesis of life.
Now, Cobra, wouldn’t it be nice to be able to apply a method to determine the relative truth of theories?
This method is the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
My broad outline is as good as the broad Christian model. So, how can you possibly test mine to see if it has merit? If you quiz me on it, I’ll just waterproof it, like Christians did with the convenient unobservable, outside-our-universe God.
This is exactly why there is a scientific method, to sort out the bullshit from the facts.
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Also, you claim my theory doesn't have the three things you deem necessary to be a theory:
1. Testable hypotheses
2. Confirming evidence
3. Potential falsifications

Well, conveniently, neither does mine. It cannot be tested, it has no evidence, & there is absolutely no way anyone can prove it wrong .
This is the difference between a theory, & a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
Why testable hypotheses, confirming evidence, & potential falsifications? It keeps people focussed on the observed, & allows a framework from which hypothesis' can become theories, can be falsified & replaced by better theories. All the while becoming closer to the facts. There is no other method that allows this. Just saying use "common sense" is meaningless. What makes sense to you, doesn't to me, & vice versa, so the scientific method has been formalised.
Let's be honest, anyone can theorise any old crap, but so what? It has no real merit until the scientific method has been applied to it.
If you don’t like that, Cobra, then just try & disprove "The Tuberculotic Phlegm Theory".
This is why creationists are are continually asked to provide a hypothesis that meets the standards of the scientific method, that they can't do this means only one thing. The creation "model" is a theory, but not a scientific one. It is the difference between Galactic Goats & the Big Bang.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-24-2002 3:47 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 365 (2735)
01-24-2002 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Cobra_snake
01-24-2002 3:47 PM


quote:
Every time I make a good point it is countered by "Well you don't really have a theory so there!"
The problem is that you are confused about the difference between an assertion and an argument. To date you have made an assertion that evidence for evolution is consistent with evidence for a common designer. You have not bothered to provide an argument about how one infers a common designer other than to say that you believe it. That isn't an argument, that is an assertion. And you have made the assertion repeatedly without supporting it repeatedly. You claim that the thing you assert is as good or better than evolution, but you can't produce the argument for what you are asserting is supported.
quote:
One thing I must clear up here. I don't think you all understand what I am arguing against. My main argument is:
I DON'T THINK IT IS POSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN EXISTENCE WITHOUT AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.
You have made this clear. You just haven't supported this assertion in the scientific framework that this discussion would require.
quote:
The ToE I am debating against is the theory that everything made itself.
This is untrue and people have repeatedly pointed this out to you. The ToE explains the history and diversity of life on Earth using specific observed mechanisms and corroborating evidence. It is not a theory "that everything made itself." If you want to make a claim, you would need to find a source by a scientist who argues for evolution and then cite exactly where such a claim is made.
quote:
That INCLUDES Abiogenesis, Big Bang, and Biological Evolution.
You have your facts wrong and this has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Please correct your understanding.
quote:
What you must understand is, if God DOES exist, I have no problem with ideas like Abiogenesis and Big Bang. God would be able to supply the miracles required for these theories. So, the explanation of Abiogenesis is important to ME. I am mainly debating against the idea of naturalism.
Actually you are arguing against a strawman argument.
quote:
The bible, while not necessarily giving evidence towards my idea, is cosistent with it. Of course, your argument (whoever next replies) will be "You don't really have a model." This is despite me posting a model earlier:
"An almighty being created the universe, the earth, and life. Soon after, He created man (in his own image.) Man sinned (big suprise) and as a result the almighty being decided to cast the first humans out of the perfect world and into a world in which one must struggle to survive.
That is the world we live in today. The many species God created were created using the DNA code. He created them how he wanted them, with much variability. After the perfect world ended, errors in the code (mutations) began to affect all species. These errors along with the coded variation of species led to the world today in which we find many different species."
That isn't a model, it is an assertion. You need to demonstrate how you would test such a claim, what confirming evidence exists and what are the potential falsifications.
quote:
I challenge any of you to create (your own) evolutionary model which explains everything from the beginning of time (naturalism).
That would be quite a silly enterprise given no one is arguing any such thing. Again, you are trying to argue against a strawman argument.
quote:
Don't go into details, just a broad overview.
The details of ToE have been given to you. Why should someone create a theory that already exists and is operationalized?
quote:
Also, you claim my theory doesn't have the three things you deem necessary to be a theory:
1. Testable hypotheses
2. Confirming evidence
3. Potential falsifications
I must first ask, where did you get these requirements?
The scientific method. I have pointed out why several times.
quote:
Secondly, I will ask you to give me answers of how evolution fits these requirements.
Speaking of heads and walls, what do you think the 29 lines of evidence is?
quote:
Giving me a link to the 29 evidences doesn't count.
Why not? Fiat by cobra?
quote:
I've already tried to show that the falsifications for the evidences were bogus,
No, you made some amorphous claims concerning how the evidence was not exclusive without any way of telling if your claims were correct. You didn't bother to address the falsifications in any meaningful manner.
quote:
but I was not able to get past #4 before you again blasted me with the claim that my model has nothing to do with science. I would like the explanations in your own words.
You don't have a model. You have an assertion. Those are my own words. Please provide a scientific model.
quote:
I will address the other points as soon as I get back. In the meantime, have fun creating your own model for evolution.
Why would one create their own model of evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-24-2002 3:47 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 365 (2736)
01-24-2002 10:00 PM


Well mark24, while I'm sure you're insult of the Creationist idea may be funny to you, but it seems to me that you're post DOESN'T include a model for the evolutionary explanation of existence. Nor does it contain (in your own words) reasons why the theory meets all three of your requirements. Mockery is not a very good debate tactic. I know that you consider this an analogy, but mockery was surely intended. However, you have no right to insult my idea of a designer without first answering my previous questions.
That's ok though. If none of you will create a broad overview, I'll make one for you.
"In the beginning there was hydrogen which eventually condensed into a huge ball of matter, and soon after exploded. Because of the influence of gravity, the galaxies, stars, and planets were formed. One of the planets that was formed happened to become our home: the planet Earth.
Just by chance, molecules formed together and had the ability to reproduce, which marks the beginning of life on the planet Earth. Through processes including mutation and natural selection, this first form of life started to change into more complex species.
Humans are one of the steps of this evolutionary process."
That about sums it up, eh? I don't see how that broad overview differs much from mine. If you disagree with my model than maybe you could actually take the time to create your own rather than amusing yourself with your goat story.
From: joz
"Why is common descent a better explanation of the data than common designer? Because it is simpler in its reliance on natural phenomena only (i.e no goddidit)....."
I admit that "goddidit" can be used as a lame explanation, but that still does not mean that common descent is "simpler." Saying that is a baseless assertion, and your explanation is proof of your bias. By saying that it is more effective because it doesn't REQUIRE a supernatural force is total bias against the perfectly reasonable idea that some force designed life.
From: wj
"BTW, what is the difference between me questioning the way God made species and you conjecturing what and why God would have done something?"
I am only stating possibilities.
From: mark24
"Not necessarily so. There is no reason Chimps particularly need to have similar gene sequences to us, in the same chromosomal positions. Firstly, molecules like cytochrome c in other living organisms can be very different from chimps & humans, so why are chimps & humans cytochrome c identical? God used many variations, but made humans & chimps identical? He made all other molecules very similar too? He never had to, all these molecules work in exactly the same way in other organisms but vary in the exact amino acid sequece. Curiously, these molecules vary the more distantly related (from paleontological evidence) the organisms are. This is consistent with mutation over time, by common descent."
Well you can play God all you want, but I don't see what objection you have with God using similar methods to create largely different species.
From: mark24
"So, either Gods out to fool us, or He was never involved. Remember, humans & chimps AREN'T related according to creation "science". So why does evidence point to common descent?"
This looks an awful lot like a baseless assertion. God is not trying to fool you, you're doing a fine job of that yourself!
Evidence points to common descent based on an interpretation. Another (perfectly reasonable) interpretation is common designer. I don't see the point debating with you if you can't accept this simple idea.
From: shrafinator
"Cute, but not adequate if you want to be scientific. It was "common sense" for a very long time that the Earth was flat."
First of all, I was implying that using common sense when interpreting the facts. Why on Earth would you want to diminish the importance of common sense when interpreting facts. Here's the original argument:
From: Me
"Under this very vague model, one can see easily how mutations, speciation, and change in allelic frequency all fit in easily to the theory."
From: Ibhandli
"Assertion--please support it with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and how it could be falsified."
If I must elaborate on these simple concepts, I will explain:
1. Change in allelic frequency.
If/when God made life, he could've used the system we know today as genetics. In the system of genetics, much variability is incorporated. When the general characteristics of a certain species fluctuate as time passes, this can be referred to as change in allelic frequency.
2. Mutations.
If/when God banished the first humans from the Garden of Eden, he may have used mutations to cause harmful effects on all species, including humans.
3. Speciation.
If/when God banished all creatures from the Garden of Eden, the combined effect of change in allelic frequency and mutation, coupled with the simple concept of natural selection could've caused enough changes to occur so that humans would consider the animal a new species.
When using COMMON SENSE, one can clearly see that mutations, change in allelic frequency, and speciation are completely compatible with both theories. If you can't understand this concept than maybe I'm being much to optimistic on the level of common sense most intelligent human beings have. (The "your theory is not a theory" argument will prove nothing until one of you post your own justifications as to why evolution is a scientific theory.)
From: shrafinator (discussing Abiogenesis)
"It is not an either/or question. We could just not be intelligent enough to figure it out. Or, more likely, we just need more time to figure it out. Besides, Abiogenesis is largely irrelevent to the ToE."
What do you mean it is not an either or question? Life was either created by something or created itself. What other POSSIBLE explanations could there be. Your excuse that Abiogenesis is irrelevant has been discussed a few posts back and if you have any problem with my justification for the importance of Abiogenesis, feel free to make me aware of them.
From: shrafinator (on the origin of life)
"Why would it "had" to have started?"
What kind of question is that? Life must of started in order for it to exist. Unless you think life is and always has been, which is generally a copout from your own theory and probably not a stance that many respected evolutionists would be willing to take.
From: shrafinator (on my claim that aliens didn't cause evolution)
"Strawman argument. I don't know who claims this to be tue. Can you name them?"
You have a good point, but this is mostly a misunderstanding. I was saying that if you could HYPOTHETICALLY rule out the theory, THEN a Creator would have to be Godlike.
From: shrafinator
"IOW, the closer an organism is to another organism on the tree of life, the closer they are, genetically, to one another. And vice versa. It is really quite easy to see."
While the fact that both trees match makes the evidence a bit stronger, I still don't see why this would not be expected from a Supernatural Designer.

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by mark24, posted 01-25-2002 5:03 AM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 134 by joz, posted 01-25-2002 8:52 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 365 (2740)
01-24-2002 11:36 PM


In the time it took me to write my last post, Ibhandli had already made his! So now I will go over his points.
"The problem is that you are confused about the difference between an assertion and an argument."
Oh really?
argument \Ar"gu*ment\, n. [F. argument, L. argumentum, fr. arguere to argue.] 1. Proof; evidence. [Obs.]
There is.. no more palpable and convincing argument of the existence of a Deity. --Ray.
Why, then, is it made a badge of wit and an argument of parts for a man to commence atheist, and to cast off all belief of providence, all awe and reverence for religion? --South.
2. A reason or reasons offered in proof, to induce belief, or convince the mind; reasoning expressed in words; as, an argument about, concerning, or regarding a proposition, for or in favor of it, or against it.
3. A process of reasoning, or a controversy made up of rational proofs; argumentation; discussion; disputation.
argument (rgy-mnt)
n.
A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
A quarrel; a dispute.
Archaic. A reason or matter for dispute or contention: sheath'd their swords for lack of argument (Shakespeare).
A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.
A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.
A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.
argument n 1: a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true; "it was a strong argument that his hypothesis was true" [syn: statement] 2: a dispute where there is strong disagreement; "they were involved in a violent argument" [syn: controversy, contention, contestation, tilt, arguing] 3: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on" [syn: debate] 4: a summary of the subject or plot of a literary work or play or movie; "the editor added the argument to the poem" [syn: literary argument] 5: a variable in a logical or mathematical expression whose value determines the dependent variable; if f(x)=y, x is the independent variable [syn: independent variable]
I find it rather funny that assertion is INCLUDED in that last definition. Please stop with this pointless debate. You know EXACTLY what I am arguing against:
I DON'T THINK IT IS POSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN EXISTENCE WITHOUT AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER. (If you don't think existence can be explained without an intelligent designer than we should not be debating.)
I have reasons for this argument and you know it.
1. The lack of a good explanation for how life started without being created.
2. The lack of proof that small changes in genetic code (microevolution) can lead to large changes (macroevolution).
3. The lack of current biological facts (mutation, speciation, microevolution) to conflict with my basic theory in the slightest.
"This is untrue and people have repeatedly pointed this out to you. The ToE explains the history and diversity of life on Earth using specific observed mechanisms and corroborating evidence. It is not a theory "that everything made itself." If you want to make a claim, you would need to find a source by a scientist who argues for evolution and then cite exactly where such a claim is made."
Perhaps the theory of evolution that you support does not include this ideaology, but it is certainly true that there are many different levels of belief of evolution, as is true with Creation. The belief that everything created itself is known as naturalism, and that is what I am against. However, I am also against the large-scale ideas of biological evolution (macroevolution).
What exactly are your beliefs? How far does your acceptance of science go? Does it go past evolution and into abiogenesis and the Big Bang? Because if it does than your argument is useless. If it doesn't than we should simply debate how much influence an intelligent designer had.
"That would be quite a silly enterprise given no one is arguing any such thing. Again, you are trying to argue against a strawman argument."
Fine, then create a model that shows your beliefs on diversity. Provide falsifications.
"The details of ToE have been given to you. Why should someone create a theory that already exists and is operationalized?"
I realize that the theory is in place. I would like YOU to describe it to me so that I decide whether or not your theory meets your own requiremets. You think I'm ignorant anyway, so this is your chance to show me exactly what I am misinterpreting.
"You didn't bother to address the falsifications in any meaningful manner."
Thanks for the opinion.
"You don't have a model. You have an assertion. Those are my own words. Please provide a scientific model."
I asked YOU to supply a scientific model, so that I can see what exactly a scientific model IS. So far you have not supplied your own model so you are being hypocritical in saying that I need to supply a model.
"Why would one create their own model of evolution?"
To express their views on what they think evolution explains and also to give me an example of a "scientific theory."
All I am asking is that one of you supply me with a "scientific model" of what you believe evolution explains. This model, in order to be "scientific," should include the 3 supposedly necessary items that have been discussed previously. I believe that once I see this model I will be able to easily slip Creation into a similar model and therefore further my point that evolution has the same flaws as Creation (as a scientific theory).

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 132 of 365 (2741)
01-25-2002 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Cobra_snake
01-24-2002 10:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Well mark24, while I'm sure you're insult of the Creationist idea may be funny to you, but it seems to me that you're post DOESN'T include a model for the evolutionary explanation of existence. Nor does it contain (in your own words) reasons why the theory meets all three of your requirements. Mockery is not a very good debate tactic. I know that you consider this an analogy, but mockery was surely intended. However, you have no right to insult my idea of a designer without first answering my previous questions.

It was not mockery. I invented a light hearted "theory" to show you why there is such a thing as the scientific method. So stop feigning insult & please deal with the message in my post.
Do you now understand why there is a difference between a theory & a scientific theory? Do you understand the necessity for drawing a distinction?
If not please address any points of misunderstanding.
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

From: mark24
"Not necessarily so. There is no reason Chimps particularly need to have similar gene sequences to us, in the same chromosomal positions. Firstly, molecules like cytochrome c in other living organisms can be very different from chimps & humans, so why are chimps & humans cytochrome c identical? God used many variations, but made humans & chimps identical? He made all other molecules very similar too? He never had to, all these molecules work in exactly the same way in other organisms but vary in the exact amino acid sequece. Curiously, these molecules vary the more distantly related (from paleontological evidence) the organisms are. This is consistent with mutation over time, by common descent."
Well you can play God all you want, but I don't see what objection you have with God using similar methods to create largely different species.
From: mark24
"So, either Gods out to fool us, or He was never involved. Remember, humans & chimps AREN'T related according to creation "science". So why does evidence point to common descent?"
This looks an awful lot like a baseless assertion. God is not trying to fool you, you're doing a fine job of that yourself! Evidence points to common descent based on an interpretation. Another (perfectly reasonable) interpretation is common designer. I don't see the point debating with you if you can't accept this simple idea.

"Evidence points to common descent based on an interpretation. Another (perfectly reasonable) interpretation is common designer."
Except there is no evidence of a "common designer", but there is evidence for common descent. We're back to testable hypotheses, confirming evidence, & potential falsifications again. So, if you're not bothering with the above, neither will I.
The Galactic Goat theory stands.
What was baseless assertion in my post? I presented the molecular evidence. There's more evidence than just molecular, the evidences corroborate, that's all.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-24-2002 10:00 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 365 (2742)
01-25-2002 7:17 AM


"Do you now understand why there is a difference between a theory & a scientific theory? Do you understand the necessity for drawing a distinction?"
Actually, I have understood the difference for a long time. And this is not the first time that a story like this was used in attempt to make me realize how stupid my idea is. However, the point I am trying to make is that the ToE is very similar to the Theory of Creation in that they are both involve inferences from the past, and neither can be falsified to any reasonable degree. If you were to post your own theory of evolution I may be able to show you what I mean.
By the way; what does falsified mean? Does it mean disproven completely or made to seem unlikely. Please verify.

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by mark24, posted 01-25-2002 10:56 AM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 141 by nator, posted 01-26-2002 12:59 AM Cobra_snake has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 365 (2743)
01-25-2002 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Cobra_snake
01-24-2002 10:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
1)"In the beginning there was hydrogen which eventually condensed into a huge ball of matter, and soon after exploded. Because of the influence of gravity, the galaxies, stars, and planets were formed. One of the planets that was formed happened to become our home: the planet Earth.
Just by chance, molecules formed together and had the ability to reproduce, which marks the beginning of life on the planet Earth. Through processes including mutation and natural selection, this first form of life started to change into more complex species.
Humans are one of the steps of this evolutionary process."
2)I admit that "goddidit" can be used as a lame explanation, but that still does not mean that common descent is "simpler." Saying that is a baseless assertion, and your explanation is proof of your bias. By saying that it is more effective because it doesn't REQUIRE a supernatural force is total bias against the perfectly reasonable idea that some force designed life.

1)Big ball of hydrogen exploded? Read up on the big bang sometime coz it wasn`t hydrogen and it did not contract under gravity...
Just by chance... LOL due to the laws of physics and chemistry surely.... Let me explain something to you about probability if the odds of something occuring are 1/10^100 and there is a sample population of 10^103 you expect to see 1000 ocurences of that possibility.... Doesnt sound as far fetched if there was a LOT of reactions going on does it..... (and there would have been)
2)It is SIMPLER and therefore preferable it makes no appeal to the supernatural unknown but explains the phenomena in terms only of natural phenomena most people (ie those not so desparate to see evidence of God that they will forsake logic and reason) would agree on its superiority as an explanation.....
If you want to champion ID go to the stonehenge thread and answer the question that John Paul wouldn`t/couldn`t.... How do you differentiate between a natural system and a designed one.... (Please read from page 2 to the end so as to discern the point that the discussion had reached...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-24-2002 10:00 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 135 of 365 (2749)
01-25-2002 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Cobra_snake
01-25-2002 7:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"Do you now understand why there is a difference between a theory & a scientific theory? Do you understand the necessity for drawing a distinction?"
Actually, I have understood the difference for a long time. And this is not the first time that a story like this was used in attempt to make me realize how stupid my idea is. However, the point I am trying to make is that the ToE is very similar to the Theory of Creation in that they are both involve inferences from the past, and neither can be falsified to any reasonable degree. If you were to post your own theory of evolution I may be able to show you what I mean.

But I’m not sure you do understand the difference, you wouldn’t ask the following otherwise..
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

Also, you claim my theory doesn't have the three things you deem necessary to be a theory:
1. Testable hypotheses
2. Confirming evidence
3. Potential falsifications
I must first ask, where did you get these requirements?

1/ Before we go any further, it is important that we agree on a method to distinguish between any made up toosh, & something that has merit.
What would you suggest?
2/ The Galactic Goat contains inferences from the past as well.
3/ The ToE falsifications have been presented to you. Take your rebuttal to no.1 for example.
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
/B]
ONE TRUE POLYGENIC TREE. This means similar genetic material. So, finding a different type of genetic material would be a falsification. This has nothing to do with God, it stands alone. It falsifies the observation. Whether you want to falsify it or not.
Incidentally, there’s no reason God had to use DNA/RNA with all life. So discovery of a different genetic material would be a plus point to creationism.
That you don’t like the falsifications is irrelevant. The falsifications directly contradict the predictions/observations of their pertinent theories. That is WHY they are falsifications.
4/ Big Bang etc., etc is inferred from evidence. But it is important to distinguish what can be reasonably inferred from evidence.
A/ The natural mechanistic framework is responsible for everything we see, bar none. DNA replicates, stars burn, cars combust. All natural.
B/ Supernatural framework isn’t known to be responsible for anything.
There is absolutely no reason abiogenesis can’t occur from non living molecules, given amino acids, nucleotides, ribose sugars etc. are non living. The problem science faces, is how?
That given, which framework, A or B is a reasonable inference?
If you answer B/ , then the Galactic Goat is as good a theory as yours, & I refer you to point 1/ , above.
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

By the way; what does falsified mean? Does it mean disproven completely or made to seem unlikely. Please verify.

I'm not entirely sure I understand your meaning when you say ToE, the ToE only deals with organic evolution, no big bangs or abiogenesis. You need to find a different word or phrase as this is misleading.
Falsified......When a scientific theory is formulated, potential events are identified that, should they prove to be true, falsify that hypothethis/theory. That is to say, that hyptothesis, as it stands, is no longer entirely true. It may mean it has been completely overturned, & something else is needed, or, in the case of well supported theories, revision will be necessary.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-25-2002 7:17 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 365 (2766)
01-25-2002 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by lbhandli
01-21-2002 10:28 PM


"How can I rebut something that is not formalized?"
--Ask for emphesis, as I need it all the time.
"And what does "unbias is knowledge" mean?"
--Unbias is knowledge is my short phrase that simply states that with an unbias and open mind, you will gain real knowledge, if you are in the discussion with a bias mind, you will gain nothing no matter what is refuted. It means that discussion on a topic such as this should include all scientific aspects to come to any conclusive idea.
"Except that in science there must be potential falsifications for a theory. What are they for creationism?"
--What theory would you like me to attempt to explain? And yes, as many as there are that say that creation theories (need they accept that there is any) cannot be falsified, there are many falsifiabilities, as I am beginning to discuss in the forum 'uniformitarianism'.
"Then why are you not able to provide a theory? Or even better, why not identify a finding that creationists have discovered in modern biology using a creationist theory?"
--http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000067.html restate the question here and ask me or any other creationist to provide a theory on a specific topic, not like theory of geology, or theory of the flood, or theory on cosmology, etc.
"That is nice. However, those interpretations come with potential falsifications. Please address them for evolution and provide them for creationism."
--An enterperetation on what specific problem? http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=67&p=1
"So explain the history and diversity of life on Earth. That is what evolution does. How does creation science do it?"
--'e'volution from a common ancestor, take dogs for instance, there are hundreds of kinds of dogs, they all had a common ancestor, its a Dog. Take bacteria for instance (these would be producing variants since the fall or the start of creation) they all had a common ancestor, it was bacteria. http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=67&p=1
"And you are still deluded. While science professors do better than say those in the social sciences for some unexplicable mis prioritization, they aren't making millions of dollars."
--Ok I think I will withdraw this argument whether it is good for my side or good for your side, I think we are running into a brick wall from my wording. I probley shouldn't have said millions of dollars, as there are very very few, if any that make such a load. I would re-emphesize that they simply make...alot of money, mabye not millions, but thousands, some few hundreds of thousands. Some even get more up there from grants do do research. I think this argument isn't going too far.
"How can he be familiar if it isn't a formal theory. Perhaps you should identify the theory with a clear explanation of what it explains and what it does not. This should include testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications and not previously have been falsified."
--Which theory would you like, there are a wide veriety just as evolution has on various topics, and various theories on single topics. http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=67&p=1
"As I would emphasize you are completely confused about how science works. Science is about making inferences. If you want to say all inferences are relative, you are not partaking in science. Inferences are made to interpret the evidence. Those interpretations have to be able to be falsified. Saying that two mutually exclusive positions are okay to have around, is saying that science cannot make any conclusions reliably and therefore science is irrelevant. ... Science makes inferences based on the evidence and if it can't do it reliably, it wouldn't be any more reliable in one are than in another."
--Excuse my incorrect wording ( It would make no 'difference') If I was not partaking in science, I would be unable to discuss and debate with you.
"An operating table has little to do with biology in where the discoveries are coming from."
--An operating table as an analogy.
"So what is the scientific theory of creationism? Or a theory that falls under that model? You seem completely oblivious to the fact that if there are alternative models, we can test those models based on their implications and determine which is more accurate. So far, there is no way to test creationism according to you because it fits all of the facts and all of the potential facts even."
--http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000067.html restate the question here and ask me or any other creationist to provide a theory on a specific topic, not like theory of geology, or theory of the flood, or theory on cosmology, etc.
"Yes, evolution can be observed and especially specific features of biology can be tested that fit with evolution. And they have been tested. How about creationism?
Science relies on observations. Those observations aren't necessarily experiments, but tests of the implications of a theory. In the case of humans and chimps, given what we know of genetics, they should share more common genetic traits that are non-functional if they share a common ancestor. And surprise, they do. Evolution explains this, how does creationism?"
--Yes creationism uses this same scientific methodology, further discussion on what creation science has can be discussed here --> http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=67&p=1 as you have repeatedly asked for discussion to lean towad this question.
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by lbhandli, posted 01-21-2002 10:28 PM lbhandli 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