Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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:   Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 151 of 283 (291905)
03-03-2006 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by crashfrog
03-02-2006 10:55 PM


Re: Why I don't like creationism...
I do not know who did this. From all the reports I have seen, this is impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2006 10:55 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by ramoss, posted 03-03-2006 11:49 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 283 (291907)
03-03-2006 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by inkorrekt
03-02-2006 9:49 PM


Re: Why I don't like creationism...
quote:
Einsteins theory of General Relativity is a theory, electromagnetics is a thoery, quantum mechanics is a theory, and evolution is no different to any of them"
WE have mixed apples and oranges here. Mathematically, all the above can be derived except evolution.
This is false. General Relativity, electrodynamics (both quantum and classical), quantum mechanics, and the like start with mathematical axioms describing what equations govern the phenomena at hand. Then, based on the equations that are accepted a priori, predictions are made as to the phenomena that should be seen. Then one checks to see whether the phenomena are actually seen in real life -- if they are, then the a priori assumptions (the theory, if you will) is accepted as verified, at least in that particular case.
This is not different than the theory of evolution. I have just written a post describing one particular set of predictions that are made using the theory of evolution and pointing out that they have been confirmed. (That post recieved a POTM nomination, so evidently it is very, very good.)
For more evidence for the theory of evolution, that is, for more predictions that were made on the basis of the theory of evolution that were then confirmed through observation, I suggest you read Douglas Theobald's fine essay on the topic.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by inkorrekt, posted 03-02-2006 9:49 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by inkorrekt, posted 03-05-2006 5:29 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 153 of 283 (291962)
03-03-2006 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by inkorrekt
03-03-2006 6:36 PM


Re: Why I don't like creationism...
You claim from the 'reports you ahve read' this is impossible
Can you give a link to these reports? Are they in peer reviewed scientific journals, or are they written by people with thelogy on their ajenda?
This message has been edited by ramoss, 03-03-2006 11:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by inkorrekt, posted 03-03-2006 6:36 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 154 of 283 (292294)
03-05-2006 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by inkorrekt
03-02-2006 9:49 PM


Re: Why I don't like creationism...
quote:
WE have mixed apples and oranges here. Mathematically, all the above can be derived except evolution. Evolution is based purely on speculations, presuppositions, statistical improbabilities and assumptions. Therefore, this is not even science. But a philosophy based on naturalism.
So newtons laws are not science? He didn't derive them mathematically, he stated them after making observations about the universe. That is how science difference from maths, it makes observations about the universe and constructs models based around the observations. The same is true for general relativity and quantum mechanics etc. The point I am making is that "mathematical derivability" does not make something science.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-05-2006 07:54 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by inkorrekt, posted 03-02-2006 9:49 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 155 of 283 (292297)
03-05-2006 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by crashfrog
03-02-2006 10:55 PM


Re: Why I don't like creationism...
quote:
None of the other theories are really science - they describe abstractions of the universe, not the universe itself. Biology - evolution - is really the only "true" science.
Trying to star a war eh crash? lol I refuse to rise to the bait

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2006 10:55 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 283 (292420)
03-05-2006 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by crashfrog
03-02-2006 10:55 PM


Eh,...
It is apples and oranges, though. None of the other theories are really science - they describe abstractions of the universe, not the universe itself. Biology - evolution - is really the only "true" science.
I might be misinterpreting what you've said, but could you justify what exactly makes General Relativity or Electromagnetism not a science?
Or what makes evolution the only true science?
This message has been edited by Son Goku, 03-05-2006 03:13 PM
This message has been edited by Son Goku, 03-05-2006 03:15 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2006 10:55 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2006 6:08 PM Son Goku has replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 157 of 283 (292485)
03-05-2006 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Chiroptera
03-03-2006 6:44 PM


Re: Why I don't like creationism...
Thanks for the reference. I have started reading Teobald's article. Yes, facts are missing. But, I only see scientific terminology and linguistic gymnastics. When I finish reading, I will give the complete Critique.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Chiroptera, posted 03-03-2006 6:44 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Chiroptera, posted 03-05-2006 6:06 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 283 (292503)
03-05-2006 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by inkorrekt
03-05-2006 5:29 PM


Re: Why I don't like creationism...
To help you out, Dr. Theobald has a sidebar where he links to a critique by Ashby Camp. However, when you read Camp's critique, you'll notice that he often didn't quite understand what Theobald's points were. At any rate, Theobald responded to Ashby's criticisms by rewriting portions of his essay to make it clearer.
At any rate, if and when you respond, don't try to write a gigantuan post that tries to answer everything. Try to focus on one of Theobald's evidences at a time. Unless you have a very general observation that applies to a bunch at once.
Added by edit:
Oh, and don't forget, when you do post a critique of Theobald, make sure you do it in a new thread.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 05-Mar-2006 11:11 PM

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by inkorrekt, posted 03-05-2006 5:29 PM inkorrekt has not replied

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


Message 159 of 283 (292505)
03-05-2006 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Son Goku
03-05-2006 3:12 PM


Re: Eh,...
I might be misinterpreting what you've said, but could you justify what exactly makes General Relativity or Electromagnetism not a science?
Those models don't describe reality, but rather a simplified approximation of it. General relativity ignores quantization. Electromagnetism ignores gravity. Etc. Open a physics textbook and it's full of problems about "frictionless pulleys" and "nonelastic ropes" and other items that don't exist in the real world. Even chemistry tends to ignore the little corner-cases in reality.
Or what makes evolution the only true science?
The thing about biology, and I may have trouble getting this across, is that you can't ignore the weird little corner-case phenomena like you can in physics and chemistry. In biology you can guarantee that you're going to find an organism that relies on that corner-case. The simplest model that can encapsulate evolution is as complicated as the real-world itself, which is why biology doesn't lend itself to concise little mathematical laws like in physics or chemistry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Son Goku, posted 03-05-2006 3:12 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Son Goku, posted 03-05-2006 6:45 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 283 (292512)
03-05-2006 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by crashfrog
03-05-2006 6:08 PM


Re: Eh,...
The thing about biology, and I may have trouble getting this across, is that you can't ignore the weird little corner-case phenomena like you can in physics and chemistry. In biology you can guarantee that you're going to find an organism that relies on that corner-case. The simplest model that can encapsulate evolution is as complicated as the real-world itself, which is why biology doesn't lend itself to concise little mathematical laws like in physics or chemistry.
I see what you mean. One can't form a theory of the "evolution of the elephant" independently of its surroundings or the evolution of other animals in its ecosystem.
Biological theories can't ignore the "noise" around the phenomena.
All I would say is that when the theories of physics ignore phenomena it's for good reason. For instance the quantum nature of the gravitational field is completely unimportant at our scale.
For instance the effect of gravity barely alters Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism.
I think both subjects have their cutoff point.
Wouldn't a biologist ignore the internal chemistry of a viron that lived near the habitat of an elephant when studying the elephant's evolution. You wouldn't run a chemical simulation of the elephant down to the atomic scale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2006 6:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2006 6:52 PM Son Goku has replied

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


Message 161 of 283 (292514)
03-05-2006 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Son Goku
03-05-2006 6:45 PM


Re: Eh,...
Wouldn't a biologist ignore the internal chemistry of a viron that lived near the habitat of an elephant when studying the elephant's evolution.
Maybe, maybe not. That virus might be a major pathogen of the plants the elephant eats to survive; the plant's evolved defenses to that pathogen might have been something the elephant would have needed to evolve in response to. That virus itself may have evolved under influences that determined its mode of attack when it infects plants.
So on and so forth. Sure, you can try to examine an organism on its own, but you don't get as far as you could.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Son Goku, posted 03-05-2006 6:45 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Son Goku, posted 03-06-2006 5:25 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 283 (292604)
03-06-2006 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by crashfrog
03-05-2006 6:52 PM


Re: Eh,...
Similarly, physics would ignore something based on how influential it is to the things its modelling.
Gravity often isn't included in electromagnetism because it's practically unnoticeable. For most electrodynamics it's 10^40 times weaker than the EM field.
It would be equivalent to taking into account a pathogen that existed in the Cretaceous when describing the lifestyle of a lynx.
The thing is I could include them all at once if I wanted to. I could literally formulate the Standard model in curved spacetime, which would be able to handle any physical phenomena we've ever observed.
We just don't do this because we don't have to.
I think fundamentally they are the same, it's just that biology has to include more noise on average than physics does.
Almost all of modern physics includes "corner-cases", heck that’s all Quantum Chromodynamics is. To solve anything in it, you have to include all cases.
Anyway, I'm probably going off-topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2006 6:52 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
runningman97
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 283 (297355)
03-22-2006 4:11 PM


Evolution is bad science because there is not enough evidence to justify it. I don't blame Darwin for this, it's all very well to come up with a theory that may have seemed plausible at the time and was worth investigating. In Darwin's time, the cell was thought to be a blob of jelly with nothing much inside. Now we know that it is incredibly complex, containing molecular machines made up of tens to hundreds of interacting parts. Darwin was also concerned about the lack of fossil evidence but thought that intermediate forms would be found. After 150 years, no geniune evidence has been found, it's all been either misunderstanding or fraud. No other scientific theory has stood for so long with such a lack of supporting evidence. The only reason i believe the theory is still in existance is that most scientists are afraid of the alternative.

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by NosyNed, posted 03-22-2006 4:51 PM runningman97 has not replied
 Message 165 by Chiroptera, posted 03-22-2006 5:37 PM runningman97 has not replied

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


Message 164 of 283 (297371)
03-22-2006 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by runningman97
03-22-2006 4:11 PM


Welcome and some advice...
Hi RunningMan97 (RM97 for short?).
Welcome to EvC. There is a lot of opportunity for learning things here.
However, to do that you'll have to understand that you need to learn a few things. You should avoid critisizing something that you don't know much about.
How about looking at my comments in Message 125??
The fact that cells are complex has NOTHING to do with biological evolution-- it many have something to do with the origin of biological things but you haven't shown that.
You will have to define "genuine" "intermediate forms" before that can be discussed with you. If you understood anything about the actual evidence available you would be able to list the 100's (or more) of examples of exactly the intermediate forms that one would expect and show, one at a time, why they are not genuine. Instead you don't know what evidence is available and, like John in the referenced link above are doing the equivalent of accusing Christians of being cannibals because you don't know the actual facts.
I assure you that scientists are not afraid of ANY alternative. They fall into two camps:
1) the significant percentage who are believers in one form of God or another.
2) The, perhaps, somewhat larger percentage who don't care at all about any form of God. They just don't (to quote an old movie) "don't give a damm".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by runningman97, posted 03-22-2006 4:11 PM runningman97 has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 283 (297387)
03-22-2006 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by runningman97
03-22-2006 4:11 PM


I will join Ned in welcoming you to EvC, runningman.
-
quote:
Evolution is bad science because there is not enough evidence to justify it. I don't blame Darwin for this, it's all very well to come up with a theory that may have seemed plausible at the time and was worth investigating.
Actually, Darwin spent most of his life investigating this. He wrote two books (Origin of Species and Descent of Man) and numerous shorter monographs and papers filled with detailed evidence to support his theories. Science hasn't slowed down, either. Over 150 years have produced a lot of evidence to support the theory of evolution.
I'd supply a link to my favorite site that speaks about the evidence in favor of the theory of evolution, but it seems to be down at the moment. If you are interested, I will supply the link in a later post.
-
quote:
Darwin was also concerned about the lack of fossil evidence but thought that intermediate forms would be found.
And they have been found! In spades!
-
quote:
No other scientific theory has stood for so long with such a lack of supporting evidence.
Actually, very few theories have ever been so well supported. I hope that the website that I previously mentioned is up soon.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by runningman97, posted 03-22-2006 4:11 PM runningman97 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