Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   How can Biologists believe in the ToE?
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 121 of 304 (419968)
09-05-2007 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 4:52 PM


Please don't lose sight of the OP
Vashgun, I asked you in my last post:
Do you really believe that hundreds of thousands of scientists over 150 years have been so very bad at doing science that they haven't noticed what is so incredibly obvious to a few religious non-scientists; that the fundamental theoretical underpinnings of all of the Life Sciences is completely false?
That if they would just read those Creationist websites they would realize that everything that any Life Scientist has concluded from their research in the last 100 or more years is completely misguided?
Dr. A has also asked you the same question several times.
What say you?
How can so many scientists be so completely wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 4:52 PM Ihategod has not replied

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


Message 122 of 304 (419972)
09-05-2007 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 3:52 PM


Re: Of course I will entertain....
quote:
I checked the link, and read it all, then came to the conclusion that Dawson and talk.origins has no clue how these things exist in multiple stratas.
It's really quite clear. Look at Dawson's figure 41 in the text. The stump is buried in sandstone (deposited in relatively rapid events) which turns into shale (slowly deposited) near the base. That's one stratum. Then there's a layer of shalely coal (more shale plus coal formed from organic debris). That's a second stratum. Then there's a layer of underclay beneath (the remains of soil which the tree grew in), which the roots have penetrated. That's number three. Then there's more sandstone which the roots extend into. That's four.
quote:
*If* it wasn't deposited rapidly, how did it just survive long enough to be buried then fossilized? I know first hand what happens to trees that have sediment over the original root level. It won't take long before the micro-organisms eat through the bark and kill the tree. Also too much water will kill trees especially if it's stagnant water. Dawson might have known about geology, but he excludes the basics of horticulture.
How are any of these problems ? It's not as if the trees are alive. It's not as if they were alive when they were buried. A hollowed out stump is dead - so what does it matter that the conditions that buried it would kill a living tree ? And without knowing what conditions the tree grew under there's no way to know what conditions it liked - the species is extinct. Why should it not have liked water as much as, say, modern mangroves ?
quote:
This in no way suggests that a massive flood couldn't have deposited this. The fact is that roots will bind and hold together soils. Hostas are extremely good plants for this, also most broadleaf grasses. It could have taken a massive chunk of soil with root ball intact.
There are serious problems with that. Firstly we have the remains of the soil and it is not restricted to a clump around the roots. Then we have the layer of coal on top. Then again the tree is in an upright position while a tree deposited by a flood would more likely be left on it's side. Moreoever these trees must have decayed to their present state (stumps -often hollow) before being finally buried.
quote:
Mullers response is confusing as it does not address how these machines appeared. He speculates why there will be many vestigual parts, which is and has been proven ignorance on the part of the scientist.
Muller explains why we should expect to see irreducible complexity which was the point at issue. Your assertion can be answered in general by pointing to the processes of evolution which even Behe concedes can make "machines" which are not irreducibly complex. And there's certainly no reason to expect Muller to deal with any specifics other than the point he was addressing.
Moreover you are completely wrong on the issue of vestigial parts. Creationist claims on this issue have been shown to depend on insisting that a vestigial part has no surviving function whatsoever. However a more reasonable definition certainly includes the human appendix which makes at most a minor contribution to the immune system - a contribution that only partially offsets the hazard created by its presence. If you want to argue that the appendix is not vestigial because it isn't as dangerous as it might be, I really don't see that you have a case.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 3:52 PM Ihategod has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 123 of 304 (420081)
09-06-2007 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by iceage
09-05-2007 2:00 PM


Re: A dino in the grass....
Do you really believe that an animal of this size could go unnoticed for this long?
actually, i do. sort of. the lower end of sauropod size, especially considering the pygmies produced by geographical separation, is about the size of automobile. what's the largest animal to go unnoticed in the heart of africa? so far, the mountain gorilla. it's not a HUGE stretch to pygmy sauropods and exaggerated reports.
i really, really, really want to believe in mkele mbembe, as you can probably tell. do i think it exists? no. but wouldn't it be freakin' cool?
i say it doesn't exist because the reports are all bad. all of them. for starters, sauropods don't live in jungles. it's just a bad idea, they'd get stuck between the trees. sauropods are like elephants, only twenty or thirty times the size. they're designed for big open plains and sparse trees. they evolved to reach the tops of gigantic conifers, and their teeth are built for stripping pine needles. they evolved that way out of necessity, in a dry jurassic period. that's not jungle material.
the idea of it being associated with a lake -- commonly seen in it -- is also a bad sign. why? well, years ago we thought sauropods were too heavy to stand on their own, and would have lived in water. we're talking another case of natives describing or depicting out-dated children's coloring books, not a real animal. the least we could do is show these people jurassic park or something.
Think critically about this for a minute and estimate the tonnage of food that such animal would require each day
actually, that'd be the one thing the congo wouldn't lack, is lots of vegetation. now, the dung situation might attract more attention.
It is obviously a picture of a plastic kids toy dino taken with a backdrop of weeds.
Why would they do that?
amusement at the expense of others.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by iceage, posted 09-05-2007 2:00 PM iceage has not replied

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


Message 124 of 304 (420096)
09-06-2007 7:32 AM


don't let Vashgun get us off topic
Please, everyone, you are being sucked in to Vashgun's avoidance of the OP by arguing evidence with him.
The topic is not geological strata, nor living dinosaurs, as much fun as it is to discuss these things with a scoffer.
The topic is, "How can Biologists believe in the ToE?"
Specifically, from the OP, the issue is:
Do you really think that the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have been advancing our understanding Biology over the last 150 years at the most astonishing pace have all just been deluded? Since several of the main occupations of scientists are critically examining theory and trying to falsify hypotheses, are you also accusing all of those Biologists of being so poor at doing science that they have, to a person, missed the fact that the overarching, foundational theory that underpins all Biology is completely false?
Vashgun is avoiding answering this question and you all are helping him avoid it.
If you are going to get into specifics of eviidence, at least frame it in terms of the OP.

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 09-06-2007 9:31 AM nator has replied
 Message 127 by Taz, posted 09-06-2007 11:46 AM nator has not replied
 Message 128 by Ihategod, posted 09-06-2007 1:24 PM nator has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 125 of 304 (420110)
09-06-2007 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by nator
09-06-2007 7:32 AM


Re: don't let Vashgun get us off topic
Do you really think that the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have been advancing our understanding Biology over the last 150 years at the most astonishing pace have all just been deluded?
The problem is, the answer is "Certainly, it is possible at the very least."
We can look around and find examples of hundreds of thousands of people so deluded that they believe there was a world-wide flood as an example, so it is certainly possible that all those hundreds of thousands of scientists might be deluded.
Looking at the question, the answer has to be "Yes they could all be deluded."
BUT...
in the case of biology and genetics we also have other physical evidence; the things they develop work.
The things that biologists and geneticists develop work, unlike prayer hankies or faith healing where they only "work" if the user has a certain "faith and belief" and ignores contrary data, but instead work regardless of the users beliefs and including contrary data.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by nator, posted 09-06-2007 7:32 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by nator, posted 09-06-2007 9:34 AM jar has not replied

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


Message 126 of 304 (420112)
09-06-2007 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by jar
09-06-2007 9:31 AM


Re: don't let Vashgun get us off topic
Sure, they could all be deluded.
But the question is really, is it probable?
And you answered that already.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 09-06-2007 9:31 AM jar has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 127 of 304 (420133)
09-06-2007 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by nator
09-06-2007 7:32 AM


Re: don't let Vashgun get us off topic
Nator, I once asked this question to my mother (a devout christian fundamentalist and creationist). Her answer was easy and precise. The theologians have been studying god for a lot longer than the biologists have been studying living things.
In the long run, I don't think your question will actually take us anywhere because there is just too much potential for the soundbite effect to take place.
Soundbite effect: phrases that sound good on the outside but makes no sense when are critically analyzed. Unfortunately, MOST people would lean toward the soundbite phrases because MOST people are lazy thinkers.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by nator, posted 09-06-2007 7:32 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by RickJB, posted 09-07-2007 4:46 AM Taz has not replied

Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 128 of 304 (420168)
09-06-2007 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by nator
09-06-2007 7:32 AM


Re: don't let Vashgun get us off topic
I'm not avoiding anything baby! Bring it on!
This is how:
Uniformitarian assumption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by nator, posted 09-06-2007 7:32 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-06-2007 4:43 PM Ihategod has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 129 of 304 (420191)
09-06-2007 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Ihategod
09-06-2007 1:24 PM


"Uniformitarian Assumption"
Uniformitarian assumption.
But how does this "assumption" manage to survive in the face of the evidence?
After all, I assume that pigs have no wings, but if one flew in through my window, then I would change my stance.
In the same way, scientists would recognise a suspension or violation of the laws of nature. They'd be the first to know. They'd be much more likely to observe that such a thing was such a thing than a layman who has only a tenuous grasp of what the laws of nature are.
So, now we ask why all the evidence fits with this law of laws, this uniformitarianism. And there only seem to be three possible answers:
(1) It's correct.
(2) God is messing scientists about (as, for example, in the Omphalos hypothesis).
(3) Scientists see things which contradict uniformitarianism all the time, but either they're too stupid to notice or they're all hushing it up.
Now, do you really think that possibility (3) is the correct one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Ihategod, posted 09-06-2007 1:24 PM Ihategod has not replied

Q
Junior Member (Idle past 6046 days)
Posts: 12
From: Fort Knox, KY USA
Joined: 09-06-2007


Message 130 of 304 (420204)
09-06-2007 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
04-01-2007 9:06 AM


there is also an assumption that is not true in the first post of this topic:
not all scientists believe in ToE. It is a general belief by many but that doesn't make it true.
What happens it seems is that those that do not believe mostly stay silent on the matter do to ridicule from peers ( peer-pressure ) etc.
If you watched the last installment of The Universe on Discovery in the first part of the show, the MIT professor even stated something to the effect that those who do not accept are generally looked at as nut-jobs.
No one wants to lose there job after all. Creation Science is looked down on even when the science is good, just cause the word creation, much like how creationists must feel about going through school being taught a subject that isn't true but arguing about it only gets you removed from class.
I would agree that over 50% ( but not over 65% ) of scientists believe in ToE and don't believe in a creator of any kind, but I would also say that there are a great number of scientists that do believe in a creator and in the ToE ( they are wrong or right depending on YOUR world view ) and then there is a % that believe in a creator and in Creation. ( and that number is growing )
your reply of:
nator writes:
2) Do you really think that the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have been advancing our understanding Biology over the last 150 years at the most astonishing pace have all just been deluded? Since several of the main occupations of scientists are critically examining theory and trying to falsify hypotheses, are you also accusing all of those Biologists of being so poor at doing science that they have, to a person, missed the fact that the overarching, foundational theory that underpins all Biology is completely false?
is YOUR world view and judgment based on what you feel is fact. Not everyone believes in that "fact". Basically it appears that anyone that doesn't believe in that view is dumb while everyone that does is greatly more superior in understanding science... again... not true for everyone.
Much of the same science that is done can point either way, its ones personal faith and belief that that drives those views when looking at the "facts" of the results.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 04-01-2007 9:06 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2007 8:28 PM Q has not replied
 Message 132 by Chiroptera, posted 09-06-2007 8:50 PM Q has not replied
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 09-06-2007 11:15 PM Q has not replied
 Message 136 by nator, posted 09-07-2007 7:07 AM Q has replied
 Message 150 by Chiroptera, posted 09-07-2007 12:43 PM Q has not replied
 Message 152 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-07-2007 12:56 PM Q has not replied

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


Message 131 of 304 (420213)
09-06-2007 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Q
09-06-2007 7:25 PM


not all scientists believe in ToE.
Pretty much every single biologist does, actually. There's really no debate about evolution among biologists, except in regards to its details. The last major debates about whether or not the evolutionary model was accurate were over in the 1800's, pretty much.
Evolution is essentially the unifying theory of all biology. You find the occasional crank who disputes it for crank reasons, and you find plenty of religious believers who combine scientific evolution with their personal beliefs about God, but there's no serious biologist who disputes the essential accuracy of evolution, because there's so much evidence that supports it.
If you watched the last installment of The Universe on Discovery in the first part of the show, the MIT professor even stated something to the effect that those who do not accept are generally looked at as nut-jobs.
Because they are. They're cranks. They don't have good arguments or any evidence for their views, and they certainly don't put forth anything for peer review. There's no conspiracy to silence evolution's critics beyond the universal tendency in science to ignore and marginalize people who defend views on the basis of no evidence. (Which is as it should be, don't you think? Science should only be open to those ideas that can be supported with evidence.)
Much of the same science that is done can point either way, its ones personal faith and belief that that drives those views when looking at the "facts" of the results.
That's just not true. Much of the science doesn't point both ways. For instance, there's no creationist explanation for the phylogenetic convergence between Geomyidae and Geomydoecus species. There really is no explanation for this pattern except for evolution, which is why it's accepted by scientists as the best explanation of the history and diversity of life on Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Q, posted 09-06-2007 7:25 PM Q has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 304 (420215)
09-06-2007 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Q
09-06-2007 7:25 PM


Hi, and welcome to EvC, Q.
Much of the same science that is done can point either way, its ones personal faith and belief that that drives those views when looking at the "facts" of the results.
Yeah, creationists certainly have an odd, post-modern view of the world. They believe that we can know nothing about the past, that all possible pasts are possible, that we can believe whatever we want about the past, we only have to "interpret" the evidence appropriately.
Actually, I don't believe this. I believe that there was a definite history, whether or not we know the actual details that occurred. I also believe that the past leaves evidence that can be studied in the present, and that we can use this evidence to rule out particular scenarios of past history, and we can even use this evidence to come to some definite conclusions about the past.

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Q, posted 09-06-2007 7:25 PM Q has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 133 of 304 (420229)
09-06-2007 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Q
09-06-2007 7:25 PM


Q writes:
not all scientists believe in ToE. It is a general belief by many but that doesn't make it true.
If you're talking about biologists, who are the subject of this thread, then judging by the peer-reviewed literature it would be a very high percentage that accept the TOE, certainly well above 95% and probably above 99%.
If you're talking about scientists in general, then again judging by the peer-reviewed literature, but this time across all fields of science according to whether a paper follows mainstream or creationist views, it would again be a very high percentage, again certainly well above 95%.
What happens it seems is that those that do not believe mostly stay silent on the matter do to ridicule from peers ( peer-pressure ) etc.
But they don't stay silent. They publish technical papers consistent with the views of mainstream science.
No one wants to lose there job after all.
There are very few odd birds like Richard Sternberg (he of the BSOW ID paper infamy) and Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) who are willing to work in a field so strongly at odds with their personal views. Approximately 1% of the population is named some variation of Steve. When creationists announced a petition expressing doubt about the ToE signed by around 200 scientists, as a tongue-in-cheek response the National Center for Science Education circulated a petition expressing support for evolution that can only be signed if your name is a variant of Steve. Currently both petitions have around seven or eight hundred signatories, so this indicates that the ratio of scientists accepting the ToE versus those questioning it is around 100 to 1.
In other words, there is no significant but silent body of ToE doubter scientists out there.
Creation Science is looked down on even when the science is good...
Perhaps you can point us to a creationism contribution to science. A new vaccine, perhaps, or identification of new oil fields or other geological resources, or discovery of a new planet orbiting a distant sun, or new data about cosmological origins.
With the exception of an occasional Andrew Snelling (whose science is horrid, by the way) and John Baumgardner (who wrote a wonderful geologic simulator), for the most part creationists don't engage in research. They instead peruse the literature cherry picking excerpts of articles that they think support creationist views (though the articles' authors would, of course, never agree with their conclusions) so they can present them in creationist literature, websites and presentations.
Is YOUR world view and judgment based on what you feel is fact. Not everyone believes in that "fact". Basically it appears that anyone that doesn't believe in that view is dumb while everyone that does is greatly more superior in understanding science... again... not true for everyone.
I'm sure most evolutionists regret any arrogance displayed by our side, but please keep in mind that your side has a guy at this very site arguing for UFO's for God, and such cockamamie stuff is by no means uncommon. If creationists aren't going to police their nuttier elements, too many of whom seem to find their way here, then please understand that evolutionists are human, too, and there's only so much nonsense one can tolerate.
Much of the same science that is done can point either way, its ones personal faith and belief that that drives those views when looking at the "facts" of the results.
The evidence strongly argues against this view. If scientific consensus were really a matter of faith then scientific views on topics in biology, cosmology, geology and so forth would long ago have become as fragmented as religion. That degree of acceptance of creationist views divides across religious lines rather than national or cultural lines makes it clear that creationism is religion, not science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Q, posted 09-06-2007 7:25 PM Q has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by kuresu, posted 09-06-2007 11:41 PM Percy has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 134 of 304 (420233)
09-06-2007 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Percy
09-06-2007 11:15 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 09-06-2007 11:15 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Q, posted 09-07-2007 8:44 AM kuresu has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 135 of 304 (420260)
09-07-2007 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Taz
09-06-2007 11:46 AM


Re: don't let Vashgun get us off topic
[deleted- wrong recipient]
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Taz, posted 09-06-2007 11:46 AM Taz 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