Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 3:20 AM
17 online now:
CosmicChimp, dwise1, Tangle (3 members, 14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,982 Year: 9,018/19,786 Month: 1,440/2,119 Week: 200/576 Day: 3/98 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution
CTD
Member (Idle past 4033 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


(1)
Message 76 of 300 (422204)
09-16-2007 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Percy
09-16-2007 9:32 AM


Percy
quote:
The point being made isn't that you're required to accept the scientific view. The point being made is that if you're going to argue against the scientific view, then be aware that science views the origin of the universe and the origin of life as distinct and unrelated events separated by a vast amount of time.

From the context I take it you have some definition of 'science' I would never use, and quite honestly I don't know that I can understand it.

As commonly used in the English language, 'science' says otherwise.

I once had a history teacher who was fond of saying "History is what historians say it is." Perhaps that's how you view science? I don't agree with this definition of history, nor would I accept it for science.

History is what happened. What actually did in fact occur. If a historian claims a thing happened, and it's discovered that it didn't, how can his claim be accepted as valid history? It can't. Same with science. If a scientist claims a thing is so, and it turns out it isn't... You do the math. I'd much rather know how things work than how some 'scientist' thinks they might work. There are just so many applications for genuine knowledge and so few applications for other kinds.

Okay, bad example. I know history has never been regarded highly among evolutionists. After all, it's the very thing you all're trying to replace, right?

But if proper definitions were in place, I'd say I'm arguing in favor of both the scientific view and the historic view. Both are valid means of obtaining knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 09-16-2007 9:32 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2007 12:34 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 09-16-2007 2:33 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 300 (422209)
09-16-2007 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by CTD
09-16-2007 12:18 PM


I'd much rather know how things work than how some 'scientist' thinks they might work.

So what do you think scientists do all day?

The scientific method exists so that not every single human being has to discover everything for themselves. It's an auditable, verifiable means to accurate knowledge that can then be shared and trusted by people who weren't there for the actual experiment.

You could be a scientist, of course, but even then you'd never have enough time in your life to do it all yourself; the scope of scientific knowledge doubles every 4-5 years. If you devoted your entire life to replicating scientific experiments because you had to see it with your own eyes to believe it, I doubt you could get past Newtonian physics and VESPR electrochemisty. You'd have died of old age long, long before you even approached high-energy physics or molecular biology.

If a scientist claims a thing is so, and it turns out it isn't...

How would we know? We'd try to replicate his results.

The scientific consensus consists of the results that have been replicated and verified. That's why it's essentially trustworthy. As trustworthy as any other human endeavor. At any one time, the scientific consensus may hold inaccurate views on something, but over time, these inaccuracies inevitably come to light.

The most recent act of scientific fraud - that guy in Korea with the human cloning - was discovered within weeks of publishing his results. The process is self-correcting.

I know history has never been regarded highly among evolutionists. After all, it's the very thing you all're trying to replace, right?

What? The history and diversity of life on Earth - the true history, not the imaginary one of religious belief - is what evolutionary models study and explain, through fossil and genetic evidence.

No replacement of history here. Just a search for what is true about the past.

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by CTD, posted 09-16-2007 12:18 PM CTD has not yet responded

CTD
Member (Idle past 4033 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


(1)
Message 78 of 300 (422213)
09-16-2007 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Chiroptera
09-16-2007 10:06 AM


Chiroptera
quote:
Actually, this is untrue. Cosmologists could care less what biologists "need". In fact, you have brought up an important point. If scientists were motivated by a need to "prove" long ages and to "interpret" their data the way that they need to, then they would have stuck with the Steady State Theory. They would just have "interpreted" all the evidence in a way to maintain it. There was a resistance from some at first to the implications that the universe might only have a finite age -- Hoyle, for example, felt that this would end up implying the existence of a creator, and that's why he was pretty much against the Big Bang Theory. The fact that scientists switched from believing in an eternal universe to the Big Bang model pretty much shows that they do honestly look at the data and reach the conclusions that the data indicate.

Yep, old news. The Big Bang was not accepted until the community was convinced it was atheist-friendly. Did I forget to mention that? No!

But here's a good one. I said "The radiometric dates were all calibrated to match the 'fossil column' of their day."

Chiroptera

quote:
This, too, is not true. Radiometric dates are "calibrated" through experiments in physics laboratories, and physicists, like cosmologists, don't really care what geologists "need".

Notice I said "were" and C says "are". Oh that's so clever. Change the tense in order to make a (partially)true statement that appears to contradict another true statement. I'm just so impressed with your arguing skills!

I'm sorry you were unable to follow the rest of the story. I didn't go into details and specifics, but somehow I failed to make it as simple as I had intended. I always try to keep in mind that not everyone reads at the same level. I'll continue to try and write in an easy-to-understand way, but forgive me if I occasionally fail. Hopefully it wasn't too complex for everyone here.

I'll give it one more shot.

More time was always available for evolutionism until they ran up against radiometric dating and the Big Bang. These had been implemented in order to give evolutionism more credibility (and so others could get in on the bandwagon & get funding & stuff), but ironically got in the way when the next call came for more time.

Sorry for all the big words. Here's a link if you need help
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/credibility

Now you might want to run along and find someone else to dispute with for a while. Someone who you can pull that trick upon, and they won't notice you changing 'were' to 'are'. Someone who'll get confused and think you're just too smart for them, okay?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2007 10:06 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2007 1:01 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 80 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2007 1:06 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 300 (422215)
09-16-2007 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by CTD
09-16-2007 12:52 PM


These had been implemented in order to give evolutionism more credibility (and so others could get in on the bandwagon & get funding & stuff)

"Get funding and stuff"?

The scientific acceptance of evolution - which had happened by the end of the 19th century - largely predates significant public funding of pure research (that is, activities not related to developing wartime weapons.) Acceptance of evolution had nothing to do with "getting funding and stuff"* and everything to do with the fact that it's supported by a vast weight of evidence.

*If you had ever worked in a scientific field, you'd understand that "getting funding and stuff" isn't really that great. Getting a research grant from the government isn't getting a big check with a bunch of zeros that you can spend on whatever you like.

The paperwork is extreme, and your expenses have to be justified to the project. Moreover, you can't pay yourself out of your research funds, even if you can pay your subordinate workers; so there's almost no avaricious intent possible when scientists seek funding for research. Gas chromatographs and PCR machines are not so fun to use that people buy them just because they can.

The idea that scientists do "junk science" to attrack research money is a hilarious misunderstanding of how money is used in the sciences. Dishonest scientists who want to get rich quick shill for industries. (See global warming "skeptics.") Because industries don't care what you spend their huge consulting checks on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by CTD, posted 09-16-2007 12:52 PM CTD has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6617
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 80 of 300 (422218)
09-16-2007 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by CTD
09-16-2007 12:52 PM


Notice I said "were" and C says "are". Oh that's so clever. Change the tense in order to make a (partially)true statement that appears to contradict another true statement. I'm just so impressed with your arguing skills!

...

Now you might want to run along and find someone else to dispute with for a while. Someone who you can pull that trick upon, and they won't notice you changing 'were' to 'are'.

This is clearly a tactic of desperation now that you realize that you really have no argument. Is there a need for me to say anything more? You have lost, you realize that you have lost, and you have now made it clear to anyone reading this exchange that you have lost.

I will engage again if and when you bring anything substantial to the table.


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 78 by CTD, posted 09-16-2007 12:52 PM CTD has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18482
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 81 of 300 (422232)
09-16-2007 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by CTD
09-16-2007 12:18 PM


CTD writes:

From the context I take it you have some definition of 'science' I would never use, and quite honestly I don't know that I can understand it.

Well, we weren't talking about the definition of science, but as far as that goes, I just use the standard definition is science, which is the study of way the universe works using methods based upon methodological naturalism.

What we were actually talking about was the scientific consensus about the Big Bang and the origin of life, which is that they are two separate events separated by a vast amount of time. You don't have to share this view if you don't want to, but it would be nonsensical to argue that this isn't the view of science because it's a simple fact that this is the view of science. As Casey Stengel would say, "You could look it up."

You appear to have concerns about error within science:

If a scientist claims a thing is so, and it turns out it isn't... You do the math. I'd much rather know how things work than how some 'scientist' thinks they might work.

It sounds like you have a lot in common with scientists, because they want to know how things work, too. To this end scientists use the scientific method, peer review, replication and consensus building in order to move the state of the art forward. The views of one scientist are not important. What's important is whether the evidence behind any particular theory is sufficiently compelling that a consensus can develop around it. Consensus is how theories become accepted.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by CTD, posted 09-16-2007 12:18 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 82 of 300 (422259)
09-16-2007 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by CTD
09-16-2007 11:55 AM


Re: My favorite watchword - good: watch it again
I just love that phrase "argument from incredulity". What does it mean? Well, I've given it some thought, and ...

... and unfortunately for (1) you went off on a completely wrong tangent and (b) it has a specific meaning in logic: it means that your argument is only composed of your incredulity and has no substantiation in fact or logical structure.

I'd have to take this as an indicator of success.

No, that would be the argument from ignorance.

How exactly would an argument from incredulity go? "I don't believe it and neither should you." Not very convincing ...

Exactly, that would be why you shouldn't use it eh? What you need to do is present evidence that supports your position, substantiate your claims.

That's what the science of biology teaches. That's what evolutionism has been forced to concede, and it's been an uphill battle. If you didn't know that you might want to study a little history & shut up about my ignorance.

And that is what evolution -- as part of biology -- teaches, whether you deny the fact or not is irrelevant. Rather than being forced to concede the point, it is part of Darwin's original theory of common descent.

The way to get people to "shut up" about your ignorance is to display knowledge and facts, substantiate your arguments, and make logical conclusions based on reality rather than denial of evidence.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by CTD, posted 09-16-2007 11:55 AM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2007 6:19 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 90 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 5:06 AM RAZD has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6617
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 83 of 300 (422261)
09-16-2007 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by RAZD
09-16-2007 6:16 PM


Re: My favorite watchword - good: watch it again
RAZD quoting CTD:
How exactly would an argument from incredulity go? "I don't believe it and neither should you."

Exactly....

I have to admit, that is a pretty good characterization of the Argument from Incredulity.


You can observe a lot by watching. -- Yogi Berra
This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 09-16-2007 6:16 PM RAZD has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 641 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 84 of 300 (422265)
09-16-2007 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by CTD
09-16-2007 11:17 AM


CTD writes:

Life on earth came into existence before the earth. Hmm. That's odd. If it was before the earth it couldn't be on the earth. *Ptui!

Well done! So, you agree now that you were wrong in your statement that "life only comes from life", because the first life cannot have come from previous life, can it? So in future, if you want to state something as an axiom, be more careful.

Pasteur's law, therefore, has nothing to do with the origins of life. As it says in your link:

quote:
Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life", also known as the "law of biogenesis". They showed that life does not currently spontaneously arise in its present forms from non-life in nature. They did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve.

Pasteur's work was to do with dispelling myths like maggots appearing in cheese being abiogenesis. It is about "present forms" of life not arising spontaneously, as it says above. It has nothing to do with the natural origins of all life.

The rest of your post is evasion, because, of course, you cannot list any natural phenomena that have non-natural explanations, and you cannot refute my claim that natural explanations for natural phenomena are the norm, as it's so obviously true.

This means that the hypothesis that some form of abiogenesis must have happened is automatically a strong one, as it is the only natural explanation for life on earth and that your line that:

....abiogenesis is sooooo obviously flawed they don't like having to defend it.

is untrue, because I've just defended it very well.

If you can show us evidence for some good magical or otherwise non-natural explanations for other natural phenomena, then the case for abiogenesis would be weakened. Of course, you can't, can you, so abiogenesis theory will remain as strong as ever.

Edited by bluegenes, : typos


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by CTD, posted 09-16-2007 11:17 AM CTD has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16096
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 85 of 300 (422420)
09-17-2007 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Ihategod
09-16-2007 2:12 AM


I see. Nobody has ever observed macro-evolution. No has observed the Big Bang. Nobody has really ever observed positive mutations or adding of genetic information to a genome in a chromosome. Yet you will stand at your podium at spit fairy-tale stories of how life began and state them as scientific. You just cater words and definitions to your specific arguments. The only way evolution can be won is in a discussion board with delusional word games.

I notice that not only is this all irrelevant to my post, but also some of it is downright untrue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Ihategod, posted 09-16-2007 2:12 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16096
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 86 of 300 (422421)
09-17-2007 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by CTD
09-16-2007 10:17 AM


Apart from simple cases? No, apart from any cases whatsoever.

The one I cited?

It fits some definitions of life, but not others.

Crucially, it can evolve.

Just how many orders of magnitude separate the simple molecular building blocks from a living cell?

Lots.

Do you have some reason for asking?

A dead cell is still 10,000 times more complex and organized than anything man's managed to cobble together in a lab.

Which, somehow, is meant to serve as proof that cells were, in fact, "cobbled together" by an Intelligent Cobbler?

If they could somehow, someday assemble a cell they still couldn't get it to live.

Are you a vitalist or something?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by CTD, posted 09-16-2007 10:17 AM CTD has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16096
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 87 of 300 (422425)
09-17-2007 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by CTD
09-16-2007 11:55 AM


Re: My favorite watchword
That's what the science of biology teaches. That's what evolutionism has been forced to concede, and it's been an uphill battle.

Er ... a little tip ... the practitioners of the science of biology are also the chief cheerleaders for what you are pleased to call "evolutionism".

So in your amusing little daydream, as quoted above, biologists have had an "uphill battle" to "force" themselves to "concede" that their own opinions are correct.

If you must rewrite the history of science, and as you are a creationist, perhaps you really must, then I suggest that you do it in private where people won't watch and snigger.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by CTD, posted 09-16-2007 11:55 AM CTD has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16096
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 88 of 300 (422427)
09-17-2007 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Ihategod
09-16-2007 2:12 AM


Vashgun writes:

Yet you will stand at your podium at spit fairy-tale stories of how life began and state them as scientific.

Oh, really, will I?

Here, in full, is my reply in post #63 of this thread to Buckets' question: "What is the purely naturalistic explanation for the origin of life?"

Dr Adequate writes:

Oh, that's an easy question. There isn't one. Come back in a hundred years, and we'll see what we can do.

Vashgun, have you taken some sort of solemn oath to be wrong about everything?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Ihategod, posted 09-16-2007 2:12 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 5:17 AM Dr Adequate has responded

CTD
Member (Idle past 4033 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


(1)
Message 89 of 300 (422439)
09-17-2007 4:50 AM


I don't see much more that needs to be said regarding the original topic. Yes, one can divide science up into categories and groups. The divisions are arbitrarty and have been based on convenience rather than any guiding principle. The modern divisions are peculiar, and follow modern societies' trend toward overspecialization.

One is also free to disregard these artificial boundaries, and no harm is done. None of the scientists of previous ages cared much about them.

Thus if one chooses to do so, one may divide the subjects of pseudoscience as well. When it is convenient, why not talk of 'stellar evolution' as a separate topic from 'planetary evolution'? Fine and dandy. But it's a mistake to insist that others must consider these topics as having nothing in common when they clearly do have much in common.

It is a mistake to claim things must be considered independently when they are all part of the same chain, and rely one upon another.

But these are relatively trivial issues. The big error comes when one accepts speculation in place of hard science. It can get tricky. You can see dozens of equasions on a page - math is science, right? Wrong. Math deals with solving the equasions - not making them up. Without observations and evidence to back it up, math is just speculation written on paper.

Someone can present any hypothesis, and if it does not run contrary to any law of science it is scientifically valid. But an hypothesis without observation or experiment to back it up is still speculation. It should never be mistaken for firm knowledge, and anyone who portrays it as such is in error or deceptive.

Science used to have a strict hierarchy to keep tabs on the progress of ideas: hypothesis then theory then law. Used to take good evidence for an idea to advance from one stage to the next, and that's where the legitimate role of consensus among scientists came into play.

But those were the days of long ago. Before a man could just up and publish a 'biogenetic law' or a 'theory of relativity' or even a 'theory of evolution'. To be fair to Darwin, he wasn't trained as a scientist and there is a (slim) chance he wasn't aware of how deceptive the the title of his book actually was. The other two were fully aware. And the general public had no clue.

Just look at how the term 'theory' has devolved. It used to mean an idea that was not just possible, but one that had withstood testing and scrutiny. But today it is used to designate any fragment of speculation you could imagine.

I don't like it when words change meaning. If there's a need for a new word, one should be coined - not altered. And when a word is altered as a means of advancing an argument, well it's a sign of a weak argument.

One can observe this for oneself right here. Look at what some would pass of as 'science'. Or 'life'. Reading threads here, one will easily spot the term 'transitional form'. The term was used by Darwin to indicate a form of fossil which clearly showed itself to be intermediate between species. He had no examples. He felt that by predicting them it would strengthen his 'theory' if they should be found. This term has been altered over the years to mean 'the closest we can get', because no 'transitional form' has yet been discovered which meets the standard set by Darwin. There is nothing in all the countless fossils which he himself would call a 'transitional form'.

Redefining terms is not how language evolves. (Note that the new meaning of 'evolve' is now 'change', rather than in the past when it meant 'improve'. Would Darwin have watered down the term?) And for the record language does evolve. All concepts evolve.

When discussing any subject, if one allows another to freely redefine terms, any untrue statement can be transformed into a true statement. There's really no point in having any discussion at all. That's a big problem for evolutionism, and it's clearly evident in a large number of 'discussions'.

People on both sides will ask for definitions, but watch who tries to come up with honest definitions that keep in step with how the word in question has been used in the past; and watch who needs to invoke a new definition. The same team that needed a new definiton for 'theory' is still trying to redefine every other word in the language to support their 'theory'. And to question this is to question 'science'.


Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Vacate, posted 09-17-2007 7:21 AM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 09-17-2007 1:27 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 09-17-2007 1:54 PM CTD has responded
 Message 97 by Modulous, posted 09-17-2007 2:26 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2007 7:42 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 118 by Nuggin, posted 09-18-2007 2:34 AM CTD has responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4033 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


(1)
Message 90 of 300 (422442)
09-17-2007 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by RAZD
09-16-2007 6:16 PM


Re: My favorite watchword - good: watch it again
RAZD
quote:
... and unfortunately for (1) you went off on a completely wrong tangent and (b) it has a specific meaning in logic: it means that your argument is only composed of your incredulity and has no substantiation in fact or logical structure.

Unfortunately, b follows a and 2 follows 1. I guess you need some rest, eh?

Now regarding the specific meaning of "argument from incredulity": were you misapplying the term, xor do you have a new alternative definition for us?

I always include reasons to justify incredulity. I haven't even looked back at my post because I don't need to verify this. Perhaps you'd care to take another look and maybe retract this.

I was aware of this logical fallacy intuitively long before I saw it defined. I am also aware of how the term is commonly used hereabouts. My previous post accurately describes the terms local meaning in practice. Just do a search if you doubt this. There are many examples.

I don't recall the term being applied correctly even once, if you want the truth. So previously I interpreted it in keeping with the local dialect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 09-16-2007 6:16 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2007 10:58 AM CTD has responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019