|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
As a simple example, imagine there's a cell component that evolution believes is vestigial because it doesn't appear to have a function. ID doesn't come along and say "oh goddidit, leave the poor thing alone!" -they say, well since we believe that everything is made with a function -this may no longer have a function (due to mutation perhaps) but chances are, if it's there it has a function or at least it certainly did have in the past ... I.e, they say that it's vestigial.
Evolutionary assumptions of the past made many vestigial organs out of things that do have functions "Vestigial" doesn't mean having no function.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Then I suggest that you give an example where it does make a difference. The ID movement itself seems to be rather short of examples. Probably because ID is not science. There is no real attempt to build a theory. ID includes everything from Young Earth Creationism up to Behe's idea of God as a genetic engineer who occasionally fiddles with the genome for reasons he can't figure out. There's very little reason to expect those two views to agree with each other in any detail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Wikipedia:Vestigial structures are often called vestigial organs, although many of them are not actually organs. These are typically in a degenerate, atrophied, or rudimentary condition,[1] and tend to be much more variable than similar parts. Although structures usually called "vestigial" are largely or entirely functionless, a vestigial structure may retain lesser functions or develop minor new ones.[2] However, care must be taken not to apply the lable of vestigiality to exaptations, in which a structure originally used for one purpose is modified for a new one. For example, the wings of penguin would not be vestigial, as they have been modified for a substantial new purpose (underwater locomotion), while those of an emu would be, as they have no major purpose anymore (not even for display as in ostriches).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Beretta writes: I'm sure you must have heard of these things -what are your explanations? Dude, you can find the 'explanations' for your list on this very site in the appropriate thread (which this is not). Still waiting on a response to the OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Ultimately what I'm saying is that different scientific possibilities result from different presuppositions if there's any truth in the non-reigning paradigm which I'm sure there is. Science presupposes that there is a single objective reality. The alternative is to suppose that there is no single objective reality, that nothing is real -- is this the ID position? Should that position be taught in science class? Science presupposes that the objective evidence we observe\experience\witness truly represents that reality. The alternative is to suppose that evidence is false -- is this the ID position? Should that position be taught in science class? Science presupposes we need to test our concepts against the evidence of reality to weed out falsehood and fantasy. The alternative is to suppose that we don't need to test concepts to weed out falsehood and fantasy -- is this the ID position? Should it be taught in school? Science presupposes that any invalidated theories are false and no longer relevant to understanding reality. The alternative is to suppose that we need to consider every theory that has ever been proposed as still possibly as true as any other -- is this the ID position? Should it be taught in school? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : sp by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Science presupposes that there is a single objective reality. Absolutely correct.
The alternative is to suppose that there is no single objective reality, that nothing is real -- is this the ID position? Should that position be taught in science class? It is the position of evolution that face value reality, that is, the appearance of design seen in nature and organisms do not correspond to the work of invisible Designer. This means that evolution BEGINS with anti-objective reality presupposition. Since when does science deny its main tool (observation)? Answer: only Darwinian "science" does. Darwinian science is Atheist ideology. It assumes, from the outset, that reality is tricking us. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Things don't look designed, though. I mean there's a hundred examples of "unintelligent design" just in the human body alone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
To whom do organisms appear designed and what credence ought we grant them? Is it enough that something might look designed to a three-year-old? Or a lunatic? Someone completely ignorant of science? A religious fundamentalist looking for proof of god? Or a qualified scientist?
Claims of "atheist ideology" are just sour grapes from those who insist on clinging to an outmoded theory. There are Christian scientists out there, and many Christians accept the ToE. If your faith is to weak to withstand the ToE, that is not Darwin's fault. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Beretta writes: JB1740 writes: Archaeopteryx is the oldest (~153Ma) and most primitive bird currently known. So are you saying that it is in fact a bird or do you say it is a feathered dinosaur, some kind of a missing link? Examine the evidence. In the lecture notes from their two-model class at San Diego State University, Evolution vs Creation by Awbrey and Thwaites (A&T) (Aztec Lecture Notes, 1981, page 25), A&T compare 27 features of birds, Archaeopteryx, and Coelurosaurs:In two features, all three groups were the same (eyes having sclerotic ring and scapulae having same shape). In two other features, birds and Archaeopteryx were the same and different from Coelurosaurs (body covered with feathers and fused clavicles [wishbone]). In 17 other features, Archaeopteryx is different from birds and the same as the coelurosaurs (femur, fibula, sternum, ribs, gastralia, cervical vertebra type, caudals, vertebral column, humerus, ulna, carpometacarpus, teeth, palate, snout (instead of a beak), occipital condyle and foramen magnum, anteorbital and external mandibular skull openings, and external nostril openings near the tip of the snout (instead of near the eyes). In 6 other features, Archaeopteryx is intermediate between birds and Coelurosaurs; those features are:- Metatarsals: ....Flying Birds -- Fused ....Archaeopteryx -- Partly fused ....Coelurosaurs -- Little fused - Bones:....Flying Birds --Hollow, pneumatic ....Archaeopteryx -- Hollow, not pneumatic ....Coelurosaurs -- Some hollow, not pneumatic - Coracoids....Flying Birds -- Long, narrower, free ....Archaeopteryx -- Wider, rounded, fused to scapula ....Coelurosaurs -- Widest, rounded, fused to scapula - Pelvis....Flying Birds -- Elements fused together and to vertebral column to form rigid synsacrum. Pubis rearward-projecting. ....Archaeopteryx -- Unfused, simple, triradiate. Pubis slightly forward-projecting ....Coelurosaurs -- As in Archaeopteryx, Pubis more forward-projecting - Orbits....Flying Birds -- Large, incompletely surrounded by bone ....Archaeopteryx -- Smaller. Bony surround complete (?) ....Coelurosaurs -- Smallest. Bony surround complete. - Braincase:....Flying Birds -- Greatly expanded, extensively fused ....Archaeopteryx -- Moderately expanded, fusion less complete ....Coelurosaurs -- Not expanded, not fused So Archaeopteryx is 2-27ths bird (7.4%), 17-27ths coelurosaur (63%), and 6-27ths transisitional between the birds and coelurosaurs (22%). The two bird characterstics are used to classify it as "bird", but the evidence clearly shows that creationists' claims that it's "100% bird and nothing else" are clearly completely and utterly false. Though Duane Gish's Acts and Facts article on Archaeopteryx was rather amusing. In most of it he reiterated their standard "it's 100% bird" claims, but then he mentions the accusations that the feathers are a forgery that were added to fossils of coleurosaurs (though I think he just said "dinosaur"; I'm not completely sure) and thus pronounced it to be 100% non-bird. He was trying to claim both positions in order to deny that it's transitional, when the fact that it can be either clearly shows it to be transitional. BTW, that accusation proved to be baseless, as was verified by microscopic examination of the original fossil in question. Along the same lines is an interesting page by Jim Foley in the Talk.Origins Fossil Hominids FAQ, "Comparison of all skulls" at Comparison of all skulls (link to the article on the home page, Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution is called "Comparison of creationist opinions"). Creationists claim that the various hominid fossils are not at all transitional but rather are either "100% human" or "100% ape". So the author lists a number of hominid fossils treated in the creationist literature and whether the creationist classified it as human or ape. Now, if their basic claim were true, then it should be easy to tell a "100% human" fossil from a "100% ape", right? Well, not only could the creationists not agree with each other, but one creationist even change in his classification of the same fossil. Now, with a transitional fossil, we would clearly expect to have difficulty classifying it, which is what we see happening here. The basis for creationists claiming that a fossil is "100% whatever" is that they employ selective blindness, concentrating only on the features they want to see and ignoring the rest. For example, I first saw creationists in action back in 1981 when a debate between a scientist and a creationist was televised on a show on Pat Robertson's CBN. I remember that the scientist showed several slides ofhominid fossils, such as knee joints (to show evidence of developing bi-pedalism). Then he showed slides of a human pelvis and chimpanzee pelvis side-by-side. First from the side, then from the top, he pointed out two sets of characteristics that clearly distinguish the one from the other (i.e. whether viewed from the side or from the top, the pelvis could be positively identified as human or chimpanzee). Next he showed both views of a hominid pelvis. From one view it was definitely ape, from the other it was definitely human; thus demonstrating it to be a intermediate form. The creationist then proclaimed the hominid pelvis to be 100% ape and not the least bit human by completely ignoring the human characteristic (even when reminded of it repeatedly by his opponent) and concentrating solely on the view that displayed the ape characteristic. Of course, the host declared this to be a creationist victory, which also taught me a lot about creationist honesty and concern for the truth. BTW, as successful as that two-model class was, the university forced Awbrey and Thwaites to discontinue it. The Christian clubs on campus were all up in arms against it and repeatedly protested it and petitioned the administration to close it down. The class was truly two-model as Awbrey and Thwaites gave half the lectures and leading creationists from the Institute for Creation Research in neighboring Santee gave the other half. In fact, it was in one of those lectures that A&T demonstrated to Gish that his claim about the bombadier beetle was false; the two chemicals the beetle uses do not explode spontaneously when mixed together. A&T's experience with the class is that creationism does not fare well when the evidence is actually presented and examined and that is what rankled the campus Christian clubs so much. So while the creationists claim that they are being prevented from presenting their views and presenting the evidence, what really happened is that it was the creationists (the Christian students) who campaigned fiercely to prevent the creationist speakers (the very same ones whose claims they believed in) from presenting their views and to prevent the evidence from being presented and examined. But back to the topic: you still have not addressed the question. ID wants to reform science to include supernaturalistic explanations. Just how do you propose that we test supernaturalistic explanations? Because if we are to be expected to use supernaturalistic explanations, then we will need to test them. Because if we are unable to test the hypotheses that we advance, then science will not work. Employing ID's supernatural-based science would require us to test supernaturalistic hypotheses. How are we supposed to test those supernaturalistic hypotheses? Without the ability to test those supernaturalistic hypotheses, how could ID science possibly work? Science works extremely well, but you want to replace it with ID. Haven't you, or any ID proponent for that matter, given any thought to how that replacement of yours would work? Or even whether it would work at all? {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML) Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles) Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Absolutely correct. I noticed you did not answer the questions about what ID presupposes.
It is the position of evolution that face value reality, that is, the appearance of design seen in nature and organisms do not correspond to the work of invisible Designer. This means that evolution BEGINS with anti-objective reality presupposition. Because evolution doesn't begin with a presupposition of an "invisible Designer" it is "anti-objective" .... The position of evolution is that the fossils, field and lab studies and genetics are telling the truth when they show a development of apparent design over time. The position of evolution is that the fossils, field and lab studies and genetics are telling the truth when the evidence of increased complexity (= evidence of design) is entirely consistent with the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- especially when they see the same processes "undoing" apparent design on occasion as some organisms evolve into a simpler kind of life. The position of evolution is that the fossils, field and lab studies and genetics are telling the truth when they show there is no design direction or purpose in the evolution of life on earth. The position of evolution is that the fossils, field and lab studies and genetics are telling the truth when they come to the same conclusions from entirely different sources of information. Ever figure out what Mayr really meant on evolution? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : link 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
What idiot designed the human skull to have a sharp ridge on the inside?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Vacate writes:
And your response was avoid Vacate's questions and start taking PRATT-falls yet again. I already told you: I have seen Chevy Chase and you are no Chevy Chase. How many years would be nessesary before you would decide that your idea should be investigated for supporting evidence?{In case they have escaped you this second time, the cultural references are to a past presidential campaign response to an opponent comparing himself to John F. Kennedy and to several Saturday Night Live skits in which Chevy Chase portrayed then-President Ford} Instead of taking evasive PRATT-falls and dodging the questions, simply respond to them. Only change I recommend is that you respond honestly.
Beretta writes: - the majority of us were evolutionists first and moved over. Oh, you claim that you used to be an "evolutionist"? Care to define that term? Creationist toss it about without even thinking and yet refuse to offer a meaningful definition. Are you claiming to have studied evolution? Far too many other creationists have claimed to have been "evolutionists" and yet they also displayed incredibly abysmal ignorance of evolution and of science. I even corresponded with a creationist who claimed to be a scientist, but then when I asked for particular he became very evasive; as far as I could piece together, his claim was based on his having taken some science classes. So just what are you basing your claim of having been an "evolutionist"? Whatever the hell that is supposed to be.
Beretta writes: What about the extreme lack of transitional fossils?200 times too little helium in the atmosphere Helium in the wrong places Spiral galaxies winding up Great shortage of first and second stage supernova rings Complete absence of third stage supernova rings Population count Short period of recorded history Second law of thermodynamics Trillions of stars but we can't see one forming Earth's magnetic field decaying Not nearly enough skeletons for numbers of generations that should have died Everything has fully formed organs -where are the developing ones half formed? The same idiotic PRATTS you guys have been regurgitating for decades. How old are you? Early 20's? Those PRATTs have been around and were refuted before you were even born. What is your Christian witness for having been fooled by them? That Christians are fools? How is that supposed to serve your god? What happens when a creationist starts checking out your false claim about transitionals? As he starts researching for transitional fossils, he finds rooms full of journals documenting transitional fossils. That's what happened to Merle Hertzler, a creationist I had met on CompuServe and the only creationist there who tried to defend his position with honesty. He would actually research his claims and his opponents' responses. Within one year, he could no longer avoid the truth that creationism was a pack of lies, so he switched over to the evolution side. And he also left Christianity because it depended on such lies. At No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Evolve2.html, starting with the 12th paragraph ("Years ago I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet."), he tells the story of discovering the truth about that creationist claim. That "population count" claim is downright ludicrous. Henry Morris' population model is the simplest kind whose severe flaws are discussed in introductory treatments of the subject. It's called "The Bunny Blunder" (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bunny.html) because it shows that the world rabbit population began with two bunnies about 100 years ago, hence the world can be no older than 100 years. It also shows:
quote: Are those the PRATTs that you had fallen for? Boy, how embarrassing that must be for you. Instead of taking those PRATT-falls, just answer the questions. Like the OP. {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML) Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles) Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JB1740 Member (Idle past 5945 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
I wrote:
Archaeopteryx is the oldest (~153Ma) and most primitive bird currently known. Beretta replied:
So are you saying that it is in fact a bird or do you say it is a feathered dinosaur, some kind of a missing link? It's what I wrote before: the oldest and most primitive bird currently known. It's a bird. Phylogenetically speaking, it's also a feathered dinosaur, but for this discussion that isn't really important. The statement "some kind of a missing link" doesn't really mean anything scientifically. We don't look for "missing links." To say that we do is just as much a myth (and is just as false) as saying that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record (which is just a blatantly false statement that mischaracterizes what we do). But with respect to Archaeopteryx itself, it's a bird.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
JB1740 writes: But with respect to Archaeopteryx itself, it's a bird. How do you square this statement with the information provided by Dwise1 in Message 54? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JB1740 Member (Idle past 5945 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
How do you square this statement with the information provided by Dwise1 in Message 54? --Percy My statement doesn't really square with message 54, but that's because there are things in Message 54 that aren't congruent with the data. Just two examples, it stated that:
In two other features, birds and Archaeopteryx were the same and different from Coelurosaurs (body covered with feathers and fused clavicles [wishbone]). but there are coelurosaurs that have both feathers and clavicles (just one genus as an example, the dromaeosaurid Velociraptor), so this statement is incorrect. Also, message 54 states that Archaeopteryx is "different from birds and the same as the coelurosaurs" in possessing teeth. This statement is also incorrect. The simple fact that Archaeopteryx happens to possess teeth, a trait that all modern birds happen to lack, does not in and of itself mean that Archaeopteryx isn't a bird. There are other birds that have teeth, such as Hesperornis from the Late Cretaceous of North America. Conversely, there are other coelurosaurs that lack teeth, such as the recently described Giganotoraptor from the Late Cretaceous of China. Numerous characters place Archaeopteryx within Avialae as a primitive bird. A statement along the lines of "taxon X is 15% bird and 10% dinosaur" doesn't make a lot of sense. That isn't how we do it. Creationist claims that it's "100% bird and nothing else" ARE clearly completely and utterly false--but that's because they don't understand evolution (and biology, geology, physics, reason, etc.), NOT because Archaeopteryx isn't a bird. It is a basal ("primitive") bird? Yes, absolutely. Is it transitional between "dinosaurs" and "modern birds?" Yes. It is a "missing link?" I don't know what the hell that term is really supposed to mean, so I would refrain from using it. It is a phrase used by the media and it doesn't really help.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024