|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
You know, Chuckles, you're having enough trouble responding to what people actually say. You're not doing yourself any favors by responding to things people haven't said.
I never said I want to live in a world where there are no truths or absolutes, that's your own prejudice sneaking into your reading. In fact, I happen to believe that there probably are truths and absolutes in the natural world. What I said was that anything that science concludes is tentatively held. Science may well have stumbled upon accurate truths about the real world. My point is that we don't know, and will never know, because there's always the possibility that some new discovery will be made that will throw the whole works into the dustbin of history. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
John 10:10 responds to me:
quote:quote: Congratulations! You just did away with your own self. The only evidence you have for yourself is your observations. But, you cannot observe everything about you. Therefore, by your own logic, you cannot be examined and thus, you don't exist. Is that really what you want to say?
quote: Oy...where to begin? We'll start backwards: Evolution has nothing at all to say about how life began. Evolution is compatible with every single method of genesis you care to name. Life could have arisen chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, extraterrestrially through alien seeding or panspermia, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, anything you can imagine, evolution doesn't care. So long as life does not reproduce perfectly from one generation to the next, evolution is satisfied. Are you saying god cannot create life that evolves? Evolution is not about the origin of life. It's about what happens to life after it originates. The quarter in your pocket that you're about to use in the vending machine: Does the vending machine really care if it was made at the Philadelphia mint as opposed to the Denver mint? Surely you're not saying that the vending machine cares where the quarter came from, are you? If not, then why do you seem to think that evolution cares where life came from? Second, you toss out "theory" as if that were a bad thing. Of course evolution is a theory. It's also a fact. That's why we have a theory. Science develops theories to explain facts. That's why it's called the theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] evolution. You can't have a theory regarding evolution until you have already established evolution as a fact. When I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground. Because we haven't quite figured out that telepathy thing just yet, we use language and the word (in English) that we have come to use to describe the force that pulls the ball down is "gravity." That's a fact. It is only through observation and experimentation that we come up with theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] gravity that says F = Gm1m2/r2. It's still tentative. We're pretty sure that we've got it right since we use that theory to do all sorts of things, but there is always the possibility that we have missed an observation (since it is impossible to observe everything) that will change it. But no matter what our theory, gravity is still a fact: When I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground. When we observe organisms over time, they change. Because we haven't quite figured out that telepathy thing just yet, we use language and the word (in English) that we have come to use to describe the change in the morphology of the population of organisms is "evolution." That's a fact. It is only through observation and experimentation that we come up with the theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] evolution that says that there is a genome that describes the morphology, is imperfectly replicated in the creation of the next generation, and that this morphology is then run through various selection events that determine which individuals will be the ones who repeat the process of originating the next generation. It's still tentative. We're pretty sure that we've got it right since we use that theory to do all sorts of things, but there is always the possibility that we have missed an observation (since it is impossible to observe everything) that will chagne it. But no matter what our theory, evolution is still a fact: When we observe organisms over time, they change. Now, unless you're going to say that gravity "is not really science at all," you're going to have to explain why the exact same process and results that allow us to have such confidence in physics somehow are completely illegitimate with regard to biology. I should point out: Evolution is more solidly grounded than gravity because we have an actual mechanism for it: Mutation and selection. We can directly manipulate this mechanism. We still have no idea what gravity is, where it comes from, why it even exists, or how to manipulate it. All we know is what it does. Again, you're going to have to explain why the fundamental concept of biology doesn't live up to the standard most people put physics on when biology has exceeded what physics has ever dared to dream about.
quote: Huh? Are you saying god cannot create life that evolves? Ooh! You're new, so you haven't heard this question yet. Maybe you can be the first person to answer it: Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything? Science studies things that happen on their own. That doesn't mean there aren't outside agents. It simply means that science studies what happens when those outside agents aren't fiddling around. Just as science removes god from the equation, it also removes [I][B]YOU[/i][/b] from the equation. Surely nobody is saying you don't exist (well...except you are as your own logic dictates above). However, science wants to see what happens when you're not the one doing things. If I were to take a cylinder, fill it will one mole of oxygen gas and two moles of hydrogen gas, put it in a test chamber, and then go to lunch for an hour, what should be my response when I come back and find that the gas inside has been replaced with a mole of water? Surely it isn't that me going to lunch is what made the water replace the gas, yes? If that is a serious contender for it, we'd have to put in some controls to isolate the system from my actions, yes? Well, isn't a possibility that my lab assistant did something? If so, that isn't really helping since we're trying to study what happens to the gas all on its own, not what happens to the gas when my lab assistant fiddles with it. He's capable of doing almost anything, thus any findings that we have aren't going to be of any use: We find we're not studying the gas but rather are studying my lab assistant. Thus, science removes god from the equation not out of any animosity or claim that god doesn't exist but simply because the point of science is to find out what happens to things when they are left to themselves. And that's what leads me to my question: Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
quote: First, "many" doesn't mean anything. Unless and until you come up with names and exact quotes in complete context, the only thing you're doing is trying to paint those who accept the science of evolution to be evil people who hate god. It's an appeal to emotion, not to logic. Second, even if you do come up with such names and quotes in complete context, it doesn't matter. Again, science is about studying what happens despite interference by outside agents, not because of them. Just as god is removed from the equation, so are you. Science does not deny your existence nor does it denigrate it in any way. The fact that there may be somebody somewhere who is a scientist who does not like you is irrelevant. The science will still be true even with that rude individual taken out of the picture. Again: Are you saying that god cannot create life that evolves. Why does evolution necessarily preclude the existence of god? Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
John 10:10 writes:
quote: Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost much and you can get the materials from any reputable biological supply house. Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage. What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too. But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage. How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it. But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died. Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage. But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage. What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form. But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they should all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on. Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear. So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity. There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again. You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation. So there you go. The evolutionary model from start to finish. Right in front of your eyes using materials and techniques sufficiently simple enough for a 10th-grader to do. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
John 10:10 responds to me:
quote:quote: Logical error: Moving the goalposts. You didn't ask for the evolutionary history of humans. You asked for "the evolutionary model from start to finish." That was what you were given. Now that you have seen that what you have been insisting doesn't exist actually does, you are changing your demand in the hopes that nobody will notice. Of course a "fully developed man" doesn't pop out. Nobody said it would. In fact, if it did, evolutionary theory would have to be radically altered. The above experiment takes only on the order of days. Evolution of something like a human doesn't happen that fast. If you want the evidence for the evolution of humans, you go to the fossil record because it's all there. Fossil Hominids Is there a reason why the fossil record is insufficient? Be specific. We can watch the evolution happen right in front of our eyes by examining the fossils. Why is this not enough for you? Are you saying the only evidence you would possibly accept is the equivalent of a videotape of every single hominid individual showing the lifetime of them all so that we could watch the individuals evolve into modern humans? Congratulations: You've just done away with all of forensics. Better let most of those criminals out of jail because most crimes don't have eye-witnesses. They only have forensic evidence. Question: Do you accept the validity of a paternity test? That is, do you accept that there is a biochemical way to determine if one individual is the father of another individual? If so, why do you suddenly claim that this method is invalid when determining evolutionary relationships? It's the exact same method. Why can I use it to tell who your father is but not who your ancestor is? Isn't your father an ancestor? Be specific. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT responds to me:
quote: Right. And your computer contains all information regarding evolutionary transitions? Exactly how big is your computer room? Your data center must be huge.
quote: Right. And you surveyed the entire field of literature in less than an hour? Hint: The problem is not that you are mentioning Foraminifera. The problem is that you are claiming that Foraminifera is the ONLY one.
quote: But do you understand it? The last time you and I had a discussion regarding Hawking and Turok, I had to quote your own source to you regarding what it said.
quote: You mean to have sufficient counteracting force against gravity? There are lots of things. I admit I am playing a bit dumb. Methinks you are trying to engage in a game of gotcha and I want to know what you're really asking. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Creationist/IDist positions make no attempt to pass such tests. Creationist/IDist theories have led to no new research areas or discoveries. Why is this? Because the generations of the heavens and the earth is completed. Creationist belief is the belief that God created the heavens and the earth, and that was that.
In short - Science is a philosophy and method of discovery whilst creationism (in all its various ID forms) is a philosophy of ignorance. Not really. you can define what you like but ultimately, logic out-strips science. Logically, the facts indicate nothing but the facts. Man himself has to explain history being ingnorant. As far as I can see, it's how evidence is interpreted. Creationism isn't ignorance, it's just an alternative explanation for those who genuinely believe that history happened according to how the Holy Bible said it did. While this doesn't exclude evolution, the consequences are obvious - that one must accept his bible as weaker and weaker, and more watered down, until guess what? You then question Christ himself - and how his miracles could have been naturally explained. Where does it end? As far as I can see, evolution is an explanation which powerfully favours naturalistic origins and the removal of God. To me, I have not been shown how evolution certainly happened, logically. Because logically, it is no proven in it's entirety. Why would I prefer to believe a natural theory over a biblical history? Call us what you like but it's stiff cheese if we know that objectively theories come and go. Listen - new developments abound because yu already ASSUME evolution happened! Now pretend that evolution didn't happen - and THEN look at that development. Objectively - it is irrelevant if you say evo is brilliant and creo is sour ignorance, that will not change that evolution is just a theory, unproven, which might be replaced by another theory, just as scientific history shows. Meanwhile, I am not convinced the brilliance of creation came about by itself - and logically it is STILL upon you to prove the extraordinary claim that all this brilliant creation was infact evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Creationism isn't ignorance, it's just an alternative explanation for those who genuinely believe that history happened according to how the Holy Bible said it did. Hi again Mike, glad to see you again. Over and over again we see this "alternate explanation" line. We ask to see how this explains the facts at hand. We never get an answer. There is no alternate explanation! It just doesn't exist. If you think there is a new thread titled "The Creationist Alternate Explanation/Interpretation" would be a good place to show it. Remember it has to actually be an explanation! It actually has to explain the facts available. It is, of course, a big job. But you can show it a little at a time with appropriate references to the details as supplied by creationist "research" organizations. Given that this explanation exists it is odd that no one has supplied it yet. Maybe you can just explain that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
Organicmachination writes: Did you watch that video on ERVs that bluegenes posted? If so, you have been introduced to one of the strongest cases for evolution ever presented. This video is premised on a random chemical process. Which, of course is a false premise. Did you not learn at school that the concept of randomness exists only in the human mind, not in nature. If this is the strongest case for evolution, then the theory really is on shaky grounds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
Coyote writes: In science there generally is only one theory at a time within a given field. Currently the theory that explains speciation is the theory of evolution. Speciation is evolution is speciation; circular reasoning! If speciation is not evolution then you have two theories in the one sentence.
Bluejay writes: What "start-to-finish" model, John? Rrhain's E. coli just proved evolution: we don't need anything else to prove that ToE works in the real world. What we see with the Ecoli is inbuilt adaption not evolution. If organisms were unable to adapt there would be no life left on earth. Edited by LucyTheApe, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
This video is premised on a random chemical process. Which, of course is a false premise.Speciation is evolution is speciation; circular reasoning! I don't understand the point you are making here. I don't see how it applies to the topic at hand. Perhaps you can elaborate a lot more.
What we see with the Ecoli is inbuilt adaption not evolution. "Inbuilt" in exactly what way? How is this not evolution? You seem very sure of what you say so I'm sure you are prepared to back it up. lol
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3023 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Do you believe that you are impervious to error? No, I'm not impervoius to error. But I do know Him who is the ultimate truth, my Creator. I have as much unfettered access to my Creator as I'm willing to dilligently search for, and He's willing to reveal of Himself and of His creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3023 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
These are called facts. Facts differ from theories. As I think I have posted before, facts by themselves lack meaning and usefulness. Theories provide that meaning and usefulness. Again you have the cart before the horse. Theories provide the means whereby things are proven, thereby becoming facts. Once we know the proven facts to a high degree of accuracy, they have meaning and can become useful in all manner of creative endeavours for the good of mankind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Rrhain writes: You mean to have sufficient counteracting force against gravity? There are lots of things. I admit I am playing a bit dumb. Methinks you are trying to engage in a game of gotcha and I want to know what you're really asking. I was looking for real information. What would have to happen to the planet earth for an apple to stay in place when released at a point above the ground or to fly off into space? I have no idea. As I understand it if one of the astronauts working on the space station was to lose attachment to the station or shuttle they would fall away from them. The direction in which they would fall would be determined from their position in relation to the space station or shuttle. Remember I am trying to determine which way a star would have to be going to be falling.
Rrhain writes: Right. And you surveyed the entire field of literature in less than an hour? No. Only the information pertaining to the Foraminifera.
Rrhain writes: Hint: The problem is not that you are mentioning Foraminifera. The problem is that you are claiming that Foraminifera is the ONLY one. I made no claims. I don't remember mentioning anything other that foraminifera. I was presenting an unbroken history of foraminifera for 66 million years that could be traced back 500 million years. During the 66 million years they had changed 330 times but they were still foraminifera at the end of 500 million years. At no point during that unbroken history of 66 million years did the foraminifera transmute into something other than foraminifera. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3023 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
What is the start-to-finish evolutionary model? It's simply being able to "prove" to a high degree of accuracy that life can evolve over billions of years from the spark that supposedly started the life process to millions of different fully developed life creatures. Saying that the start-to-finish evolutionary model has been proven is easy. Proving it has not nor ever will be done. This is why the start-to-finish evolutionary model is not true science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3023 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
I honestly feel that we would be better off having no knowledge of anything except of the tools for learning than we would be having been given all the answers. Intelligent Design would have us ignore these tools in favor of the "sure thing," which essentially stifles our ability to learn and, frankly, makes us more stupid. If God is opposed to my honest attempts to learn, I am opposed to Him, even if He's real, and I personally wouldn't want to live for eternity in heaven with the people such a God would prefer. Intelligent Design is simply understanding that all creatures, uncluding man, were created fully developed after their own kind, and did not evolve over millions/billions of years from a single spark of life.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024