|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hello | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Practical Prodigy Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: |
Im new to C vs E. Hope to add useful debate ;P
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Practical Prodigy Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: |
I'm a theist, I believe in Theistic evolution.
I am most knowledgable about physics, followed by biology, then chemistry. I have an Associates Degree in Applied Science (CIT) and a Bachelors Degree in Applied Science (Forensics). Does that sum it up
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Practical Prodigy Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: |
I also like atronomy and cosmology. I am pretty well versed in the Bible, my history knowledge is fairly vast I have done alot of research on most of the Books. I have also researched Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, and Sacred Writings such as; Book of Enoch, Book of Adam, etc.
I am a nondenominational Christian. I'd say I'm lacking most in organized religion, I grew up in Roman Catholic schooling but dont hold much stock in the "Hollywood" style religion types. In my opinion it takes you from the personal relationship with God and destroys free-thinking and encourages dogma.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Practical Prodigy Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: |
Well as I understand it there is three different camps, creationism (which believes in creation and Young Earth and literal interpretation of Genesis), theistic evolutionists (which believes in an allegory version of Genesis and creation), and naturalist evolutionists (no belief in God, just abiogenesis and evolution). My position in theistic evolution, due to the fact that I believe in the process of adaptation, mutation, etc (ie micro-evolution). I do not believe that one species will become another through macro-evolution. I also believe that Evolutional Theory, which is based on philosophical naturalism (a religious worldview), is used to explain processes in the hypothetical distant past and even the extreme distances of the Universe. Methodological naturalism is thus going far beyond science's proper boundaries of the observable human experience. Proper science uses inductive reasoning from facts or general principles and causality, without excluding possibilities (supernatural or natural). Using undirected nature and unnatural intelligent causes to explain everything in the human experience leaves various phenomena unexplained (a basis for most of the content on this site). If something is not repeatable and leaves little trace or no trace of its occurance, mainstream science has a hard time dealing with it. Evolutional theory does not nearly have all the answers it is limited in its application at best, and misleading at worst.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Practical Prodigy Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: |
Yes I love mysteries and researching things and figuring out things with little to no evidence ;P
Forensics when applied to this debate produces interesting results...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Practical Prodigy Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: |
What is your definition of a theistic view then? I believe God has guided a limited form of evolution/adaptation/variation that means I am not a Creationist and not an Evolutionists. The misnomer Old World Creationist is an catch-all term for; creationism, including Gap creationism and Progressive creationism. I also only reject macro-evolution not the consensus on observable micro-evolution. I believe that biological micro-evolution is merely another process within creation. It is what God employed to develop diversity and adaptation.
Naturalism is a religious worldview, theistic evolutionists and accept the supernatural aspect of creation. Fundamental evolutionists believe in abiogenesis and hold a naturalists world view in most instances as does a majority of empirical science. The are based on the human experince and observable processes.
If that isnt a religious worldview I dont know what is. Edited by Practical Prodigy, : spelling
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Practical Prodigy Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: |
You can close and move to new thread as you see fit, I respect that...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Practical Prodigy Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: |
Ooh... Sounds like somebody's been reading too much creationist literature That's not a position you'll arrive at from reading the biology. There's nothing preventing a bunch of micros from resulting in a macro. Its pretty much a fact that one species can evolve into another. I wrote up a post near that subject, Theropods and Birds showing a change in kinds, take a look and reply there.
Actually there is alot of things that can stop a bunch of micro's from resulting in a macro. Here is an interesting excerpt to show what I meant:
quote: There is limits based on genetic information available in other words. Even mutations and variations have to come from pre-existing genetic information. No new genes can be created only combined in various ways. Explain the evolution of the following features by the accumulation and selection of small mutations; hair in mammals, feathers in birds, segmentation in arthropods and of vertebrates, the transformation of gill-arches in phylogeny, including the aortic arches, muscles, nerves, etc. Further, teeth, shells of molluscs, ectoskeletons, compound eyes, blood circulation, alternation of generations, statocysts, ambulacral system of ecinoderm, pedicellara of the same, enidocysts, poison apparatus of snakes, and finally, primary chemical differences like hemoglobin versus hemocyanin, etc. I could also provide examples with plants but I highly doubt you could even cover these, look forward to the explainations ;P
All of science is based on methodological naturalism. Evolutionary Theory isn't based on a philosophy of naturalism and more than, say, chemistry acid/base titrations. We don't look for God in the test tube, so why look for him behind the genes? Im not sure what your trying to imply. I stated that science was based on methodological naturalism and divorces anything that cant be repeatedly observed or explained through naturalism from its scope. This would leave out various phenomena that have been thoroughly proven to occur. There is a difference between looking for God behind something you can observe and applying a philosophic belief system of deduction and inductive reasoning to something you cant observe nor prove beyond a hypothetic theory. Take a few Forensics classes and you will see what I mean. Do you know how many times the observed data will be completely wrong? Do you realize how much of a person perspective relates to the observance? I could go on for days...
Maybe somewhat in some places, but not in general. I doubt anything with a consensus has gone outside the boudaries. Evolution certainly hasn't. I'm sorry but that is simply false for various reasons. Evolution has certainly gone far beyond it scope and basis as a majority of its "proof" is based on extrapolation and inference not on hard evidence. Even in the genetic arena, which is its strongest evidence initiator, there are usally as many questions that are raised and things unexplainable or unobserved. It uses theory, inferences, and fitting available data to a theory to determine its "facts". Quite a poor way of gathering evidence and making its case, and this is coming from someone who's job it is to gather evidence and cross-reference sources. Most of the genetic data and correlations evolutional biologists provide as "missing-links" would never hold up in a court case, which in my experience is more flexible in its acceptance of scientific evidence than mainstream science is SUPPOSED to be.
Supernatural... by science's nature of being methodological naturalism, everything it can study is by definition natural. Something truely supernatural must be excluded from science and if it ain't, then it ain't supernatural. If something you hold as supernatural does end up being studied by science, then that would mean that it really was natural the whole time. I think the word paranormal works better when discussing the things that I think you are referring to. Paranormal and supernatural are synonyms and mean the exact same thing so I'm lost on your point here. As far as naturalism its scope only refers to things thought to duplicate themselves, everything it can study is not by definition natural just repeatable. But then again that depends on your interpretation and use of the word natural.
To which the philisophical naturalist would find no use in studying. But oh well, its his loss. Perhaps.
That applies to methodological naturalism as well, one is the basis for the other. They are not exclusive.
That diversity of life on Earth has certainly been answered. Outside of that, the Theory of Evolution doesn't apply. I think you'll find that the misleading isn't really by the scientists, but by the creationists in saying that the scientists are misleading. It has not been answered thats conjecture and personal opinion and there are several instances I could show to dispute that observation. But I'll save that for the topics as they are created or I find them and reply to them on these boards.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Practical Prodigy Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: |
Since you reject speciation by evolution, where do all the species come from, especially all the new species that have arisen throughout the history of the Earth ? Actually that depends on your definition of species, which varies and means different things depending on its use and context in biology.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Practical Prodigy Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: |
Yeah, that's not how we do things around here. If you'd like to discuss the evidence for the evolution of that stuff, pick one (yes, just one) subject and propose a new thread. Nobody is going to tackle all of that at once. Well when asked a question I'll post why I have said position, was not attempting to have to delve this deep into my beliefs in an introductory thread, LOL.
Like? Unexplained Phenomena: The Placebo EffectThe Sixth Sense Near Death Experience UFO's/USO's - Unidentified Flying/Submerged Objects Dj Vu (Memory illusion) The Big Bang (Origin of the Universe) Singularity Mammatus Clouds Non-aqueous Rain St Elmo’s Fire Ghosts Spontaneous Human Combustion Unexplained Disappearances Bermuda Triangle The Hum Psychic Phenomena (esp, remote viewing, telepathy, clairvoyance or telekinesis) Naga Fireballs Blue Jets and Red Sprites Earthquake Lights Relationship between brain and body Capacity (psychic and spiritual) Electronic Voice Phenomenon The Sirius Mystery (as well as other ancient cosmology knowledge not visible from Earth) Tunguska Explosion Charles E. Peck (Chatsworth crash) Would you like me to go on?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Practical Prodigy Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: |
A lot? Like what, in general in your own words? Just one. I posted in my own word below excerpt I posted.
Its always a good ideo to provide links when you quote outside material. I found the article here: The mutation matrix and the evolution of evolvability - PubMed Sorry meant to do that totally forgot until you reminded me, wont happen again
I didn't quite get that from the article. Can you explain in your own words how the article says that? What is the limit? How is it based on genetic information available? The limit imposed on evolvabilty is the variance of mutations. Mutations do not add new genetic information just recombine genetic material in a varied fashion. This does not explain how genetic information will mutate in the exact set of genes to allow a new complex expression. In other words, the convergence of abundant variation occuring at same time and strong selection influences. This happens when a single gene influences multiple phenotypic traits. A new mutation in the gene may have an effect on some or all traits simultaneously. This can become a problem when selection on one trait favors one specific version of the gene (allele), while the selection on the other trait favors another allele. Hope I covered what you meant and didnt go off on a tangent ;P
Well I'm not going to go through all those here. Some of them can be explained, some of them I don't know about. But a currently unexplained phenomenon doesn't falsify the theory, nor is any of those showing how a bunch of micros are prevented from being a macro. Perhaps in another thread then. These are the adaptations I could not find any non-theoritical explaination for. But like I said I'll makes another thread soon and show you how little is known about these adaptations.
Like what? In above post, but I'll repost so its clear : Unexplained Phenomena: The Placebo EffectThe Sixth Sense Near Death Experience UFO's/USO's - Unidentified Flying/Submerged Objects Dj Vu (Memory illusion) The Big Bang (Origin of the Universe) Singularity Mammatus Clouds Non-aqueous Rain St Elmo’s Fire Ghosts Spontaneous Human Combustion Unexplained Disappearances Bermuda Triangle The Hum Psychic Phenomena (esp, remote viewing, telepathy, clairvoyance or telekinesis) Naga Fireballs Blue Jets and Red Sprites Earthquake Lights Relationship between brain and body Capacity (psychic and spiritual) Electronic Voice Phenomenon The Sirius Mystery (as well as other ancient cosmology knowledge not visible from Earth) Tunguska Explosion Charles E. Peck (Chatsworth crash) Sure, but even the Theory of Evolution does not say that god has nothing to do with it. I guess that is one way of looking at it, but I think a vast majority of naturalist evolutionists would beg to differ for some reason on that one ;P
How so? I explained this due to its focus on observable processes, focus on theories and hypothesis, etc. Cant make it much clearer than that read my other posts.
Well I haven't seen any of it. Thats like saying since you cant see Andromeda that it doesnt exist. I dont understand how thats a reply to my post.
Supernatural implies that there can never be a scientific explanation while paranormal allows for one to be discovered in the future. Thats a semantic position, not a logical one. They mean the exact same thing maybe try looking up their proper definitions or would you like me to post them here?
Philisophical Naturalism is an idea. It deals with ontology, what exists and what doesn't. Methodological Naturalism is a process. It deals with epistemology, how can we acquire knowledge about the world. They are not the same thing. Applying Methodological Naturalism is not assuming Philisophical Naturalism. That's why I can perform chemistry expirements without considering whether god is in the test tube or not all the while taking no position on god's existence. The same goes with the Theory of Evolution... seeking a natural explanation for the diversity of life on Earth is not saying that god had no role whatsoever. Ontology is the reference point from which epistemology is observed. To say otherwise is quite an interesting position. Something has to first pass through the application of ontology before it can have epistemology applied to it unless you learn about things in ways different than every other human I know of. Ontology breaks down all observances into categories of being, from which an observance is anaylyzed using epistemological notions such as truth, belief, and justification.Both actually focus on what is considered to be truth, belief, and justification. This is one of the basic concepts in Forensics ;P Give me just one example of something that falsifies the Theory of Evolution. Please. Cambrian Explosion. I could provide more if you would like.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Practical Prodigy Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: |
Thanks I never expected to get grilled for simply posting my views, has turned into a life of its own a bit outside the scope of why I started thread to begin with
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Practical Prodigy Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: |
I'm a state champion swimmer so I might be a nice change of diet although I wont be such easy prey
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Practical Prodigy Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: |
Perhaps I worded it wrong lol, a parent can not pass down traits or genetic information it does not carry. Once you factor in the fact that most gene control more than one expressed trait and you have quite a minefield evolution must survive to be viable. I'm not going to even bring up the issues that exist and have been proven in domestication. Even using selective breeding you can not turn a dog into a cat or different organism besides a different version of same organism. Perhaps that is a better explaination. There are limits to genetic variance such as, hybridization barriers, reproductive isolation, etc.
I dont dispute macro-evolution in the sense that an organism can speciate greatly. What I dispute is the fact that one genus of organism can change into another. If anything animals devolve and lose genetic information, fitness, etc usually. This is the reason animals were much larger in the past, even the primate brain has been proven to be bigger in earlier primates. I would not fit into any version of creationism due to my belief in convergence, speciation, etc. I also only believe in a allagory translation of Genesis, not literal which would also put me in the theistic evolutionist camp. Really like I said the only dispute I have with evolution is genus or higher level than species changes in an organism.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Practical Prodigy Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: |
Well considering I have researched them please post explaination for the ones you claim are explainable just saying is explained is weak position. The last one maybe you should Google him and find out the story...
The ones you claim dont exist I could provide evidence to the contrary... Edited by Practical Prodigy, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024