|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5058 days) Posts: 1 From: Austin, TX, US Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I think it's natural that if one lives with the Indians one becomes an Indian.
But this relates to no true Scotsman putting sugar on his porridge. Example; "No true scientist is a creationist". Well, lots of people have been scientists and have known much more than any of us about evolutin, yet have come to a realization of a designer. The facts arent evolutionary facts, unless you decide that all evidence is evidence of evolution. It's circular, like saying; iOh how do we know abiogenesis is true? cause we're here! We're here therefore abiogenesis must be true.[/i] Anyway, my own search has led me to value cleverness over general knowledge. Anyone can regurgitate what a textbook says, but I find that clever thinking brings satisfaction in detecting the correctness. If you increase your understanding of reasoning, you'll begin to realize that all that matters is the soundness of a claim. Not who made it, or what he knows or doesn't know or how much mikey does know or how insane he is.
Essentially, all that matters is how sound, logically, an argument is. This also applies to evolution. The evidence for evolution is a build up of information based on a conditional implication, used for the reasons of establishing falsification and confirmation, via logic. AT NO TIME whatsoever is there any suggestion that a theory should be believed or accepted, because induction is astoundingly WEAK evidence. (Example, if you pick out a million red balls for red ball theory, merely O N E green ball will refute the theory because of the power of the tollens) Example; If evolution is true THEN we should find transitional species preserved in the pre-cambrian. The tollens is falsification evidence thus; If they are not there, then evolution is false. Now what happens is that you can only argue ad hoc as to why evolution is true. Therefore punctuated equilibria was taken up by many IN REGARD to the evidence AGAINST evolution. This is my eternal frustration - that nobody at EvC actually knows what "evidence" means. Science by no means would call me willfully ignorant for not accepting a theory - it would actually call me "hyper-scientific". But the PEOPLE call me something else. Why is that? Is it logic or science that compels them? It is neither!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
There are over 200 geochronometers that suggest a young earth.
Some of them are; The amount of mud at the mouth of major riversLight not being a constant The amount of dust on the moon Satelites that should have expired Polystrate fossils Examples of rapid layers being created in days (Mt St Helens) I won't go into it all, but it's nothing to do with scientific prowess. Also, potassium argon dating gave rocks found at new volcanoes dates of millions of years. I don't want to turn this thread into an attempt to prove a young earth because I am not compelled to be dogmatic about it.
Let's try another test of your scientific prowess: Do you accept the scientific evidence for an old earth? You see Coyote, you never actually listen. What has my knowledge or your knowledge got to do with correctness? I claim no prowess, I am not a qualified scientist. Why do you judge me to be the same as everyone else?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I don't intend to turn this thread into one dealing with evidence for an old earth.
You answered the question I asked. You clearly are willing to follow religious belief no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, all the while clinging to standard creationist apologetics--all of which has been refuted thousands of times. No point in presenting evidence to one whose mind is so closed. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
You cut me to the quick. As I said, the geochronometers are compelling to me because they should not exist.
You certainly believe that these arguments have been refuted, but I have heard the responses, and they aren't that impressive. My mind is open, but like you, I am not going to change it.
You clearly are willing to follow religious belief no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, You haven't understood science. The whole point is that it doesn't matter if there are a million evidences to the contrary, because evidence is not proof. I am not lying. You can literally "create" your own implication. Here's one; IF robins always look the classical robin-colours THEN we will only observe classical robins. Now let us say that we count 2 million classical robins. That is 2 million pieces of evidence against robins being none-classical, yet if you only find O N E white robin, then all of that "evidence" to the contrary is irrelevant.This is because inductive logic is not deductive logic. There are only two ways in logic, the ponen positive and the tollens negative. So if you show me one thousand "evidences" of evolution, logically it we be illogical for me to then accept evolution. General knowledge is not king. Clever thinking and wise discernment is king. Science only works BECAUSE of the authority of logical wisdom. I do not accept evolution, not because of bias, like I did in my early twenties, but because I had to re-program my mind. I underwent a phase in my life when my brain was "switched on". I had never thought for myself. The genuine reason why I don't accept evolution is because I genuinely think, through clever and deep thinking, that it is an old, tired paradigm people cling to. It is so far from proven that to me, yes - really, I am convinced utterly and totally, that it is false in comparison to the truism of animated freaking matter existing, which is so incredible, nobody can answer to the mystery. Why do you think I gave those quotes from Gould and Dawkins? Even the best of them K N O W that evolution is profoundly weak, but they admitt that they cannot accept the alternative, no matter how powerful it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Nonsense. You're just a creationist.
Rationalization and apologetics is all you have left. (See tagline.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
What a thoughtful, none-judgemental and thorough examination of what I said, that involves nothing to do with "mike", and everything to do with the information I provided.
Thankyou so kindly for you lengthy, meaningful post. (Atleast give me another test, I enjoy proving myself. )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
mike the wiz writes: Science only works BECAUSE of the authority of logical wisdom. Science works because of the scientific method that ties theories to evidence from the real world through replication and successful predictions. If what you said were really true, that science is based upon "the authority of logical wisdom," then it wouldn't work. "The authority of logical wisdom" is not science at all, though it does sound much like revelation. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I think you're confusing that issue with something else.
If science worked without logical basis you could state;
If evolution is true, I will find a transitional.I found a transitional therefore evolution is true. This is applied to predictions in the form of an implication. The logical reasons why spotting a million classical robins doesn't mean robins only come in that form, is that the form of the syllgism is expressed in the manner to conform to the ponen and tollens rules. So you can only have two genuine, scientific findings. 1. Confirmation.2. Falsification. The scientific method ONLY works BECAUSE logis shows up the fallacious non sequiturs that can be incorrectly inferred. Example; If X then Y. Y. = no inference tally of 1 scientific evidence.If not Y then not X = We infer falsification. I wrote more in my blog about it, many moons ago. Here it is. (Please scroll down to "Is there evidence for creation". mikes blog (Good to see you again. ) My favourite example of an implication as a scientific prediction, is Einstein's proposal that if light were not a constant, then gravity would bend it and at the eclipse there would be a shift of the star's position. Note that this did follow, confirming his theory that light is not a constant. It is a simple matter compared to a full blown theory such as evolution, but shows the logic.
Science works because of the scientific method that ties theories to evidence from the real world through replication and successful predictions I partly agree. But really, a theory is induction-based because of the potential fallacies. This is a kind of logical-filter. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
mike the wiz writes: I believe in many of the following; Genetic driftnatural selection mutations isolated population the homo genus all of the fossils speciation micro-evolution adaptation allele frequencies normalised selection etc, Are there some of these things you do not believe in (you said many, not all)? I am not sure what you mean by some of the words in your list since you did not put them in context.
I only disagree with the very final conclusions inferred from such facts. So, I accept probably atleast 90% of the work of evolutionists over the centuries. Maybe I missed it, but which very final conclusions, inferred from which facts? earlier mike writes: I accept that evolution is false (or atleast the major conclusions) because of the little mankind knows about the universe So you base your conclusions on what we do not know rather than what we do know? What an odd way of looking at things.
You misunderstand I have to admit that most of what you write I do not understand. The topic is: Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. What is your question? As far as I can tell, all you are doing is rambling on about what you believe and what you think other people believe. Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are out of alignment. -- S.Valley What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I think it's natural that if one lives with the Indians one becomes an Indian. But this relates to no true Scotsman putting sugar on his porridge. Example; "No true scientist is a creationist". Well, lots of people have been scientists and have known much more than any of us about evolutin, yet have come to a realization of a designer. The facts arent evolutionary facts, unless you decide that all evidence is evidence of evolution. It's circular, like saying; Oh how do we know abiogenesis is true? cause we're here! We're here therefore abiogenesis must be true. Anyway, my own search has led me to value cleverness over general knowledge. Anyone can regurgitate what a textbook says, but I find that clever thinking brings satisfaction in detecting the correctness. If you increase your understanding of reasoning, you'll begin to realize that all that matters is the soundness of a claim. Not who made it, or what he knows or doesn't know or how much mikey does know or how insane he is. Essentially, all that matters is how sound, logically, an argument is. This also applies to evolution. The evidence for evolution is a build up of information based on a conditional implication, used for the reasons of establishing falsification and confirmation, via logic. AT NO TIME whatsoever is there any suggestion that a theory should be believed or accepted, because induction is astoundingly WEAK evidence. (Example, if you pick out a million red balls for red ball theory, merely O N E green ball will refute the theory because of the power of the tollens) Example; If evolution is true THEN we should find transitional species preserved in the pre-cambrian. The tollens is falsification evidence thus; If they are not there, then evolution is false. Now what happens is that you can only argue ad hoc as to why evolution is true. Therefore punctuated equilibria was taken up by many IN REGARD to the evidence AGAINST evolution. This is my eternal frustration - that nobody at EvC actually knows what "evidence" means. Science by no means would call me willfully ignorant for not accepting a theory - it would actually call me "hyper-scientific". But the PEOPLE call me something else. Why is that? Is it logic or science that compels them? It is neither! The occasional bits of this that seem as though they might mean something don't appear to be a reply to my post. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There are over 200 geochronometers that suggest a young earth. Some of them are; The amount of mud at the mouth of major riversLight not being a constant The amount of dust on the moon Satelites that should have expired Polystrate fossils Examples of rapid layers being created in days (Mt St Helens) I won't go into it all, but it's nothing to do with scientific prowess. Also, potassium argon dating gave rocks found at new volcanoes dates of millions of years. See, this is where knowing stuff would be a help to you. Also some better reasoning skills, but that ship might already have sailed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
It was others that asked these things of me. It's only polite to give answers, until I am hounded out of town.
So you base your conclusions on what we do not know rather than what we do know? What an odd way of looking at things. There's that, "we" again. Obviously, if "we" you mean naturalists, evolutionists, secularists, etc....strictly neo Darwinists, or whatever, then the little you know does not dictate that you must accept therefore, that we came from an original common ancestor. There are ample reasons, as I explained in my blog, as to why the hominidae are a different design from humans.The very final conclusions are; 1. We are part of the hominidae by illogical "proof-by-ranking".2. That all life forms come from an original ancestor DESPITE, the DNA that contains code, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. the arrangement of the nucleotides is essential, not merely guided, but requires thought. It is proven easily. Therefore, while I accept that adaptation exists, mutations are random sampling errors, a poor explanation of incredible information-levels. (One example is 7 million bibles on one slide). That's the best density possible in nature. It's not only design - it's sheer genius design, far beyond human design. The fact is that evolution, pertaining to direct, specific designs, does not explain them sufficiently. The bombardier beatle for example - the chamber where the chemicals mix. Or how pollen spores "figure out" that aerodynamic efficiency is best with gas that projectiles it through a particular high-altitude atmosphere. Does evolution "know" to figure out these things? The explanation is a none-explanation. M+ NS. Insufficient!
Are there some of these things you do not believe in (you said many, not all)? I am not sure what you mean by some of the words in your list since you did not put them in context. I believe mutations can affect changes. This I can call negative-evolution, the reduction of information. Perhaps a sightless brute that has no need for eyes to bump around with in the dark. I believe in natural selection also, isolated populations. But logically, the step to a change of general identity is a "leap" of the imagination. You have to imagine the cladistic, where there are none. You have to imagine all those pre-cambrian forms that are not there. You have to imagine that two general chimps and two general gorillas led to homo habilis or any other human. All of these inferences are not based on proof, but by the belief that random sampling errors can create new designs over time, when if you look at the superficial adaptations in the homo genus alone, archaic and gracile skulls are explainable. Even today people's skulls are archaic, and others smooth. It is explainable as adaptation within a general identity. (law of identity) i.e. A human is pretty much still a human. The changes don't actually happen because of the fixity of fossils, which is gargantuan and seemingly complete. Merely google your modern species, and you are likely, not to find a transitional of his ancestory, but pretty much a replica of the same kind of creatures. I've seen all sorts. Apples, plants, crocs, bats, frogs, spiders, chambered nautilus, fish, spiders. They are pretty much have stayed the same. Even species found preserved such as flies, dung beatle hollows in dinosaur-pooh. The mass preservation, is not merely a record of a designer - but a mass evidence that organisms pretty much do not change apart from superficial or beneficial changes, that do not alter the DNA design-plan.
This concludes my manifold gargantuan banter-marathon or irrefutable retorts. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote. Don't you even proof what you post?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Got anything to say about the info, rather than mike?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Einstein's proposal that if light were not a constant ... Our train of thought in the foregoing pages can be epitomised in the following manner. Experience has led to the conviction that, on the one hand, the principle of relativity holds true, and that on the other hand the velocity of transmission of light in vacuo has to be considered equal to a constant c. --- Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Chapter XIV Einstein only made c the most famous constant in physics. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Everything I say means something, it's just that you don't have the ability to understand what I am saying or don't want to. Also, I am not a brilliant articulator admittedly. But mostly - it's that you are not thinking hard enough about what I did articulate.
Perhaps it's not so much ability, but your eagerness to refute rather than learn.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024