Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 46 of 136 (665451)
06-13-2012 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hawkins
06-13-2012 3:31 PM


What evidence do you have which show the evolution of all species from a single cell, and to their current states?
Molecular phylogenetics, of course.
Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hawkins, posted 06-13-2012 3:31 PM Hawkins has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 47 of 136 (665453)
06-13-2012 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Hawkins
06-13-2012 1:02 PM


Hawkins writes:
Creation thus doesn't require any support from predictability or falsifiability.
So you're saying that creation definitely is not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Hawkins, posted 06-13-2012 1:02 PM Hawkins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Hawkins, posted 06-13-2012 3:42 PM ringo has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 136 (665454)
06-13-2012 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulGL
06-11-2012 4:13 PM


Re: Sorry, no spare time now. Beg your forgiveness
Sorry, no spare time now. Beg your forgiveness.
We prefer quality over quantity. Take your time and write up a good post. We'll be here.
AMFTHR:
Huh!?
written 2 years ago.
We prefer to have a dialog. Respond to what we say with an actual response to what we say.
Author's Note: Since my writing of this section, rock specimens have been found in Antarctica that have been shown to have been at one time on the surface of Mars; and also some which had, at one time, been on the surface of the far side of the moon.
Also, within the last decade a complete, detailed planetary topological mapping of Venus was carried out by satellite. Venus has a violent (600 mph) and corrosive (sulphuric acid) atmosphere. Yet craters (with little or no detectable erosion) were found that had to have been formed within recent, perhaps historical times. This alone directly disproves Uniformitarianism.
So what? Evolution is still the best explanation of the data we have. I don't see any reason to discuss Uniformiatianism. Is that really what you wanted this topic to be about? I thought this was supposed to be about the EvC argument being a red herring...
When NOVA asked an astrophysicist about this, his reply was: ‘I don’t see how Uniformitarianism can ever possibly explain those craters. But I’m not willing to give it up.’
Sir, your answer is the epitome of religious dogmatism and not that of objective, scientific methodology.
Well whoopty-do. EvC... Red herring... Go!
Will reply better at future time, when have some time. Very good reasoning and informative input by you. PaulGL
Take the time to reply to what we're actually saying and stay on the topic and don't copy and paste stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulGL, posted 06-11-2012 4:13 PM PaulGL has not replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 49 of 136 (665455)
06-13-2012 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by ringo
06-13-2012 3:38 PM


So you're saying that creation definitely is not science.
==============
I think that I stated clear enough that science is about the discovery of a set of rules governing a repeating behavior. Creation never made a claim of a repeating process. What ID does is actually a scientifically assisited history study. I said it long time ago that creation/ID is not a science per se.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 06-13-2012 3:38 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by ringo, posted 06-13-2012 3:54 PM Hawkins has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 50 of 136 (665457)
06-13-2012 3:53 PM


I can't tell what Hawkins is arguing for.

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 51 of 136 (665458)
06-13-2012 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Hawkins
06-13-2012 3:42 PM


Try using the [quote] and [/quote] tags to make your posts more readable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Hawkins, posted 06-13-2012 3:42 PM Hawkins has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 52 of 136 (665459)
06-13-2012 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Hawkins
06-13-2012 1:02 PM


Science is the claim of a repeating pattern govern by a set of rules.
By this definition, astronomy, geology, paleontology, anthropology and any other study of something that happened in the past are not sciences. I'm sure that those scientists working in those fields would be most surprised to hear this.
Would it surprise you to learn that your idea is not a new one? Would it surprise you to learn that anti-science religious nuts have been saying this for years? Would it surprise you to learn that your definition has absolutely nothing to do with reality?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Hawkins, posted 06-13-2012 1:02 PM Hawkins has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 53 of 136 (665461)
06-13-2012 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Hawkins
06-13-2012 3:07 PM


Creationism on the other hand is not even a historical truth. It is a religious belief.
======================
That remains your own assertion.
It remains a well supported observation.
How do you know that religious belief can't be a truth?
By testing it against the evidence. As it stands, the evidence demonstrates that species share a common ancestor, the Earth is quite old, the Universe even older, and a complete lack of a recent global flood.
How else do you think truth is determined?
Only something repeats will be able to bear the characteristic of predictability and falsifiability. Creation is referring to a one time process.
Nowhere does the scientific method require us to repeat past events. We don't have to re-animate a corpse and witness the defendant killing the victim once again in order for forensic science to work.
What the scientific method requires is that experiments produce repeatable results. That's it. Therefore, forensic science can repeatedly sequence DNA found at a crime scene to see if it matches the defendant's DNA. Never does science require a repeat of the actual crime, only a repeatable result from the DNA analysis.
In a nutshell, something repeats or can be repeatable, humans found out the set of rules which governs this repeating behavior.
We repeatedly measure ratios of isotopes in rocks that are not consistent with a young earth. We repeatedly find shared genetic markers between species that can only be explained by shared ancestry. We repeatedly see fossils that have a mixture of traits consistent with a transitional state. We repeatedly see no interruption of sedimentary deposition consistent with a lack of a global flood. Creationism is falsifiable, and it has been falsified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Hawkins, posted 06-13-2012 3:07 PM Hawkins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Genomicus, posted 06-13-2012 4:06 PM Taq has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 54 of 136 (665465)
06-13-2012 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Taq
06-13-2012 3:55 PM


Am I the only one who has noticed that in an attempt to disregard the evidence for common descent, creationists (especially the young-earth creationists) are now trying to re-define science?
Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 06-13-2012 3:55 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by subbie, posted 06-13-2012 4:22 PM Genomicus has not replied
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 06-13-2012 4:57 PM Genomicus has seen this message but not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 55 of 136 (665468)
06-13-2012 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Genomicus
06-13-2012 4:06 PM


They've been doing that for 30 years. There's nothing new to creationism, it's all PRATTs and they know it. It has nothing to do with a scientific dispute, it never has. It's all about public relations and trying to convince the uneducated that they have a point to make.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Genomicus, posted 06-13-2012 4:06 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 56 of 136 (665473)
06-13-2012 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Genomicus
06-13-2012 4:06 PM


Am I the only one who has noticed that in an attempt to disregard the evidence for common descent, creationists (especially the young-earth creationists) are now trying to re-define science?
I think everyone has noticed. It certainly isn't the first time I have seen someone try to do this. It's almost like watching someone try to change the rules of golf half way through a match when it becomes apparent that they are getting their ass handed to them.
It is also seen in the opening post. They try to twist and misrepresent uniformitarianism to make evolution not look like science and creatoinism look like science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Genomicus, posted 06-13-2012 4:06 PM Genomicus has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 3387 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 57 of 136 (667368)
07-06-2012 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Genomicus
06-10-2012 11:43 AM


reply to several issues, bear with me
1. Originally, I stated in 'A Message...et.al. that Genesis Ch. 1 AND Gen. Ch. 2 accounts of the genesis of life could not both be literally true (being contradictory LITERALLY) and that at least one of them must be allegorical. 2. Well (also stated then), both are allegorical. 3. My mistake was ignorantly placing credence (at the time I documented my theory as a book) on a misleading and incorrect biological text written by an apologetic author. It would have been convincing evidence had the 6 forms of life in the 6-day account been in evolutionary order. BUT they are NOT. My sincere apology to my readers, and thanks to your pointing this out. The 6-day account is allegorical, and is NOT written from the view of chronological creation; but rather is depicting the process of genesis of life from the perspective of A. Recovery (not original creation) from a waste, dark condition. B. Life as generated by light, and the relationship between them. 4. Any school of thought (regardless of nomenclature- 'Creationism', or 'Intelligent Design' that invokes a non-natural (supernatural) mechanism (Divine intervention) as part of its process is thus by definition disqualified from being a scientific school of thought that can be taught as a scientific discipline.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Genomicus, posted 06-10-2012 11:43 AM Genomicus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by PaulGL, posted 07-06-2012 1:04 PM PaulGL has replied

  
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 3387 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 58 of 136 (667372)
07-06-2012 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by PaulGL
07-06-2012 12:45 PM


Re: reply to several issues, bear with me
5. My dilemma is thus: A. I am born-again, and can no more deny the reality of this than I can deny my first, physical birth. B. I consequently also know that the Bible is the word of God. C. Christ is a living Person, and not a divisive religion. 6. So how to (poorly) relate the trace evidence of this in the objective realm of knowledge? Limited and futile. 7. Skeptics: "As it was in the days of Noah...so also the coming of the Son of Man...and they knew it not...and it took them all away." 8. We consume 40% more resources annually than the earth can renew, and the population continues to grow. 9. There came a point on the Titanic when everyone realized that trying to fix the plumbing was futile. Belatedly, those who were enthralled with discussing the thermodynamics of icebergs started swimming toward where the lifeboats had been. 10. What else can I say? It has been prophesied, and no one can stop it. Find out why, and take your place in the lifeboat. The reality of the Ark has unlimited room, but the door will not stay open forever. 11. If this preaching offends you & has no place in this forum (it doesn't); please forgive me. keeping my mouth shut does not relieve either my obligation or responsibility to care for those reading. Hear, seek, and receive Him! Not merely me. Written in Love, PaulGL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by PaulGL, posted 07-06-2012 12:45 PM PaulGL has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by PaulGL, posted 07-06-2012 1:49 PM PaulGL has not replied

  
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 3387 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 59 of 136 (667377)
07-06-2012 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by PaulGL
07-06-2012 1:04 PM


Other relevant E v C empirically testable issues
I. I still see no reasons not to think that: A. Man evolved. B. His evolution from primate to man was distinguished by his obtaining a spirit. C. This was possible only when he became capable of being responsible, which is dependent on obtaining free will, which is dependent on reaching a 'plateau' level of brain-to-body ratio. D. This is genetically determined. E. Such a 'plateau' threshold would require this first human to have a mate with an identical chromosomal makeup- which is possible only if she is cloned from him. F. This is recorded in the unique account of Eve's being built from Adam (not created as he was).
II. I also have not been shown empirical evidence that invalidates the probability that molecules became self-replicating in matrices of clay, also substantiated by the Genesis account of the content of man's physical being described as coming from (Hebrew) "red clay".
III. My challenge is for someone to present cogent evidence disproving these 2 hypotheses; or (failing that) explain why there is such an unmistakable correlation in the Biblical account.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by PaulGL, posted 07-06-2012 1:04 PM PaulGL has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by ringo, posted 07-06-2012 2:14 PM PaulGL has replied
 Message 61 by Coragyps, posted 07-06-2012 3:25 PM PaulGL has replied
 Message 62 by dwise1, posted 07-06-2012 3:50 PM PaulGL has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 60 of 136 (667379)
07-06-2012 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by PaulGL
07-06-2012 1:49 PM


Re: Other relevant E v C empirically testable issues
PaulGL writes:
His evolution from primate to man was distinguished by his obtaining a spirit.
How would "obtaining a spirit" be tested empirically?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by PaulGL, posted 07-06-2012 1:49 PM PaulGL has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by PaulGL, posted 07-10-2012 2:18 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024