|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationist: Before you start debating evolutionists.. | |||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
quote: Might well be but I have never seen it claimed without evidence.
quote: I don't have them because I never implied this. I do remember a certain "Dr" Hovind..ring a bell?
quote: Again since I never called creationists incompetent or liers I don't have this evidence.
quote: Fair enough. Although I would then be far happier just calling them creationists to avoid any percieved insult from the quotations. I am not willing to call them scientists when refering to their work in a mostly religious endevour, especially when they attempt to pass creation science off as real science.
quote: I'm glad you liked it ------------------compmage [This message has been edited by compmage, 04-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5902 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi Cobra: I know you originally addressed this to Percy, but I'm bored, have no meetings until this afternoon, and I've already signed off on all the bi-monthly P&L and expense documentation - so you're stuck with my undivided attention. Sorry.
quote: I don't agree, here, if by "evolutionary scientists" you mean biologists. Abiogenesis is pure organic chemistry, nothing more. Biologists might crow about another example of natural processes being proven, but it still wouldn't be a part of evolution. Chemicals don't evolve. Don't confuse evolutionary science with a non-existent "theory of everything". It isn't, and isn't intended to be. Evolution explains the diversity of life. Period.
quote: This is kind of a non-sequitur. In addition, "materialistic naturalism" seems to be redundant. Is there "non-material or supernatural naturalism"? I think you're confusing the empiricism of the scientific method with "philosophical naturalism", which is a philisophical position stating that "nothing exists outside of nature". Science merely states that science isn't capable of measuring or detecting anything outside of nature - not that the supernatural doesn't exist. This is a very crucial distinction. "Scientism" and "philosphical naturalism" are both subsets of an essentially atheistic worldview. Science itself does not adhere to either position - theist or atheist. Science is by definition agnostic, I guess.
quote: I'll let Percy answer this one.
quote: First off, what is "operational science"? I've never heard that term before. Secondly, if you DON'T place the restriction that "science deals with nature only" on origins science, you have removed the entire idea from the realms of science, and placed it firmly into theology. If it isn't natural (and therefore the rightful purview of science) then it is by definition supernatural - and hence the realm of faith and theology. With a bit of metaphysics ("What is life?") thrown in for good measure.
quote: Simply put: you cannot use your conclusion ("creation happened") as proof of your postulate ("a creator exists"). This is commonly called circular or tautological reasoning. I would very much like to hear your explanation how SETI (a technological search for signs of extra-terrestrial technology) has anything to do with a supernatural creator.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
You're missing the point. 2LOT resides within the realm of physics and chemistry, and physicists and chemists are the scientists with the best understanding of that law. Independent of whether they accept evolution or not (and virtually all do), they understand better than anyone else that evolution doesn't violate 2LOT. But this takes us off the original point I was making. If Creationists had a legitimate case concerning 2LOT then they would be taking their arguments to scientific journals and conferences instead of to school boards and public debates before laypeople.
Have you ever read material from ICR or CRS, the two most prominent YEC organizations? Visit their websites and let me know how often they mention closed systems when describing 2LOT. Duane Gish of ICR used to travel the country debating evolutionists, and at each stop he would describe 2LOT without mentioning closed systems.
This is nonsense, not a 2LOT argument. Simple common sense reasoning reveals the fallacy. This "bull in a china shop" energy from the sun is what powers all life here on earth, including reproduction. This supposed "raw energy" from the sun does not require any transformation into "productive energy" - it's already productive energy. As for evolution, when a reproductive mistake (mutation) occurs the energy behind the chemical reactions producing that mistake is ultimately the sun. Life is just chemical reactions, and heat is one of the most common ways to encourage chemical reactions, simple dumb-old brute-force heat. You might try thinking about this while you try to figure out the difference between "raw energy" and "productive energy". I assume by "productive energy" you were thinking about things like electricity. Well, try plugging your plant into the wall and see if it does better than putting it in a well-lit window. Productive energy is whatever form of energy does the job, and for most organic life here on earth the sun's energy is right on the money. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
No, they don't. You must have misunderstood some debated issue within evolution. An evolutionist who didn't accept the accumulation of small change into eventual significant differences would be analogous to an atheistic Creationist. It wouldn't make any sense.
What's to prevent it? If I keep putting one foot in front of the other I could eventually end up in San Francisco. Of course, I couldn't walk to Tokyo because of the Pacific Ocean. What is your evolutionary analog to the Pacific Ocean? Like I said, life is just chemical reactions. If chemical reactions are not the vehicle for evolution, then what is? If your answer is God then you're not necessarily wrong, but you're certainly not doing science. At least not until you have empirical evidence for God. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
The foundation of science and the basis of the scientific method is empiricism, usually traced to the 17th century philosopher Francis Bacon. However, an idea's value is not a function of its age but of its power and cogency. Even if empiricism had been developed yesterday, you have to address it on the merits instead of dismissing it as a mere youth.
That's nice, but the foundational principles of science are the same regardless of the particular field of study.
Well, let's go back to Paley. Paley finds a watch in a meadow and deduces that it was manufactured by humans. He has a lot of evidence for humans, and in fact is one himself. He knows they exist for he is among them daily, and he is intimately familiar with their abilities. What is your equivalent evidence for a creator? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Ah, I see we have a revisionist in our midst. If this is true then why are the quotes often accompanied by statements like, "Scientists are coming to recognize the serious problems with evolutionary theory." Or the ever popular, "More and more scientists are abandoning the theory of evolution." How about this quote provided by Redstang critiquing how radiometric dating is done (he didn't say where he got it, so obviously I don't know where it comes from, either): " ... the thing to do is get a sequence of dates and throw out those that are vastly anomalous." (Curtis et al) The Creationist quoting tactic is not intended to highlight obscure debates within evolutionist circles, which is where most of these quotes come from and with which almost no Creationist is familiar or interested, but rather to paint a highly misleading and inaccurate portrait of a theory in trouble and on the run. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Life, at a fundamental level, is enabled by chemical reactions. Given the approriate raw materials (i.e. chemicals), the bull-likeheat/radiant energy from the sun can be quite effective in prviding energy to help promote chemical reactions. As for a mechanism to convert this raw solar energy ... well I'm guessing that photosynthesis fits, and must have developed very early in the history of life on earth. ... but it's all rather redundant ... if a law in physics issaid to be invalid under particular circumstances ... like in a open system rather than a closed ... then the law is invalid and cannot be used to make predictions about that situation. Newton's laws of motion are valid within a single inertial referenceframe ... outside of such constraints they do not produce the correct predictions ... it would be wrong to reference them is a discussion outside of their remit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Sometimes evolution proceeds from more complex to less complex. For example, the evolutionary history of the horse shows that it used to have multiple toes on each limb, but now only has one toe, with vesigial splint bones on either side of the main, large tarsal (cannon) bone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
I wanted to come back to this once more in case you still don't believe Creationists misrepresent 2LOT:
Here are some examples of misrepresentation of 2LOT by ICR. They're in chronological order and represent increasingly sophisticated distortions and/or misrepresentations. Doesn't mentioned closed system requirement: EVOLUTION, THERMODYNAMICS, AND ENTROPY - IMPACT No. 3 Describes the controversy over Creationism's misrepresentation of 2LOT, then goes on to misstate 2LOT anyway: ENTROPY AND OPEN SYSTEMS - IMPACT No. 40 States that earth is an open system, but implies that pre-coded program and an energy conversion mechanism are required: THERMODYNAMICS AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE - IMPACT No. 57 THERMODYNAMICS AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Part II) - IMPACT No. 58 Mentions the dishonesty issue, then goes on to again misstate 2LOT anyway: DOES ENTROPY CONTRADICT EVOLUTION? - IMPACT No. 141 Why do Creationists do this? Because the argument has proven so successful with lay audiences. You yourself are a perfect example of the success of this approach. There is nothing in 2LOT to rule out evolution, but it just sounds so plausible, and so you and millions like you have become convinced that 2LOT says evolution isn't possible and that evolutionists are burying their head in the sand on the issue and hoping it will go away. This issue doesn't feel like it's going away anytime soon, but I do hold out hope. The moon dust issue hung around for a couple decades before finally disappearing, and the The Puluxy River footprints issue was popular for a while, but eventually even Creationists began dismissing these arguments. It will probably have to be the same with 2LOT. Certainly the ID people like Behe understand 2LOT is not a problem for evolution - would you listen to them? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3247 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
Hello Cobra, couple of comments concerning your 2LOT statements.
quote: I think that I responded to you on this one in a different thread. There is a big problem here with your arguement that actually reflects on the entire creationist arguement using 2LOT. It has to do with reversible vs irreversible thermo. Simply put if a reaction is irreversible the delta S is always positive, however if a reaction is reversible in a thermo sense then the delta S can be positive or negative. Thermodynamics allows for the transfer of entropy (entropy is just another measurement of energy flow in the same way that enthalpy is) within a system. In other words, one area or compartment of a system may decrease in entropy while another increases in entropy allowing for the increase in entropy of the system as a whole. Entropy definitely does transfer within the universe so regions within a solar system could have a decrease in entropy without effecting the net increase in entropy in the solar system and the universe as a whole. This also happens in your body, everytime that you form a sulfer-sulfer bond in a protein the reaction results in a slight DECREASE in entropy at the site of the reaction as the delta S for the reaction is negative. The delta S for the entire system (you and yoru environment) is still positive so there is no violation. Part of what describes this is called the Clausian Inequality (at least in my thermo book and my PChem book).
quote: Actually you are correct with some but incorrect with others. I have heard some of the most disingenuous claims by creationists who have had themo in their denial of reversible thermo and its effects.
quote: A closed system taken as a whole, yes. However that says nothing about the distribution of entropy within that system.
quote: I have, most of the ones at Answers in Genesis, ICR, and True Origens either skip the closed system or skip the reversible thermo or both. Some of them just completely bollox it up.
quote: Actually there is a little bit of a problem here as well. The light coming from the sun is actually energy in a very ordered state. At least that used by most plants. This makes it low entropy energy. The waste energy given off from plants which used light from the sun (ie heat) is about the most dissordered energy around, ie very high in entropy. Yes, photosynthesis does convert the energy, but photosynthesis is actually a reasonably defined biochemical process, evolutionarily speaking.
[QUOTE]"Look, life is really complicated, but at heart it's just chemicals reacting with one another. When the result of these chemical reactions is an organism different from the parent then evolution has taken place." The question is whether or not these small changes can account for all of life as we see it.[/B][/QUOTE] [/quote] Yes that is the debate. However, 2LOT is not a bar to the small changes accumulating. ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Step 2: Scoring. Count up the number of times you answered "yes". If this number is zero, proceed to step 3. Otherwise slam your head against the wall as many times as you answered "yes" and go back to step 1."
--What a hoot. Got an 'A' there. Though of course any Evolutionary knowledgable person would question these questions: "3. Does evolution say anything about the origin of life? 4. Does evolution say anything about the origin of the universe?"--Clarification on 3 and 4 would have been 'biological evolution'. "6. Does evolution proceed from simplicity to complexity?"--They should have clarified on the point of is this an 'always' pattern as they did in question #1, because it does and it doesn't do this. "7. Does evolution proceed from lower to higher lifeforms?"--See last comment. "8. Does evolution incorporate the notion of progress?"--This either needs clarification or the answer is Yes, Evolution = Developement, Developement = Progression. "11. Is evolution incompatible with any major religion?"--Not too valid on the point that it is opinionated. "12. Is it true that their are no transitional forms?"--Much too flexible. "Step 3: Materials. Do you have any materials authored by members of the ICR? If so throw them away. Use them here and you will be held responsible for the baltant lies and stupidity in them."--Well aren't we biased! "Step 4: Conventional Science Quotes. Are you planning to present quotes from conventional scientists that seem to express disagreement with evolution? If so, make sure that you have them from the original sources and that they are quoted in full and in context. If you have misquotes and typical creationist butcher jobs, you will be destroyed without mercy. Step 5: Creationist Quotes. If you have quotes from creationists, they'd better be supported. And if the creationists claim educational or scientific backgrounds, degrees, titles, and such, you'd better check them and make sure they are accurate. If we catch you quoting liars, we will treat you as a liar yourself. Step 6: Anecdotes. If you have stories of things that you think bolster your case, be prepared to cite verifiable specifics. Be assured that you will be checked up on."--No problem. --Is it just me or does it come to mind that Dr. Pepper isn't very fond of Creationism on any grounding? I guess that after looking at some of the steps, compmage should slam his head against the wall as many times as I made comment on the questions, or is this Dr. Peppers job? Heck, why not both do it. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
quote: Wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with simplicity or complexity.
quote: Same, but for lower and higher lifeforms. Nothing to do with evolution.
quote: Wrong again. Evolution does not equal development. Evolution equals change.
quote: Evolution doesn't comment at all about the nature of god(s). Any incompatibility is in the eyes of the religious (opinion).
quote: Only flexible if you are trying to assert that there are no transitionals.
quote: Biased, perhaps. Fed up, more likely. ------------------compmage
|
|||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with simplicity or complexity."
--Your only resort is to say that complexity is simply opinionated, which it is not. Nucleotide sequencing in length and composition on biochemical grounds is extreamly compex, and it is even hightened in complexity and structure as you view sequencing of more 'advanced' organisms. This process according to evolutionary theory simply fluctuates and is not a linear prospect of 'simplicity to complexity', but simply 'decent with modification'. "Same, but for lower and higher lifeforms. Nothing to do with evolution."--Not directly of course, see my last statements. "Wrong again. Evolution does not equal development. Evolution equals change."--Please consult a dictionary: quote: --I think you see what I am pin-pointing. "Evolution doesn't comment at all about the nature of god(s). Any incompatibility is in the eyes of the religious (opinion)."--Exactly. "Only flexible if you are trying to assert that there are no transitionals."--The same pertains if you are to argue that there are. (also, transitional should have been defined) "Biased, perhaps. Fed up, more likely."--I'm glad that it were not you that had wrote it (unless your Dr. Pepper), he seemingly either has a missunderstanding of his own belief or chose not to include a more sufficient essay. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
quote: However, as you state evolution doesn't say anything about 'simplicity' or 'complexity'. Any change would be evolution. Therefore evolution doesn't care about either of these. To say evolution 'creates' organism to move from simplicity to complexity is to misunderstand evolution. Evolution doesn't 'go' anywhere, it has no direction or goal.
quote: I wouldn't look in a dictionary for the definition of a scientific theory. Evolution is change. Development implies a goal or a direction. Evolution has none. Any percieved 'development' stems from the assumption that our current state is the goal or is along the path toward the goal of evolution. We are not the pinicle of evolution.
quote: Exactly. If 'you' personally misinterpret evolution and percieve an incompatability, that would be 'your' problem. It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with 'you'.
quote: Almost every fossil species ever discovered is in some way transitional. ------------------compmage
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Seems to me we can not go forward beacuse debate as "mock" really is a joke but if one understands the economy of creationism one reality emerges that shows that debating clubs while worthwhile for some areas of academic progress will not socially cut the mustard that Gish and others have leveled on origns etc.
This is new with my generation. And with the "debate" there. Here I mean, I expected that those who stared it wanted a solution. There are some technically available but since Johnson and ID I have been flooded that I can barely keep my Zimmer Zipped and my mouth not tongue in cheek. A sneaker net still works even though IT has moved on to call this a dino legacy of those who indeed do and can read. Debating in 70s was cool but meanwhile I was creating a 4-H herpetology club that acutally used debate once in talking about evolution and as teen agers we had not the stamina to keep this thing going all these years and moved on to the knowledge representation. Those who build networks are aware but have not learned what a bunch of teen agers in central Jersey got by word of mouth before the having to have responsibility for a payroll over over. There is such a thing as reverse genetic engineering. This is not what connects networks today.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024