Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 4:38 PM
28 online now:
AZPaul3, edge, jar, PaulK, ringo, Stile, Tangle, Theodoric (8 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,834 Year: 9,870/19,786 Month: 2,292/2,119 Week: 328/724 Day: 53/114 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Assumptions of ToE
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 1 of 32 (529265)
10-08-2009 5:52 PM


In the thread about whether the religious want scientific enquiry to end, slevesque made this statement:

An intelligent christian that rejects the ToE won't reject the science behind it, he will reject the assumptions and the interpretations behind it.

I replied:

This is a common creationist misconception.

There are really only two assumptions behind the ToE; our senses provide us with accurate information about the real world behind us, and our intellect allows us to come to reliable conclusions based on the evidence we see. Coincidentally, these are the same two assumptions upon which rest all of science.

There followed are series of exchanges between slevesque, me and several others who were pursuing the topic. Based on a Nosy Admin throwing his weight around, I propose this topic:

What are the assumptions that creationists think the ToE is based on, or upon which it relies? slevesque discussed to some degree the assumptions he thought Darwin made in Origin, and I wouldn't mind a bit of discussion of that, but mainly I'd like to focus on what assumptions the ToE relies on today.

Is it Science, I would think.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 6:07 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 10-08-2009 6:30 PM subbie has responded
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 10-09-2009 3:50 AM subbie has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 32 (529271)
10-08-2009 5:59 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Assumptions of ToE thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 3 of 32 (529276)
10-08-2009 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
10-08-2009 5:52 PM


Hockey tonight though, I can't continue discussing this right now. I'll drop by tomorrow hopefully to see how it has progressed. (Although if calypsis4 jumps in I'll have 57pages to read)

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 10-08-2009 5:52 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2009 4:22 AM slevesque has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 4 of 32 (529287)
10-08-2009 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
10-08-2009 5:52 PM


Assumptions
I think where science and creationism separate is the following:

Science works from data to conclusions, and in the process tests any necessary assumptions to see that they are supported.

Creationism has its conclusions provided a priori, and must make the data fit those conclusions--whether it will nor not. In doing so, creationists attack any assumptions made by scientists if those assumptions lead to the "wrong" answers.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 10-08-2009 5:52 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 10-08-2009 6:45 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 5 of 32 (529295)
10-08-2009 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote
10-08-2009 6:30 PM


Re: Assumptions
quote:
In doing so, creationists attack any assumptions made by scientists if those assumptions lead to the "wrong" answers.

I don't think that's what's really going on.

But, I want this thread to focus on what creationists think about the ToE, so I'll hold back on my thoughts about those "assumptions" until we hear further from some creationists.

If none choose to speak up, I'll expound on my ideas.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 10-08-2009 6:30 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 6 of 32 (529347)
10-09-2009 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
10-08-2009 5:52 PM


subbie writes:

What are the assumptions that creationists think the ToE is based on

my understanding of evolution is that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth.

imo you cant have evolution without some form of abiogenesis which is why i include that aspect into my definition...although im aware that evolutionists dont consider abiogenesis as part of the theory.

But thats kind of like me saying we were created without a creator.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 10-08-2009 5:52 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Izanagi, posted 10-09-2009 4:24 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 8 by hooah212002, posted 10-09-2009 6:51 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 9 by jacortina, posted 10-09-2009 8:32 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Blue Jay, posted 10-09-2009 11:05 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 11 by bluescat48, posted 10-09-2009 11:41 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 10-09-2009 3:19 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2009 6:23 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3389 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


(2)
Message 7 of 32 (529353)
10-09-2009 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peg
10-09-2009 3:50 AM


But thats kind of like me saying we were created without a creator.

I think a better analogy would be a rockslide. When you see a rockslide, you don't question how it started or who started it. What matters is where it is headed and can you get to safety. Evolution is that rockslide. There is no purpose or goal to it, it just goes. If you get hit by a rock from the rockslide, you can't say it was the will of the rockslide to hit you with a rock. Similarly with evolution, organisms survive and fail but you can't say that those organisms success or failure were the result of evolution's will. And the rockslide may have a natural or unnatural (manmade) reason for beginning but either way it doesn't negate the existence of the rocks tumbling down the mountain. Similarly, life may have a natural or supernatural reason for beginning, but how life began doesn't negate the fact that evolution exists.

Evolution is the rockslide. How it started doesn't matter... What matters is that the rockslide is occurring.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 10-09-2009 3:50 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 8 of 32 (529370)
10-09-2009 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peg
10-09-2009 3:50 AM


However, the only people who say that evolution needs abiogenesis are creationists.

From CreationWiki (emphasis mine):

Assumptions of Evolution

The general theory of evolution holds to the following historical claims:

* Big Bang: All matter in the universe started as a point of infinite density and temperature known as a singularity, which experienced a rapid inflation of matter that eventually evolved into stars, galaxies, and planets.
* Abiogenesis: That life on Earth arose spontaneously from non-living chemicals into an as-yet-undescribed self-replicating protocell;
* Common descent: That all organisms on Earth are related to each other, and descended from a single spontaneously-formed protocell;
* Cosmic chronology: That the universe, Earth, and life on Earth are old to the order of millions and billions of years.

“ Evolution is not merely a biological theory of little significance. It is a world view—the world view diametrically opposing the Christian world view. Therefore Christians ignore it or compromise with it at great peril!—Dr. Henry Morris, The Long War Against God, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1989, p. 23


The theory of evolution can be defined as follows:
“ the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.[6] ”

Now, regular Wiki (emphasis mine):

Origin of life
Further information: Abiogenesis and RNA world hypothesis

The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.[195] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred.[196] Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[197][198] Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA,[199] and the assembly of simple cells.[200]

How many scientists do you know that say evolution needs abiogenesis and without it, it cannot happen?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 10-09-2009 3:50 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
jacortina
Member (Idle past 3256 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 9 of 32 (529384)
10-09-2009 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peg
10-09-2009 3:50 AM


imo you cant have evolution without some form of abiogenesis which is why i include that aspect into my definition...although im aware that evolutionists dont consider abiogenesis as part of the theory.

What other science do you make this demand of?

Does Germ Theory also get rejected because IT doesn't include the origin of the life that IT depends on?

Do all of the earth sciences (geology, climatology, etc.) require the inclusion of a complete explanation of planetary formation to be included as THEY can't operate without a planet existing?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 10-09-2009 3:50 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 870 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 10 of 32 (529441)
10-09-2009 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peg
10-09-2009 3:50 AM


Hi, Peg.

Peg writes:

imo you cant have evolution without some form of abiogenesis...

Why? Created things can't change over time?

Please put some thought into this: it has been explained to you multiple times already.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 10-09-2009 3:50 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2362 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 11 of 32 (529455)
10-09-2009 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peg
10-09-2009 3:50 AM


The reason that evolution does not need to have abiogenesis to kick start it is that no matter how the first organisms came to be, the evolutionary changes occurred to those organisms. Also simply put, creation would be a form of abiogenesis since your God would had to make life from non-life which is abiogenesis.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 10-09-2009 3:50 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 12 of 32 (529486)
10-09-2009 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peg
10-09-2009 3:50 AM


quote:
imo you cant have evolution without some form of abiogenesis which is why i include that aspect into my definition...although im aware that evolutionists dont consider abiogenesis as part of the theory.

This strikes me, not so much as an assumption of the ToE, as an assumption of the PeG.

Do you have anything relevant to add to the actual topic of this thread?


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 10-09-2009 3:50 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ZenMonkey, posted 10-09-2009 4:49 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 26 by dwise1, posted 10-13-2009 3:49 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2683 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 13 of 32 (529506)
10-09-2009 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by subbie
10-09-2009 3:19 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
imo you cant have evolution without some form of abiogenesis which is why i include that aspect into my definition...although im aware that evolutionists dont consider abiogenesis as part of the theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This strikes me, not so much as an assumption of the ToE, as an assumption of the PeG.

Do you have anything relevant to add to the actual topic of this thread?

Nevertheless, in terms of the original question, I believe that Peg is right. In my experience, creationists commonly believe that ToE is based on an assumption of abiogenesis. I agree that they're not right, but it's what creationists think ToE assumes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 10-09-2009 3:19 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by bluescat48, posted 10-09-2009 8:18 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 14 of 32 (529557)
10-09-2009 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peg
10-09-2009 3:50 AM


The first life is unknown.
Hi Peg, I'm not sure this will help, but you need to be aware of the science evidence before making conclusions about what the science says.

my understanding of evolution is that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth.

In science, theory is based on evidence. From the available evidence one can form hypothesis to explain the evidence and then make predictions about what would happen if the hypothesis is true.

Curiously, when it comes to the origin of life on earth the evidence is inconclusive at best:

All evidence available from 4 billion years ago do not show evidence of life. One part of the problem is that there are no fossil bearing rocks that old, no sedimentary rocks. The rocks that age are all metamorphic, post volcanic, and heated to a temperature that would destroy all fossils. So we don't know whether life exist at that time.

The evidence is that the earth formed 4.55 billion years ago, and thus life could not be older than that and be of terrestrial origin.

The first evidence of life is from the oldest fossil bearing rock that has been found, it is 3.5 billion years old, and it shows active existing cellular life.

Thus there is no evidence of when life started on earth.

Evolution starts with what we know, which is that first known life, and works forward to the present.

Abiogenesis also starts with what we know, which is the first known life, and works backwards to where we know life did not exist.

BUT - at this point we don't know how life began.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 10-09-2009 3:50 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2362 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 15 of 32 (529599)
10-09-2009 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ZenMonkey
10-09-2009 4:49 PM


Nevertheless, in terms of the original question, I believe that Peg is right. In my experience, creationists commonly believe that ToE is based on an assumption of abiogenesis. I agree that they're not right, but it's what creationists think ToE assumes.

Unfortunately no matter how many times that it is brought out that Abiogenesis & Evolution are 2 different entities, they still don't get it.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ZenMonkey, posted 10-09-2009 4:49 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

    
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019