Evolution is also a belief, together with atheism.
I can reverse your reasoning because it doesn't prove anything. Example;
It is only those who have accepted certain beliefs for religious reasons who can't then accept creation
Afterall you only need to look at the comments of famous evolutionists. In many, many books they admitt that evolution, to them, is much, much more than just a scientific theory.
Afterall Coyote, I recall showing you ad nauseum that evidence is something that follows as the consequent in a conditional implication.
Therefore, you religiously believe that static fossil designs should NOT follow of creation is true.
i.e. You religiously believe that if a fossilized frog is pretty much the same as a modern from apart from superficial differences such as size, that this should NOT follow if creation was true.
So then - answer me NOT religiously, what SHOULD follow? Are you saying that CHANGE is what should follow, if creation is true, that is, special creation?
Now if this mass preservation of evidence did not favour creation, then I would, as you say, religiouslly wilfully not learn. But you're all wrong my friend, I actually have learnt evolution, it simply does not follow logically that if you are creationist you cannot learn.
You conflated learning with truth. Even learning the hypothetics of evolution does not mean that evolution is true, nore a majority consensus of religious materialist naturalists.
How astonishingly arrogant that you claim I have not learnt evolution theory. I have. I have learnt many things. Believe it or not the argument that you haven't got any credentials is a fallacious appeal to authority.
My father for example, has no qualifications in medicine, but has the most extensive knowledge of it imaginable because he wanted to be a doctor.
So don't tell us you have "learned" evolution. Spend six years in graduate school studying the field, as I have, and maybe you will learn something.
No, logically that is not a sound assertion because it does not follow that I need to spend six years in graduate school to learn things, it is quite possible to learn on your own.
You're under the belief that education = evolutionist.
I'm afraid it is simply not the case. One can know stuff without believing it.
It's like if I tell you a joke, and you don't laugh, you don't get the joke, right? Wrong! You simply don't find it funny.
It's the same with evolution - I get the joke, I just don't find it funny. Even if I was the best authority on earth on evolution, and knew more than the most ardent scientific evolutionist, I would still not find evolution to be true.
Here are some quotes pertaining to the evolution-belief system;
“We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation …” [Emphasis added] Professor Jerome Lejeune, in a lecture given in Paris on March 17, 1985, translated by Peter Wilders.
“In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be ‘wrong.’ A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?” [Emphasis added] Kemp, Tom S., “A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record,” New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985,
It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ... Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative.” [Emphasis added] Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution.” [Emphasis added] Gould, Stephen J., ‘Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?’ Paleobiology, Vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127.
“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.” [Emphasis added] Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4.
By the way, you chose to religiously ignore me. If I am so unworthy, oh superior one, then tell me all about the evidence I was talking about, and tell me what would "count" as creation evidence.
But no, instead you repeat the same old indoctrinated evolutionist-jargon;
But, because your beliefs are not based on evidence you won't change them because of any evidence
So the pre-cambrian lack of intermediates was not considered evidence by Gould? What about the cambrian explosion, this is what was expected should evolution be true, and wasn't a problem for evolutionists?
Are fossils, the majority, that show the same basic forms, something that should NOT follow if creation was true? Are you saying CHANGE morphologically, SHOULD evidence creation, rather than fixity?
They are simple requests and yet you have never answered me before, yet you bleet things about me when you don't even know me. Here I am discussing evidence, or trying to show it's definition to you, and yet you seem to want to say things about me, rather than the facts.
You are the one being religious, because all of your assertion do not come with any sound logical inferences, as I have shown them to be empty and fallacious. But by all means bleet that I am an ignorant, stupid creationist that knows nothing compared to Coyote superior, I'm sure atleast you will believe it.
(p.s. Coyote, please go back and read your posts to me in the past. They are all the same. You put your fingers in your ears and shout dogmatic things at nasty, ignorant mikey.)
I say I can know the information about the ToE, without coming to believe it to be true, and also, this in itself (learning it), does not make it true.
The common allusion is that a creationist doesn't know that evolution is true or factual, because of a lack of knowledge. It's begging the question because it assumes the correctness or truth of a theory, where science makes no such claim of theories, because of the nature of the method, guided by logical rules. (The induction build-up versus the power of the tollens falsification deduction.)
I don't let what I "believe" negate what I know. Beliefs can influence how you interact with reality but they don't effect how reality works.
You're stating the obvious.
I accept that evolution is true because of what (little) I do know about evolution.
I accept that evolution is false (or atleast the major conclusions) because of the little mankind knows about the universe, and because of the powerful evidence of design I have studied. (A good beginning for such study is Werner Gitt's "in the beginning was information")and I have learnt where, why, and when the evolution theory began, and the purposes behind it, which are not driven by merely a search for facts.
So I accept design because of facts. I have not been led to any genuine reasons as to why these are not facts and evidences of a designer, only the ad nauseam assertions that they are not.
But like you, I know evolution is true mostly, I agree with most of the findings of the scientists.
I believe in many of the following;
Genetic drift natural selection mutations isolated population the homo genus all of the fossils speciation micro-evolution adaptation allele frequencies normalised selection etc,
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. I do disagree with poor beliefs such as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, and the ridiculous gill-slits inferred from the branchial folds in the developing foetus, but I think this is generally not held as good science anymore.
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)
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!
There are over 200 geochronometers that suggest a young earth.
Some of them are;
The amount of mud at the mouth of major rivers Light 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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
No - the cosmological constant was his gravest error, he admitted it.
Perhaps you conflate that with what I mean about light being relative? I am saying that he proved that light, previously held as the most unchangeable, fixed thing, could be bent by gravity. That is A L L I am saying.
The thing about it is that Dawkins himself would clearly admitt these things. I don't think the quotes are showing that those people do not believe or are persuaded in evolution, the intention is to show that they have more than just an acceptance of the theory.
I mean, come on Percy - look at Dawkins' books, do you seriously think he merely accepts evolution because it is powerfully evidenced?
The real world shows me design. Unfortunately this, by happenstance, is not always scientifically satisfying, but I can't change reality for you. Evolution is only powerful to believers in it. Honest evolutionists will freely admitt the problems such as the pre-Cambrian.
This is too far off topic to comment on the errors, but you should probably avoid drawing your examples from physics
Well, there's no error, all I done was put the general argument into the framework of a conditional implication. I have to in order to show how the logic works, therefore did I state, very elegantly and specifically, what he EXACTLY stated? No, ofcourse not, my point was to show how logical confirmation is viable.
Even in your quotes you seem disinterested in tying your beliefs to reality.
I'm afraid my thoughts are quite clear, and indeed, not to boast - but quite cleverly correct.
I think this last inference stems from your opinions.
If you want to remove reality from my eyes, you can show how DNA does not contain nucleotides, does not contain the maximum density of information, does not contain semantics, the difference between a thumb and a tail.
These REALITIES are crystal clear. The truism of design, as per usual, is intact, despite the disputations.