Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 9:32 AM
32 online now:
caffeine, candle2, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin), Stile, Tangle (7 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,004 Year: 9,040/19,786 Month: 1,462/2,119 Week: 222/576 Day: 25/98 Hour: 1/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
7Next
Author Topic:   Design evidence # 177: male & female
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 101 (32726)
02-20-2003 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Silent H
02-13-2003 9:23 PM


quote:
Now please explain how this is not the case regarding evolution, especially in light of what you said about how the problems stemmed from embracing Greek ideology over Biblical truth (which by the way I totally and completely agree with... see I don't always contradict!).

The answer to that is in that same article, today Evolutionism has become the "greek ideology", and dominates the system, see below:

"In many ways, the historic controversy of creation vs. evolution has been similar to Galileo's conflict, only with a reversal of roles. In the sixteenth century, Christian theism was the prevailing philosophy and the Catholic Church dominated the educational system. Those, like Galileo, who dedicated themselves to diligently search for truth found themselves at the unmerciful hands of the authorities whose theories they threatened. In the twentieth century, however, the philosophy of naturalism has become dominant, and science occupies the position of influence. Again, we note that the majority (regardless of whether it is right or wrong) will persecute those who dare to dispute their "traditional" theories; today the questionable theory of evolution is being challenged."
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c007.html

I think you would be wise to re-think your position.

Incidentally, I'm curious about your motives behind studying IC and ID, you seem to have read alot of Demski and Behe, what is your goal?

Regards,
S

------------------
Dr. D.M.S. Watson: "Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Silent H, posted 02-13-2003 9:23 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Gzus, posted 02-20-2003 9:56 AM DanskerMan has not yet responded
 Message 78 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2003 12:19 PM DanskerMan has not yet responded
 Message 83 by lpetrich, posted 02-21-2003 11:31 AM DanskerMan has responded

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 101 (32729)
02-20-2003 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by DanskerMan
02-20-2003 9:46 AM


Well, lets see, do we burn people at the stake for having religious views? I think not. We usually put aside our views on an every day basis, saving discussion for amusement in the small hours. Many religious people hold positions of authority just as evolutionists do. In fact, we discuss our views in a very civilised and peaceful manner, i don't see that christians (at least in the western world) are persecuted, do you?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by DanskerMan, posted 02-20-2003 9:46 AM DanskerMan has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 78 of 101 (32734)
02-20-2003 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by DanskerMan
02-20-2003 9:46 AM


quote:
The answer to that is in that same article, today Evolutionism has become the "greek ideology", and dominates the system, see below:

Unfortunately that is not the answer. The article is talking about a role reversal where post greek thought (enlightenment era naturalism) is now in the persecuting role that the church (using greek thought)once held.

This does not mean that evos have accepted greek thought, and does not excuse continued use of greek thought in interpreting scripture (which is what Dembski is doing and what was being criticized originally).

IOW the article addresses a completely different issue. You must still address the problem of retaining greek interpretations of scripture.

quote:
Incidentally, I'm curious about your motives behind studying IC and ID, you seem to have read alot of Demski and Behe, what is your goal?

This is a very long story. I could use Dembski, Wells, and Behe's common answer to your question... motive doesn't matter... but unlike them I do feel it is a fair question.

Wow, actually the more I think about it, the history is huge. The shortest answer is this: In preparation for two different documentaries (one was basic cosmological research) I accidentally stumbled upon a Xtian webring devoted to proving YE theories. As a philosopher-scientist and researcher I was hooked (I give every theory a try).

ID theory, which interestingly enough is anti-YE and its proponents state that creationists hate them, ended up being the only theory to have some marginal scientific validity. Wells does an excellent job of finding bad science done in the name of evo, and Behe raises some interesting questions.

Unfortunately Wells does not realize his criticisms are not anti-evo, and that criticisms do not support ID theory, and Behe makes some important logical missteps (I blame Dembski's guidance) as well as some premature claims to knowledge.

I think much of ID theory and Behe's work will become important in future forensics work as genetic engineering becomes prevalent... and not so much about learning about the past.

Enough said for now.

holmes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by DanskerMan, posted 02-20-2003 9:46 AM DanskerMan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2003 2:35 PM Silent H has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15037
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 79 of 101 (32745)
02-20-2003 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Silent H
02-20-2003 12:19 PM


Just to correct a couple of points and then offer my own impressions.

ID is not anti-YE, they just don't talk about the age of the Earth. At least one prominent IDer (Paul Nelson) is known to be a YEC. The ID movement has been attacked by at least one YEC group (Answers in Genesis) for not insisting on a young Earth.

There is no sign that ID will be useful in any field. If Dembski had tried to work out a general theory of how to detect design instead of trying to prove that life is designed then MAYBE he would have got somewhere. But is there any example where his "explanatory filter" has been usefully applied to any situation ? To the best of my knowledge the answer is "no".

To the best of my knowledge Wells has not identified ANY "bad science" done in the name of evolution - instead he chose to attack High Schoool text books.

My own view of Wells is that his approach was contemptible. Firstly he chose a "soft target" - the quality of science textbooks in general is not what anyone would like, as shown by a report issued by the Fordham Foundation at about the same time, and textbooks at that level often have to simplify their material for practical reasons. Even then he had to go over the top - the whole peppered moth discussion boils down to trivialities like using a staged photograph to illustrate the appearance of the two varieties. And since there are few if any creationists who would have any real objections to the peppered moth story at all the whole thing seems to be no more that an excuse to produce dubious accusations of fraud (and I have seen evidence that suggests that Wells engaged in intentional dishonesty in that chapter).

Behe is going nowhere. In _Darwin's Black Box_ he wrote off indirect routes for the evolution of irreducibly complex systems as being too unlikely to consider. But I have never seen any serious attempt to back up this claim or quantify it.

I put Dembski between Wells and Behe - nearer to Behe to be sure, but perhaps getting worse as tiem goes on. His failure to deal with most of Orr's criticisms of "No Free Lunch" is a case in point. As is his "Displacement Problem" which seems to be no more than question begging. Indeed, it seems that he tends to confuse his version of "specified complexity" (which had not been shown to apply to any living thing) with other versions (where complexity does NOT refer to improbability) which are agreed to apply to life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2003 12:19 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2003 9:45 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 80 of 101 (32784)
02-20-2003 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by PaulK
02-20-2003 2:35 PM


Grrrrrr... I wrote a nice long reply and my computer ate it as I posted.

Let's just say that with a few differences I agree with your overall assessment... only I put Dembski dead last and I think Wells does provide some useful examples of bad scientific and education practices (unfortunately some of it is his own writing).

holmes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2003 2:35 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by John, posted 02-21-2003 8:18 AM Silent H has not yet responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 101 (32802)
02-21-2003 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Silent H
02-20-2003 9:45 PM


quote:
Grrrrrr... I wrote a nice long reply and my computer ate it as I posted.

oooohhh... I hate that. I've gotten into the habit of saving copies to a text file as I go.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2003 9:45 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 101 (32814)
02-21-2003 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by DanskerMan
02-20-2003 9:36 AM


From Sonnikke's posting:
quote:
S:There are always two sides to every story.

Ip:Bull excrement.
--------------------
There are not two sides to every story? Please show how this is bull excrement.


And what was your point? That the Church was justified in making Galileo recant heliocentrism?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by DanskerMan, posted 02-20-2003 9:36 AM DanskerMan has not yet responded

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 101 (32815)
02-21-2003 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by DanskerMan
02-20-2003 9:46 AM


As to Biblical astronomy, much of it is clarified by the noncanonical book 1 Enoch. According to it:

  • The Earth is flat.
  • The sky is a solid bowl overhead.
  • The Sun, Moon, and stars move inside of it along its surface.
  • When a celestial body sets, it goes through a door in the bowl, goes along the outer edge, goes through another door in the bowl, and then rises.
  • The Sun has different doors to rise and set through for different times of year.
  • The stars are animate objects; there is a jail for stars that dawdle.
Although 1 Enoch is fairly reasonable about directly-observable aspects, like the Sun's different rising and setting azimuths during the year and circumpolar stars, it is less reasonable about other aspects, making Ptolemy's cosmology seem relatively reasonable. While 1 Enoch does not have any reasonable explanation for the stars moving in lockstep, Ptolemy does.

Sonnikke:
"In many ways, the historic controversy of creation vs. evolution has been similar to Galileo's conflict, only with a reversal of roles. ...
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c007.html

Crackpots have long been fond of comparing themselves to Galileo.

Incidentally, I'm curious about your motives behind studying IC and ID, you seem to have read alot of Demski and Behe, what is your goal?

Let him speak for himself. And the same question can be asked about creationists and evolution -- why are they so obsessed with the idea of evolution? Could it be that creationists unconsciously know that evolution is true?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by DanskerMan, posted 02-20-2003 9:46 AM DanskerMan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by DanskerMan, posted 02-21-2003 11:47 AM lpetrich has not yet responded

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 101 (32817)
02-21-2003 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by lpetrich
02-21-2003 11:31 AM


quote:
And the same question can be asked about creationists and evolution -- why are they so obsessed with the idea of evolution? Could it be that creationists unconsciously know that evolution is true?

Could it be that believing in evolution leads a person to everlasting judgement in Hell, and thus the creationist, whose purpose it is to lead people to Christ, is doing everything they can to prevent more people from being misled by the greatest lie ever told?
YES, I think so!
-------------------------
Løvtrup, Søren, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), 469 pp.
p. 422
“I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar ‘Darwinian’ vocabulary—‘adaptation,’ ‘selection pressure,’ ‘natural selection,’ etc.—thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events. They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we shall be able to make real progress in our understanding of evolution.
“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science”
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by lpetrich, posted 02-21-2003 11:31 AM lpetrich has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Silent H, posted 02-21-2003 12:40 PM DanskerMan has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 85 of 101 (32820)
02-21-2003 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by DanskerMan
02-21-2003 11:47 AM


quote:
Could it be that believing in evolution leads a person to everlasting judgement in Hell, and thus the creationist, whose purpose it is to lead people to Christ, is doing everything they can to prevent more people from being misled by the greatest lie ever told?
YES, I think so!

Too bad the church had this same attitude when punishing Galileo because they decided to stick with Greek-style interpretations of scripture. They were wrong, and it turns out believing in heliocentism would not lead anyone to hellfire.

Now with that same zeal, creationists are sticking with a Greek-style interpretation of scripture regarding life. Same ends, same method, just as wrong as before.

Or are you going to provide some evidence that this is not the case? I have shown that your last response did not address this matter at all.

holmes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by DanskerMan, posted 02-21-2003 11:47 AM DanskerMan has not yet responded

    
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 101 (32853)
02-22-2003 1:23 AM


I think that Sonnikke's most recent comments are Pascalian merde de taureau.

However, I think that I can out-Pascal him.

Sonnikke dies, and then an angel decides to give him a look at the history of his ancestors. The tour goes OK for the first 100,000-200,000 years ago, despite the absence of Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel incident. But as the angel travels further backwards in time, Sonnikke notices something disquieting -- his ancestors start getting a bit simian. And less capable of language and fancy tool making. The angel travels further, and Sonnikke watches his ancestors get more and more simian, becoming upright-walking apes, and then not much different from Bonzo the Chimp. The angel tells him that that's evolution in action -- descent with modification -- and describes how delighted Charles Darwin had been to go on a similar tour.


Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by nator, posted 02-23-2003 8:51 AM lpetrich has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 334 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 87 of 101 (32919)
02-23-2003 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by lpetrich
02-22-2003 1:23 AM


And then Sonnike will have to go answer to God for how he wasted his God-given intelligence by worshipping the simplistic interpretation of one of God's holy books instead of being observant of the world around him.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by lpetrich, posted 02-22-2003 1:23 AM lpetrich has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by DanskerMan, posted 03-03-2003 11:52 PM nator has not yet responded

    
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 101 (33594)
03-03-2003 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by nator
02-23-2003 8:51 AM


And then Sonnike will have to go answer to God for how he wasted his God-given intelligence by worshipping the simplistic interpretation of one of God's holy books instead of being observant of the world around him.

Ironically you are going to have to answer to God *why* you *didn't* see Him, in the "world around" you.

S.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by nator, posted 02-23-2003 8:51 AM nator has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18483
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 89 of 101 (33618)
03-04-2003 9:39 AM


Topic Drift Alert
Thread will be closed if discussion of the original topic is complete.

------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

(accidentally posted as Percy)

[This message has been edited by Admin, 03-04-2003]


    
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 101 (34625)
03-18-2003 9:23 AM


Just to get back to the topic...

According to the Creation model God created male and female (humans & animals) and told them to be fruitful and multiply. Is that what we observe? yes.
According to Creation there were two sexes created, is that what we observe? yes.
According to Creation male and female were made to compliment each other and be attracted to each other, is that what we observe? yes.

According to ToE there was one common ancestor and no specification as to how many sexes, why are there only two?
According to ToE even *if* two sexes had evolved simultaneously, which is impossible, but for the sake of argument, assuming they "fit" and that their reproductive systems complimented each other (the details of which are so complex that that alone would blow the theory out of the water), they would have to *acquire* a desire for each other which is not a heritable trait and thus doesn't explain why men and women are attracted to each other.

The observable facts *clearly* shout Creation Creation Creation.

------------------
"We arrive at the truth, not by the reason only, but also by the heart."
Blaise Pascal


Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by John, posted 03-18-2003 9:46 AM DanskerMan has responded
 Message 94 by Quetzal, posted 03-18-2003 10:54 AM DanskerMan has responded
 Message 100 by lpetrich, posted 03-20-2003 3:39 AM DanskerMan has not yet responded
 Message 101 by Peter, posted 03-20-2003 7:01 AM DanskerMan has not yet responded

  
Prev12345
6
7Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019