Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8994 total)
48 online now:
Juvenissun, Tangle (2 members, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,234 Year: 10,982/23,288 Month: 234/1,763 Week: 201/390 Day: 21/69 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   questions evolutionists can't or won't answer
nator
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 15 of 141 (10369)
05-25-2002 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by degreed
05-25-2002 12:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by degreed:
[b]Actually, Jeff, his point has some validity. Most evolutionists that get backed into a corner by someone with a really good scientific background end up going in the direction of naturalism; that is, that true science shouldn't even consider theories that aren't purely naturalistic in nature.[/QUOTE]

That is correct. Science, by definition, does not address the supernatural.

quote:
If an evolutionist is at least open to the possibility of creation,

...then they have left science. Once they have left science, science cannot contribute any evidence in support of someone's metaphysics or religious notions.

[QUOTE]and is willing to let the testable, objective data show us the way, then we don't need to talk about background radiation. If we have to go back further to remind ourselves that current naturalistic explanations provide very poor alternatives to the initial creation event, then phillip's point is timely...[/b]


So, are you saying that because science or naturalism cannot explain everything all at once, then Creationism must be correct?

Sorry, that is a logical fallacy. All of science could be utterly incorrect, but that doesn't make Creationism correct in the least. IT isn't an either-or situation.

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by degreed, posted 05-25-2002 12:04 PM degreed has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 141 (10371)
05-25-2002 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by degreed
05-25-2002 2:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by degreed:
[b]Isn't it a little tough to say that science will cease to exist if we allow ourselves to believe that a supernatural being had a hand in all of this?[/QUOTE]

There is a reason the supernatural was eventually expunged from scientific methodology.

As Joe said, if science can ever simply say that "Godidit", then scientific inquiry is stopped cold.

It explains everything, so it explains nothing.

quote:
We should continue to pursue the how and to test what we think we know.

Except that there is no reason to continue to explore past "Godidit", isn't there?

quote:
Attributing creation does not preclude science.

It does if you think that one can scientifically provide evidence for God.

OTOH, I know many good scientists who belive in God; more so as they tease out some mysterious natural mechanism. But they would never think that scientific evidence for God exists.

quote:
Even if we were to all agree on creation, the Creator obviously used extremely precise and constant laws of physics and nature to define the universe. The science lies in continuing to further our understanding of these laws.

This is fine with me, but science, by definition, does not address the supernatural. If someone wants to conclude that God exists because of the nature of, well, nature, that's great. They have left science at this point, however.

quote:
Rather than outright denial or acceptance of a supernatural creator, we should continue to advance scientific progress.

Like I sais, science ignores the supernatural, but otherwise I agree.

quote:
However, in the vein of proving or falsifying God, as you put it, years and years of science should eventually point us in one direction or the other.

Nope, wrong. Science ignores the supernatural entirely. What people take away from scientific matters regarding the supernatural is their own philosophical thing.

quote:
For instance - here's a basic evolutionary flaw that evolutionists don't really like to talk about.

Let's assume that the evidence for an old earth is overwhelming, that the combination of the measurements of the expansion rate of the universe, color-luminosity fitting, and nucleochronology techniques combine to date the universe from 11 to 20 billion years old, right?

One of my Favorite Flaws
--Even crude mathematical models can demonstrate (and can be field-tested) that any species wishing to evolve significantly (into another species) would require a time period of at least one quadrillion years, a body length of one or fewer centimeters, and a generation cycle of no more than three months. Biology is more fun than math (to me), but it leaves excess room for debate (which is also fun).


UM, where on earth do you get this probability mumbo jumbo?? Let's see this mathematical model, please.

quote:
Just because we see a cute collection of fossils doesn't mean that we can make the huge leap over clear chaos and probability theory chasms to say that they must have evolved into each other.
Shouldn't we discuss why, in the recorded span of human history, we have never witnessed even one single example of speciation through evolution? Only extinctions...

Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the field.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century.
Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

(Aside: Creationists always forget about plant speciation!)

Methinks you need to do a bit more study of the ToE. What you don't know, and what you think you know but are wrong about, is a lot.

[QUOTE]See? The objective data should lead us somewhere. In the case of the fossil record we've accumulated in the last century, i think it does.[/b]


Sure does.

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by degreed, posted 05-25-2002 2:54 PM degreed has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 28 of 141 (10406)
05-27-2002 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Philip
05-26-2002 10:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
[b]--Who stated one cannot use ‘science’ or the ‘scientific method’ to make theories on both the existence and nature of the ‘supernatural’? The supreme court, the biologist, the physicist, the physician, Huxley, Einstein… who?[/QUOTE]

To be scientific, a theory must;

1)Provide positive evidence
2)Provide testable hypothese
3)Be falsifiable

These tenets were adopted as the scientific method was formalized and refined. The reason these tenets were ever adopted is that they produce the most reliable, accurate results.

Read more about the nature of scientific inquiry here:

http://www.skepdic.com/science.html

I didn't say that Creationists couldn't use science. (Believe me, I wish they would) I am saying that they don't.

quote:
--Scientific method never limits lofty inquiry because of some bigoted mutationalist point of view (or bigoted YEC point of view).

Uh, sure. Do you have a point?

quote:
--Please stop this cantankerous chicanery of limiting science to the ToE.

You have it backwards! Science isn't limited to the ToE, but the ToE, along with any other theory claiming to be scientific, is limited to the rules of science.

quote:
Such a ‘scientist’ (falsely so called) appears to be perpetrating fraud on the unsuspecting public by his/her biased vindication, alone (like the creationists did during the dark ages). The scientific method is free to all, that workable theories be made to deal with reality.

I don't have any idea where you get the notion that I think science is closed to anyone.

I am saying that Creation 'science' bears only a surface resemblence to real science with it's use of scientific terminology and such, and is actually based upon dogmatic religion and an unbending interpretation of it's holy book. I am saying that Creationists will never allow their "theories" to be falsified if it means that they will have to consider the Bible wrong in any way, so, by definition, Creation 'science' isn't science.

quote:
--Relativistic science phenomenon (which ‘appear’ supernatural compared to mere Newtonian ‘laws’) invalidates many dating techniques of ‘the history of the earth’, specifically many radiometric ones.

This is merely handwaving. I have no reason to believe you unless you provide some specific evidence.

quote:
--When might YECs, OECs, ToEs and ToMs ever include cosmic relativistic science in their ‘scientific’ scheme(s), to correct the gross inconsistencies between radiometric and solar clocks, especially, and those temporal inconsistencies found in the GC.

Evidence, please, of what you are claiming.

quote:
--ID will always be inferred, scientifically, whether for a Honda or for a universe.

No, ID cannot be inferred scientifically. ID can only be inferred philosophically or religiously.

How do you tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a naturalistic system that we don't understand??

quote:
The nature of the cosmic ID will always be inferred (eg., ‘creating’, ‘cursing’, ‘restoring’) based on the observed data.

Yes, one might "always" infer ID if one wishes to, but it won't be a scientific inference. It will be a philosophical one.

Gee, all this talk about an inference "always" happening. This doesn't sound very much like scientific tentativity, or that you would ever be willing to accept any evidence which contradicted your theory. This sounds very much like dogmatic religious doctrine.

quote:
ID is thus without excuse, scientifically. Only the nature of the ID is open to question.

Nope, wrong, sorry.

quote:
--Speciation is so arbitrary and insignificant; it infers no gross ToM (theory of mutation), unless mutations are demonstrated to veritably overcome the organism’s ‘set-in’ complexities, right?

I am sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about here. I have no idea what this "theory of mutation" you are on about is. Did you make it up?

quote:
The ToM has failed to demonstrate ANY significant beneficial mutation (for a reproductively ongoing population), even by gene splicing.

(I'll play along for a moment, even though I have no idea what this ToM is supposed to be)

So, do you consider complete or partial immunity to HIV to not be a significant beneficial mutation in an ongoing population?

Oh, can you please defing "significant beneficial mutation"?

quote:
And what about the ka-zillions of such incredible mutations necessary to form a viable organism, right? So admit it. The ToM is a deluded self-deceiving fraud like the Haitian Voodoo.

Riiiiight.

What exactly is the ToM, dear?

[QUOTE]--I humbly request anyone: Dr. Taz, Gene, Moose, Darwin_T, Shraf, Percy, TC, and/or others to debate any of the above statements. Please pardon any and all ‘wrong’ statements, discrepancies, etc., as I, too, have been self-deceived by numerous multi-tiered and unchecked biases’.[/B]


See, I don't really think you can be pardoned for "wrong" statements, because they are borne from willful ignorance. You could learn this stuff if you wanted to have an unbiased outlook. You choose not to.

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-27-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Philip, posted 05-26-2002 10:08 PM Philip has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020