RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (15) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 >   
  Topic: Philo 4483: Christian Faith and Science, Honest questions from Dembski's students< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2010,17:07   

Quote (Texas Teach @ April 24 2010,14:24)
Given bjray's disciplinary misconceptions, I think he'll soon ask why why haven't ever seen a transitional species between the Big Bang and an orangutan.  Or the primordial soup and a can of cream of chicken.

Ummm, ummm good:



--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Hawks



Posts: 14
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2010,17:11   

bjray:

 
Quote
Explain to me how I just presented a straw man argument. I presented information that evolutionists assert. Where did I distort the facts? Evolution advocates common descent. It advocates similar traits among species.


You might find that the odd evolutionist says such a thing (although, of course, you have presented no such evidence and even if you did, these people would be wrong). However, evolution as a science says no such thing. In evolution as in any real science, there are, as I already said, the possibility of lots of hypotheses explaining a set of observations. I.e., to use your lingo, in evolution there is always the possibility of other A's, something you claim there isn't. This is your straw man. That is how how distorted the facts.

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2010,17:12   

Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,19:44)
The fallacious logic is as such: If you have A and B is a result of A, then anytime you have A, B must take place. In other words, if B, then we know A. However, what happens if there are multiple A’s. If A, or Aa, or Ab, or Ac….then B happens. If B happens, then we know one of the A’s had to have happened. However, without evidence of which A caused B, then how can we know which one of the A’s did something? I submit to you that you can’t. I didn’t make this up. It’s how logic works: philosophy class.

Gosh, you mean "If A then B" is not the same as "If B then A"? Why hasn't anyone told me that before?
   
Quote
So how does this coincide with what I’m saying? Let’s put the pieces together. Evolutionists are trying, like other scientists (including creationists) to understand how the people/animals have come about in this world. Evolution argues for common descent. What has been discovered by scientists is that various animals have similar traits—observable fact. This is exactly what common descent would expect. So, if A (animals have common descent), then B (they have similar traits), therefore A (common descent must be true). The fallacy has been committed (we have B, then A). There can be the possibility of other A’s. Ie: common descent (evolution is one), creationism (a designer is another). See (http://tinyurl.com/2bmo6gf)

You see, if there were only one B, then you might have had a point. But there are so many, many Bs that must be true if common descent is true, and such a great deal of Bs have already been shown to be true, that probably your brain would explode if only you knew.

Let's take nested hierarchy, that's what actually a creationist, Linnaeus, came up with. Nested hierarchy is explained by common descent. Could an omnipotent God have done it that way? Sure thing, he's omnipotent. But he could have done it in a countless number of ways. So, nested hierarchy is evidence for common descent, not for Goddidit.

If common descent is true and humans share a common ancestor with apes, but apes have 48 chromosomes and we have only 46, then at some point they must have gained a pair or we must somehow lost one. And when we looked a the human genome, we found that our chromosome 2 is a fusion of two "ape"-chromosomes. It even includes the remnants of a second telomer (a structure that is normally in the middle of a chromosome). Could an omnipotent God have included a second telomer in our chromosome 2, just for fun? But of course. But does Goddidit explain why it is there? No, it doesn't. But it is evidence for common descent of humans and apes.

Further down the line humans are descendant from egg laying animals. And, surpise, we still have the non-functionals remnants of egg yolk-producing genes (link to OA Plos Biology article, read it, please. You'll probably triple your understanding of science and evolution just by trying to understand this one article). Common descent explains it, common descent even predicted this. Goddidit not so much.

Common descent together with a completely different theory, plate tectonics, explains the biogeographic distribution of animals, plants, and fossils that we find.

Common descent explains why a mouse gene (pax6) can trigger eye development in a fruit fly. And while a designer could have used the same gene in fruit flies and mice that doesn't explain why the fruit fly gene isn't identical to the mouse gene. The differences in the pax6 genes of the different species listed at that link are also explained by common descent, or more specifically, by the different time periods those lineages evolved seperately.

And you know what I just did, just for fun? I uploaded the pax6 gene sequences of the ten species and generated a phylogenetic tree using this program (ClustalW2) and - surprise - the mammalian sequences clustered, as did the insects (Drosophila and Anopheles), and the Zebra fish (Danio rerio) sequence was seperate from both groups.
As it should be if common descent is true.

See, you even don't have to rely on those pesky scientists you could in a small way even test it for yourself.

But you would never do that, wouldn't you, because you'd rather pretend that those scientist make all that stuff up, over the last 150 years didn't realize that they were committing a pretty basic logical error, and common descent is just some fancy just-so story.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2010,17:13   

Quote (lkeithlu @ April 24 2010,14:58)
Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,16:23)
The debate between evolution and creationism/intelligent design is not over, even in a long shot.

Actually, there never was a debate. Not a scientific one.

True, creationism was dead by the late 1800s. But the body is still twitching. It reminds me of some carcasses I have worked on that were so packed with maggots that the skin rippled.

I would also have to point out that from about 1905 to the mid-1930s, genetics was seen as a challenge to evolutionary thinking. So that would count as a scientific debate about evolution.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Hawks



Posts: 14
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2010,17:27   

Paul Flocken:
 
Quote
The distinction that we want you to take away is that a good theory in science constrains itself.  Science tries to find and make "must" statements, not "could" statements.  That is part of the art of falsification*.  The hypothesis of common-descent-with-modification-controlled-by-natural-selection doesn't just suggest that "various animals have similar traits"**, it DEMANDS  it.  If evolution is true then "similar traits" MUST be true.  The design assertion cannot make the same kind of statement.  If common design then POSSIBLY "similar traits" but not MUST "similar traits".  A designer is not constrained to having "similar traits" between his designs.  It is the lack of any "musts" from ID that doom it to being "Not Even Wrong", to use Wolfgang Pauli's phrase, to not being science at all.


I think that the words "must"and "demands" are too strong. Science is quite happy to deal with probability statements that, by their very nature, are not falsifiable (at least not in the sense Popper originally had in mind). For example, the traits of a bacterium will probably be extremely similar to that of it's parent - unless there was some horizontal gene transfer involved somewhere.

Of course, ID can say nothing at all here. ID would be quite happy with an ordinary stray cat giving birth to a klingon whose genetic material is silicon-based.

In bayesian terms, this gives evolution a higher likelihood than it does ID.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2010,17:32   

Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,16:23)
Secondly, you just quoted to me wikipedia. Common man, don't try and belittle me for asking questions or questioning your "life's work," whether its amateur or professional. I'm in this to learn something. (Need proof of that? The previous speciation citations by Dr. GH.)

No, I'd say that is self-delusion. If you were interested in learning, you wouldn't spout bullshit like that 14C/dinosaur bone dating canard as if it was true. You should have learned about the limits of carbon dating in high school. You wouldn't ask for evidence of speciation. You would have learned that there are thousands of examples. You're just parroting things that you were taught in Sunday School and never  questioned. People who are genuinely interested in learning ask questions from an early age and try to avoid filling their heads with crap.
 
Quote
And just so you know, as long as their is breath in my lungs, if my child's school board attempts to not teach weaknesses of any side, especially evolution (why because it is the primary scientific theory taught, not just one I randomly chose to "pick on"). Then I'll teach them myself.

More self-delusion. Primary and secondary schools barely have time to teach basic facts. So they don't teach about phlogiston; they teach about redox reactions. They don't teach about demons causing diseases; they teach Koch's postulates. At the intellectual level that your kids will be at, and that you seem to be stuck on, there are NO weaknesses in evolutionary theory, just as there are no weaknesses in redox theory or germ theory. And I'd bet a billion dollars that you don't give a damn about weaknesses in those theories at all; you're content to let the experts sort it out before it gets into a high-school textbook.
 
Quote
Here is my source for morality.
The Holy Bible, Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21 says:
----blithering uselessness snipped here----

I really don't care what you believe. I care about what you know. And it has become increasingly clear that not only do you not know very much about things that you pontificate about, you don't want to know them if they threaten what you believe. That ain't science, and it ain't intellectual honesty. It's intellectual cowardice; you can't face the fact that you are ignorant, and that what you believe might be wrong.

I pity you. The world is a much better place for folks who enjoy discovery, and a horrible place for folks who constantly have to keep their eyes shut so that their beliefs won't be threatened.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2010,18:07   

Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,14:24)

I am informed about the difference between evolution, abiogenesis and big bang. While maybe all can be considered different “scientific enterprises”, they all have at least one thing in common: Evolutionary theory sprinkled about them.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat ? I have no idea what you mean by "evolutionary theory" here, but it doesn't appear to mean what you think it means 1. The theories in question are naturalistic theories, but there's nothing "evolutionary" about that.

You are not doing a good job demonstrating that you are "informed of the differences". If your complaint is with methodological naturalism, come out and say it.

Ironically, some early resistance to the big bang was precisely because it smacked of creationism. This sort of vague philosophical objection was overcome by... evidence, and now most cosmologists accept that it is a compelling model, regardless of theological persuasion.
         
Quote

Furthermore, the notion that the big bang best fits current scientific evidence does not necessitate it being factual.

What other criteria would you propose ? Accordance with one particular twisted interpretation of one specific set of bronze age myths ?

All science is provisional. If a scientific theory is accepted as "factual", it's only a short hand for being consistent and well supported by evidence. Is Newtons theory of gravity "factual" ? Einsteins relativity ? The standard model of particle physics ? None of these are likely to be the final explanation, but unlike creationism, they provide us with tools to understand the world we live in.
       
Quote
For some reason, I feel like you had all of that pre-typed sitting in a "dusty" word document, waiting to pull it out and post in a forum discussion.

You are mostly repeating the same tired canards that creationists have been using for the last hundred years. Coincidence ?

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2010,18:12   

Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,16:39)
For some reason, I feel like you had all of that pre-typed sitting in a "dusty" word document, waiting to pull it out and post in a forum discussion. Am I right? :)
Perhaps you should take that as a clue that there is literally nothing new in the creationist quiver.

 
Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,17:23)
While maybe all can be considered different “scientific enterprises”, they all have at least one thing in common: Evolutionary theory sprinkled about them.
As a single word encapsulation of the phrase "change over time", 'Evolution' has utility.  That is the only connection.  If you keep harping on it then you only hurt your attempt to find people willing to listen to you.

 
Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,17:23)
Furthermore, the notion that the big bang best fits current scientific evidence does not necessitate it being factual. (Here is another goal of mine; namely, to put back on your table the possibility of creation by a designer. You’re right, mentioning creation does imply a designer. That’s my point. I believe this world did not just materialize on its own, but was in fact created. This fits the best evidence I have. (Go ahead, get caught up on “what evidence”.) I’m trying not to explain the nth degree of everything, because (as I have said before) I cannot. Thus, I won’t try to explain nth degree details. Some explanation yes, but nitty gritty is not in my ability (or any one for that matter). Evolutionary explanations for such things: ie: big bang, commit a logical fallacy. Let me explain the best I know how.
The fallacious logic is as such: If you have A and B is a result of A, then anytime you have A, B must take place. In other words, if B, then we know A. However, what happens if there are multiple A’s. If A, or Aa, or Ab, or Ac….then B happens. If B happens, then we know one of the A’s had to have happened. However, without evidence of which A caused B, then how can we know which one of the A’s did something? I submit to you that you can’t. I didn’t make this up. It’s how logic works: philosophy class.
So how does this coincide with what I’m saying? Let’s put the pieces together. Evolutionists are trying, like other scientists (including creationists) to understand how the people/animals have come about in this world. Evolution argues for common descent. What has been discovered by scientists is that various animals have similar traits—observable fact. This is exactly what common descent would expect. So, if A (animals have common descent), then B (they have similar traits), therefore A (common descent must be true). The fallacy has been committed (we have B, then A). There can be the possibility of other A’s. Ie: common descent (evolution is one), creationism (a designer is another). See (http://tinyurl.com/2bmo6gf)

Cubists, your digression on why “real” scientists reject Creationism is troubling at best. Again, you continue to assert that that evolutionary thinking is the end all, explain all. I am open to understanding evolutionary process and thinking. I’ve been reading what you and others post. (Sorry I was looking for multiple answers to the questions I pose, which is why I repeated myself.)

Lastly, my logical expression was not mis-guided or fallacious. The cop story you gave does not represent the argument well at all. Primarily because my point was not evidence. My point was the unwillingness to accept an alternative "A". Evidence is crucial, I'm not downplaying that. The debate between evolution and creationism/intelligent design is not over, even in a long shot. Don't get upset with me for continuing it.
Rather than try to parse that all bit by bit, I'll summate this way:  You, and by extension all the anti-science creationists, want to force onto science the idea that there is no good way to distinguish between competing ideas, assertions, propositions, conjectures, hypotheses, theories, what have you.  On this you are wrong.  Science has spent hundreds of years learning how to do just that.  To distinguish between a good idea and a bad one.  Perhaps instead of ToE you should be concentrating more on the philosophy of science.  I have given you one method(falsification/constraint and JLT gave you some examples above) and there are more, though I will let my superiors elaborate on them.  It is wrong to suggest that science is somehow crippled by an inability to pick and choose.

 
Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,17:23)
BTW, your morality citations do not prove anything but that scientists have written on the matter. What's the foundation for? I propose it's non-material. IE: YOU WON"T FIND IT in some gene somewhere.
LOL, some scientists have written on it means that we are actively investigating the subject.  What are anti-science zealots doing?  Their efforts seem to limited to criticizing science for not having found answers yet.  Oh and saying "GodDidIt".  How useful.  Someday we will have answers and perhaps even a gene will be involved, and where will your arguments be then?  You will probably still be critizing science for not having found whatever the next investigation is working on.  Oh and still saying "GodDidIt".  How useless.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2010,18:31   

Quote (Reed @ April 24 2010,16:07)
 
Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,14:24)

I am informed about the difference between evolution, abiogenesis and big bang. While maybe all can be considered different “scientific enterprises”, they all have at least one thing in common: Evolutionary theory sprinkled about them.


<clip>

You are mostly repeating the same tired canards that creationists have been using for the last hundred years. Coincidence ?

It turns out even BJ's bible quote was antisipated:

Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) who advised Christians trying to interpret Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim). The following is drawn from a translation by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. {Augustine here has referred to 1 Timothy 1.7}”

What I find amusing about BJ's use of Romans is that it clearly teaches that the Earth and its attributes must be accepted as a testament to God. That the Earth's testament is great age, and evolution is actively denied by the bozos who are so fond of quoting Romans I.

Consider the following verses:
Psalm19:
1The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge. (New American Standard Bible)

Psalm 85:11 reads, “Truth springs from the earth; and righteousness looks down from heaven” (NASB). The Hebrew word translated here as truth, emet, basically means “certainty and dependability.”

The Bible demands believers to acknowledge that God is truthful and forthright.  The Bible also demands that believers acknowledge the Creation as an honest testament to God’s existence and nature. Some creationists will try the argument that the universe had to be created old or else it could not function properly. So the oceans needed salt, mountains had to be worn down etc... This is easily countered as well because there is no "need" for fossils to exist- they make no critical contribution to geochemistry or to biochemistry. And, unless God is not truthful, there is no reason that 100% of all evidence only points to evolution as the origin of life's diversity.

(And yes, BJ, I have read nearly all of Dembski's books until it became obvious that 1) he was merely repeating the same crap over and over, and 2) he had nothing to offer).

Edited by Dr.GH on April 24 2010,17:05

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2010,18:49   

Quote (Hawks @ April 24 2010,18:27)
Paul Flocken:
   
Quote
The distinction that we want you to take away is that a good theory in science constrains itself.  Science tries to find and make "must" statements, not "could" statements.  That is part of the art of falsification*.  The hypothesis of common-descent-with-modification-controlled-by-natural-selection doesn't just suggest that "various animals have similar traits"**, it DEMANDS  it.  If evolution is true then "similar traits" MUST be true.  The design assertion cannot make the same kind of statement.  If common design then POSSIBLY "similar traits" but not MUST "similar traits".  A designer is not constrained to having "similar traits" between his designs.  It is the lack of any "musts" from ID that doom it to being "Not Even Wrong", to use Wolfgang Pauli's phrase, to not being science at all.


I think that the words "must"and "demands" are too strong. Science is quite happy to deal with probability statements that, by their very nature, are not falsifiable (at least not in the sense Popper originally had in mind). For example, the traits of a bacterium will probably be extremely similar to that of it's parent - unless there was some horizontal gene transfer involved somewhere.

Of course, ID can say nothing at all here. ID would be quite happy with an ordinary stray cat giving birth to a klingon whose genetic material is silicon-based.

In bayesian terms, this gives evolution a higher likelihood than it does ID.

I readily grant that those two words were too strong.  I attrribute that somewhat to the extremely poor example from bjRay I was working with.  As a proper example, is it to strong to say that ToE demands a nested heirarchy?

Additionally, as you reiterated, ID is a very low bar to hurdle.  Virtually any words would be too strong.

I hope that my overall point remains unchanged.  ToE is a constrained theory and ID is not.  This makes picking between them simpler than creobots want to suggest.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2010,18:53   

BJ, rest assured, you do not want to get into a debate about the bible as evidence of morality.  If you do, then I expect you to sell me your daughter(s).  I'll give you a good price.

As others have pointed out, someone interested in learning would at least read the wiki entry for something.  Then, if something strikes their interest move on from there.

You obviously have not bothered to learn about carbon dating or about ID.  Therefore (using the evidence so far) that you are parroting dead arguments.  You're just another example of someone who is really confused about how the real world works.

Let me ask you this (although I doubt you will answer any questions since you haven't so far):  Why is your belief system based on the bible?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2010,19:35   

For BJ's benefit about the papers I mentioned (you did read them right?), behavior is also a factor in evolution and affected by evolution.

If you're a wolf cub and constantly picking fights with bigger wolves than you, guess what.  You'll be killed long before you get a chance to pass that behavior on to your offspring.  If you are submissive to bigger wolves than you, then you will likely survive until you are the bigger wolf, then you can replace the alpha male... meaning that your cubs will tend to be submissive to bigger wolves until they are big enough.

It's called natural selection.  Is there a gene for behavior... depends.  

Here's a recent blog that's a good summary of a very old paper ('62 I believe, the paper is available on the internet, it's just on my work laptop.)  Lovebirds: Nature or Nurture

Some behaviors are innate, that means that there is a gene for them.  

I suspect (and this is my opinion) that many 'behaviors' that exist in modern humans have their roots in genes that have been co-opted for other purposes (much like most of evolutionary traits).  For example, our deepest ancestors must have been pretty good at pattern recognition (to survive with stealthy leopards stalking them).  We've co-opted that trait for a variety of things now.  For example, written language.  Again, this is just idle speculation and something I'm interested in.

So, yes, behaviors can be either genetic or learned and both can influence the evolution of the species.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2010,20:32   

Re. innate behavior: I would imagine that any female reading this would remember the strong maternal behavior they exhibited immediately after giving birth. It certainly surprised me. My response to my infant was visceral and uncontrollable, so much so that I still carry vivid memories 20 years later. Now when I see a female mammal with young and observe their behavior, my thoughts are "yeah, girlfriend, I know EXACTLY what you are going through!"

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2010,20:37   

bj, you really disappoint me.  you came here claiming to be a seeker of truth, but quickly started repeating creationist lies that were shot down long before you were born and in some cases even before I was born.  What is this hangup with you guys to be stuck in the 1800s with paley and when are you going to move to the 21st century?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4112
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2010,23:51   

Quote (Dr.GH @ April 24 2010,15:13)
PS: This is not an example of a "transitional species."


Now that's a fine feathered fiend!

(I quack me up sometimes.)

  
Henry J



Posts: 4112
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2010,00:33   

Quote
As a proper example, is it to strong to say that ToE demands a nested heirarchy?

In the absence of significant horizontal transfer of DNA, or hybridization, it's my understanding that the theory definitely implies a nested hierarchy.

Of course, those exceptions do have to be accounted for. Also loss of features in a side branch can complicate things.

  
Cubist



Posts: 352
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2010,00:43   

Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,13:44)
All right, for starters. I cannot for the sake of my own time respond to everyone one of your questions or comments. I would also like to point out, Cubists and others, that I have at no time in my posts admitted or actually “whined” or accused evolutionists about being nasty:
Bullshit. You damn well have accused evolutionists of being nasty, and you did so in your very first post to this thread. In that post, you asserted that scientists are a dogmatic, close-minded lot (your precise phrasing: "the 'scientific' community at large are not so receptive to alternate theories to evolution" and a question which presumes the existence of "an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory"), and you made noise about "conniving remarks" and "babblings").
Quote
Quote
whine about how mean those nasty evilutionismustistas are to say those terribly, terribly hurtful things?
I have pointed out the use of “harsh” language, but a far cry from whining. One of my goals is to not be like the other Creationists you have come in contact with here on this forum, like, not being one of those who whines or moans about whatever responses are given.
Oh, re-ee-ally. Then why the hell did you even bother to mention the "irrational disgust" and "conniving remarks" and all the rest of that crap? If all you were after is intellectual discussion of relevant issues, why the hell did you drag that other stuff in by the heels?
Look, bjray: If ID is being unjustly dismissed by real scientists, that's one thing. But you cannot assume, just from the mere fact that ID is dismissed by real scientists, that that dismissal is not just. In fact, one could argue that the just dismissal of ideas is very much what science is all about... but for some strange reason or other, you ID-pushers never do manage to address the question of what does or does not constitute a just idea-dismissal; rather, the concept that some ideas damn well should be dismissed is conspicuously absent from all the noise you lot make about "academic freedom" and "teach the controversy" and yada yada yada. There's an Abbott and Costello routine which is very apposite here:
Costello: They said Newton was crazy! They said Einstein was crazy! They said Luigi was crazy!
Abbott: Hold it, who's Luigi?
Costello: Oh, Luigi's my uncle. He is crazy.
So yeah, real scientists say ID is crazy. So fucking what? Real scientists also say that phlogiston is crazy. If you want anybody to give a shit about how real scientists say ID is crazy, you really need to demonstrate that ID is not in the same, justly dismissed, class as phlogiston -- and the operative verb is demonstrate, not baldly assert.
In other words, you need to establish that ID is crazy like Einstein, not crazy like Luigi. And if all you do is yammer about how real scientists say ID is crazy, without demonstrating that ID is crazy like Einstein... well, the more you ID-pushers make noise about "those Darwinists is me-ee-ean to us!" without even a token pretense at showing that the 'mean' behavior is not fully justified, the more an impartial observer is going to get the idea that that 'mean' behavior is, in fact, fully justified. Because if you ID-pushers actually could do more than piss and moan about "the Darwinoids was me-ee-ean to us!1!", you lot bloody well would have done more than piss and moan.
Quote
You mentioned that “you say these things” because you “believe they’re true.”
Yep. Would you like to try to demonstrate that any of those things we say are not true... or would you rather (continue to) whine about how mean those nasty evilutionismustistas are to say those terribly, terribly hurtful things?
Grow a pair, bjray. Demonstrate that ID is crazy like Einstein and not crazy like Luigi.
Quote
Well, if I believed that the sky was really red, it doesn’t mean it is true.
That's nice. It's not even a sham pretense at an attempt to demonstrate that any of those nasty things we say about ID are untrue, but it's nice. You ever going to get around to demonstrating that ID is crazy like Einstein rather than crazy like Luigi, or are you just going to continue whining about how those nasty intolerant scientists say that ID is crazy?
Quote
Anyhow..

I am informed about the difference between evolution, abiogenesis and big bang. While maybe all can be considered different “scientific enterprises”, they all have at least one thing in common: Evolutionary theory sprinkled about them.
Bullshit. What the hell does it even mean to say that evolutionary theory is "sprinkled about" abiogenesis and then big bang? You want to try translating that freom the original English, bjray?
Quote
Furthermore, the notion that the big bang best fits current scientific evidence does not necessitate it being factual. (Here is another goal of mine; namely, to put back on your table the possibility of creation by a designer.
An admirable goal, that. And the moment you, or any other IDist in general, manages to come up with a testable Designer-concept -- you know, like how the real sciences of archćology and forensics revolve around testable Designer-concepts -- I'm sure that real scientists will give that testable Designer-concept of yours all the consideration that is its due.
Quote
You’re right, mentioning creation does imply a designer. That’s my point. I believe this world did not just materialize on its own, but was in fact created. This fits the best evidence I have. (Go ahead, get caught up on “what evidence”.) I’m trying not to explain the nth degree of everything, because (as I have said before) I cannot. Thus, I won’t try to explain nth degree details.
Hell, you won't even try to explain zeroeth-degree details, let alone first-degree details!
 
Quote
Some explanation yes, but nitty gritty is not in my ability (or any one for that matter). Evolutionary explanations for such things: ie: big bang, commit a logical fallacy.
Hold it. What "evolutionary explanations for... big bang"? Jesus Haploid Christ on a titanium sidecar, you're still conflating "evolution" with "big bang"? After all the times you've been corrected on this point? Fuck off and die in a fire, you unmitigated waste of oxygenated protoplasm!
 
Quote
Cubists, thank you for the lesson in gaining other people’s respect. I understand. Have you heard of agreeing to disagree or the likes of varying approaches to things?
Blow me, bjray. I don't give a flying fuck about your mask of Potemkin politeness, because your behavior has repeatedly given the lie to that shiny happy façade. If given the choice between a rude person who is honest, and an ostensibly polite person who can't be trusted half as far as I can throw them, I'll go for the honest guy every time.
Oh, and one thing: "Cubist" has one 's' in it, not two. An isolated typing error is one thing, but seeing as how you committed this particular error no less than 3 (three) times in this post, I can't help but feel there just might be a tiny bit more to it than an overlookable typing error.
Quote
The explanation of morality (previously mentioned by me as self-preservation, albeit the latter is probably considered a subset of the former) by evolution is incomplete, that’s why I have a problem with it.
Fascinating. If you genuinely do consider it's incomplete to be a serious problem with evolutionary explanations for morality, may I ask what you deem 'incomplete' about said explanations? What, in your view, are the 'missing pieces'? And given the fact that every scientific theory is incomplete to some degree, I would be interested to know what other scientific theories, besides evolution, you doubt on the grounds of their "incomplete"ness. I am confident that a fine, honest, Truthseeking Christian like yourself actually does doubt at least one or two other scientific theories on the grounds of their "incomplete"ness, as opposed to... say... this "it's incomplete!" schtick being a convenient, sciencey-sounding excuse for you to dump on evolution and evolution alone. Because you are an honest, Truthseeking Christian, and not a Ninth-Commandment-breaking follower of the Father of Lies. Right, bjray?
 
Quote
...the “gene of self-sacrifice” is carried on due to the fittest taking care of the weaker among kin or tribe.
Hold it. What makes you think there even is a 'gene of self-sacrifice'? Just how much hardwired-in-the-genes instinctual behavior do you think us humans have?
 
Quote
Cubists, your digression on why “real” scientists reject Creationism is troubling at best.
Hold it. 'Digression'? Di-fucking-gression!? Listen, schmuck, you asked the question ("Is it simply that because Creationists attribute what might be a scientifically explainable event to an Intelligent Designer the primary issue? Or, is it because Creationists do not use evolution to help explain their work? Or, is it that Creationists use a 'get out of jail free. by attributing God to various things that science can explain?"). And you claimed that you "desire to know what the underlying issue is".
You.
Asked.
The.
Fucking.
Question.

And I answered your fucking question. So you can take your 'digression' bullshit, fold it into a sharp-cornered package, and shove it sideways where the Sun don't shine.
Now. Would you care to address the substance of my answer to your question?
 
Quote
Again, you continue to assert that that evolutionary thinking is the end all, explain all.
Bullshit I do. Yes, I think that evolutionary theory is the best explanation we've got at the moment, but best we've got at the moment is not synonymous with absolute best ever of all time, worlds without end, Amen. Do I think it's possible that some other theory could come along to replace evolution? Believe it or don't, I absolutely do think that's possible! And I think this new theory (whatever it ends up being) could come along at any time, even. But whatever that replacement theory may be, it will have to explain the same things evolution does. More: Whatever this replacement theory may be, it will have to explain the same things evolution does, better than evolution does. And ID can't even pass the hurdle of "it explains stuff", let alone "it explains stuff better than evolution". The problem for ID is that somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something is not a fucking explanation for ANYfuckingTHING. And if you think somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something is not an accurate presentation of ID, I invite you now... as I have already done in an earlier post... to fucking well demonstrate that somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something is not an accurate presentation of ID. By, you know, explaining what the fuck the scientific theory of Intelligent Design actually fucking is.
What's it gonna be, bjray? Are you going to demonstrate that ID is, in fact, not the bogus snake-oil its detractors have proved it to be? Or will you, instead, just keep on making noise in which "ID is not bogus snake-oil, honest it's not!" is an implicit, unstated assumption?
Quote
I am open to understanding evolutionary process and thinking.
Judging from what I've read in your posts so far, I very much doubt that you genuinely are "open to understanding evolutionary process and thinking". It is of course entirely within your power to behave in such a way as to confound my deplorable expectations of you, but given your existing track record...

  
Cubist



Posts: 352
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2010,01:05   

Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,14:44)
       
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 24 2010,06:25)
bjray,
Name a single thing that ID or creationism has got right and "Evolution" has got wrong.

And show your working.


Your question is set for a fall. In that I mean, you are asking a small question that is unable (to my knowledge) be directly proven. It’s not in my interest to name a single thing of the first two because your premise is that they're unscientific. But I'll submit to you that they got right the fact there is a Creator of this world.

I can show how evolution has gotten at least two things wrong. 1) Name for me anything that you (or anyone) has ever seen actually evolve from one species to another?
Yes, they have. If you disagree, well, you know all those references you've been given to observed instances of speciation? You're going to have to demonstrate that every fucking last one of those references is bullshit. Because if even one of them is genuine, then yes, we damn fucking well have actually seen something evolve from one critter to another.
     
Quote
2) Carbon dating.
Oh, for Christ's sake...
Radiometric.
Dating.
Is.
Fucking.
Physics.
Not.
Fucking.
Evolution.

Implicit "ALL science is evolution" presumption noted and sneered at for its aggressive ignorance...
     
Quote
Accurate only to a few thousand years, as scientists have calculated. So, when said dinosaur bones were carbon dated and not linked to the millions of years evolutionists preconceived, eh, throw out the carbon dating; doesn't fit our theory.
I call bullshit. When did this happen? Who did the radiocarbon dating? What did these people do to prevent their samples from being contaminated by modern carbon?
In short: Pics or it didn't happen, fucknose.
   
Quote
So, we're caught in this inability to directly prove either. But evolution can be disproved. Creationism then is only "disproved" because it doesn't fit into the mold of evolution and materialism.
Bullshit. If you're right about how people only accept evolution on account of materialistic preconceptions, how do you account for people like Bob Bakker (Pentecostal preacher who is a world-famous paleontologist in his day job) and Francis Collins (former head of the Human Genome Project, who has written a book or two about how 'God did it, and evolution is how He did it")? I look forward to your ignoring this question, bjray...
Semi-explicit "it's the presuppositions, stoopid!" presumption noted and demolished...

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2010,05:56   

From our Correspondant BJRay in the familiar location of "Soon to Be Roundly Mocked":

 
Quote
I’m trying not to explain the nth degree of everything, because (as I have said before) I cannot. Thus, I won’t try to explain nth degree details. Some explanation yes, but nitty gritty is not in my ability (or any one for that matter).




So let me see now, a) you don't have to match our pathetic level of detail and b) because you don't know, no one knows. Hmmmm. Smells like an argument from ignorance to me, but let me continue, there may be more fun stuff.

 
Quote
I didn’t make this up. It’s how logic works: philosophy class.


Well golly gosh darn. Philosophy class you say? What's one of them? I don't think anyone here has ever been to a philosophonomery class, that there sounds like book-larnin'. You're not one o' them fruity little book-queers we hear so much about are ya, boy?

Sorry, sorry. Being patronisingly lectured by the amazingly clueless always makes me sarcastic. I'll try to be nice and not tell you to look up the Dunning Kruger effect. Sweetheart, when you don't know that 14C dating (optimum practical range ~40 to 50 thousand years) is unsuitable for dating dinosaur fossils (~65 million years and older), my advice would be to avoid lecturing people who do know the basics of what they are talking about. Perhaps even a little less talk-y and a lot more read-y would help you.

As for the rest, one simple phrase will suffice: You. Are. Projecting.

Because you have your conclusions already and are trying to retrofit the evidence to support them, you assume scientists (a set of individuals that does not include creationists, keep your false equivalences to yourself please) do the same. They don't. Sorry. You lose one internet, three quatloos and have to start again from the beginning. All your base are belong to us.

You may as well have posted this:



Because, to be nice about it, what you have said bears as much relevance to the subject as Batman riding an elephant. Of course, if you want to understand that (or these subjects in general), perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, being undeservingly patronising is not the way to go about it. People may become annoyed, and maybe even some low down, dirty, nasty person will mock you. Shocking I know.

Now be a good chap or I shall gently mock you some more.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2010,06:24   

Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,14:44)

 But I'll submit to you that they got right the fact there is a Creator of this world.

So that's a "No, I can't tell you a single thing that creationism has got right and "Evolution" has got wrong then."

Given that "Evolution" is not concerned with the question of a creator of the world how is it that it can get that question wrong? It's not even asking that question.

         
Quote
1) Name for me anything that you (or anyone) has ever seen actually evolve from one species to another?

Many instances of exactly that have been provided to you. There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
         
Quote
Carbon dating. Accurate only to a few thousand years, as scientists have calculated. So, when said dinosaur bones were carbon dated and not linked to the millions of years evolutionists preconceived, eh, throw out the carbon dating; doesn't fit our theory.


Given that the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, it's not possible to use the method for materials older than ~70,000 years.

So please do explain, with citations providing supporting material, when exactly dinosaur bones were carbon dated?

What paper? What journal?

So let's play a game. You said:
   
Quote
I can show how evolution has gotten at least two things wrong.

By "show" I'm presuming you mean "provide evidence for" rather then "simply make a claim".

So then, please provide evidence in the form of citations to published papers for your contention that dinosaur bones were carbon dated and not linked to the millions of years evolutionists had preconceived and where they then threw out the carbon dating results as it did not fit into the theory of "evolution".

You made the claim. Now back it up with evidence. Or have you simply been parroting AIG etc with no understanding at all of what you are parroting?

In another post you said
     
Quote
oldmanintheskydidntdoit - the facts do matter. :)

Please prove that was not a lie. Or did you simply mean that yes, the facts do matter but not to you?

No citation for your claims means you are a liar for Jesus.
Yet another one.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2010,06:38   

Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,14:44)
...
I can show how evolution has gotten at least two things wrong. 1) Name for me anything that you (or anyone) has ever seen actually evolve from one species to another? (Now you say, we haven't, it takes millions/billions of years for anything to evolve.) 2) Carbon dating. Accurate only to a few thousand years, as scientists have calculated. So, when said dinosaur bones were carbon dated and not linked to the millions of years evolutionists preconceived, eh, throw out the carbon dating; doesn't fit our theory.

So, we're caught in this inability to directly prove either. But evolution can be disproved. Creationism then is only "disproved" because it doesn't fit into the mold of evolution and materialism.

???

Evolutionary theory explains and predicts many things.

Ring species.
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics and especially why you absolutely should take the entire course, not just stop when the symptoms are reduced.
Co-dependant species.
Where to look for fossil evidence. To name just a few. What has ID ever done that is remotely compatable?

Why do you harp on about evolution so? I am betting that you think it is wrong because somebody has told you (evidence-free) that it is wrong. There is no-way that you have honestly studied evolutionary theory, understood what it has to say and then come to the conclusion that it is wrong.


 
Quote
1)You use harsh language about how ID'ers show poor evidence, ID'ers cannot stand up to real biology, ID'ers promote god-of-the-gaps arguments, ID'ers..you know what you say. But you, yourself, said that "science is based on evidence that stands up to everything." Are you telling me that evolution has passed this test? I'm not telling you that God's actions in science/creation (what have you) can be fully explained. (Ie: now you accuse me of OH "god-of-the-gaps" right there...) It would seem to me that evolution does not stand to every "evidence" it provides. 2)Furthermore, evolution has attempted to attribute cause to creation, of which Darwin never intended to do (as noted by Sledgehammer). 3)One cannot provide evidence for some "big bang" or "primordial soup" or whatever the new story is this time around. So I submit to you that evolution also fails in many areas.


To my boldings.

1)Name me any evidence for ID please. The harsh language is because the ID movement is a very dishonest attack on genuine science.

2)What does that mean?

3)The big bang model is in the realms of astronomy/cosmology and absolutely nothing to do with bilogical evolution. The evidence for the big bang includes the red-shift in the light received from distant galaxies. Primordial soup is in the realms of the origin of life not evolution. It is related but a different subject.

  
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2010,07:42   

I am starting to question not only the quality of this course, but the quality of all the courses at this institution (philosophy included) and the quality of the secondary school education you received, bjray. You seem to have your areas of science completely confused and you have a poor background in the basics of chemistry, biology and geology as well. As an educator, that concerns me. Your responses to questions and your inquiries seems somewhat like a algebra student trying to carry on a conversation in quantum mechanics. I am not sure there is enough time or this is the best forum to take you all the way back to where you and your understanding of science parted company. I'm afraid that would be the case even if you showed any inclination to learn, which you don't.

150 years ago, when Darwin published his book, the evidence from the natural world was so overwhelming. As a religious believer, Darwin sat on this evidence for a long time, it so contradicted what he "knew" from scripture. In the 150 years since that time, the many areas of science and the millions of scientists have gathered countless pieces of evidence, all of which are consistent with his basic theory: that the earth is billions of years old, that life has evolved and changed for hundreds of millions of years, and the driving forces of inherited characteristics, mutation, and natural selection can explain the fantastic diversity of life on the planet. Supported by genetics, embryology, plate tectonics, genome studies, biochemistry, radioisotopes, paleontology, stratigraphy; the list goes on and on. Evolution, in spite of what you have been told, is not a theory in crisis, has no competition from "other theories" and has no weaknesses. It is not complete and may never be, but nothing else comes close. If you had any education in these science areas, you'd already know this.

Is it important that you accept this? Perhaps not. The educator in me believes that a strong education in the sciences is essential for our country to thrive. You can't make good decisions as a citizen if you don't understand the world. Someone want to build a nuclear power plant in your back yard? You should know the basics to decide if the benefits are worth the risks. Being told that the earth is warming due to fossil fuel use? You should understand how climate scientists do their work. Is there a push to replace gasoline with ethanol? You should be able to judge ethanol for its energy content and the energy requirements for producing it compared with conventional fuel. Someone want to sell you a diet plan that is truly innovative? You should know the basics of metabolism, calories and nutrition. Contract a serious disease and looking for treatment options? Homeopathy and prayer by others have both been shown scientifically to have no impact on outcome. An educated citizen knows how to cut through hype and find what is real. Ignorance makes you vulnerable to scams and exploitation.

My guess is that you will go back to your philosophy course, show your professor and classmates printouts of how you managed to push the folks here at Panda's Thumb to anger, making them so frustrated by your squirrelly dodging of questions and inability to understand answers provided to you that they resorted to strong language. You and your like-minded friends will have a good laugh, you'll get your A, and you will depart the course knowing nothing more about science, evolution or the world. I hope that this experience would make you look beyond your sheltered fundy world, but nothing in your posts leads me to believe that is possible.

I am sorry that scientists are angry. But their anger is justified. People like your professor discount the work of millions of scientists-it's insulting. That would be okay, except they spread that ignorance to others (like you and your classmates) and try to impose it in schools. Scientists must stop their real work and go to defend sound science education from the likes of Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and the Discovery Institute in the face of a population that has to be educated over and over why these groups are wrong and should not be allowed to influence science education. The sad thing is the common thread here: these folks claim to be Christian, and yet lie freely and often. Not exactly admirable behavior.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1008
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2010,09:21   

Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,14:44)
Name for me anything that you (or anyone) has ever seen actually evolve from one species to another? (Now you say, we haven't, it takes millions/billions of years for anything to evolve.)

Prediction: when BJ sees the observed instances of speciation, he'll protest that those are examples of changes within a "kind," and not one "kind" changing into another before our eyes.

This is the response (from Jesus and Mo) I always like to give to that ignorant assertion:



--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2010,10:42   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 25 2010,09:21)
Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,14:44)
Name for me anything that you (or anyone) has ever seen actually evolve from one species to another? (Now you say, we haven't, it takes millions/billions of years for anything to evolve.)

Prediction: when BJ sees the observed instances of speciation, he'll protest that those are examples of changes within a "kind," and not one "kind" changing into another before our eyes.

heh, I made this same prediction on the bathroom wall... but I also predicted it would take BJ a day or so to find that 'refutation' of the speciation events.

Ah well...

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2010,14:41   

We knew it would happen right from the very start.  How many times (HOW MANY???) have creationists come to a scientific forum and followed these steps?  BJRAY is no exception, right down the line.

Thank you, bj, for visiting us.  You win a prize!

Here it is:

Lifetime of Ignorance

Now, you have two!  Let's follow the steps using bj's own words, shall we!

Step 1:  Polite introduction and desire to learn.

 
Quote
First, I would like start off by offering my gratitude for the place to come and offer up questions in regards to, well, Dr. Dembski for one (since you seem to have such an extensive knowledge about him); and secondly about science and evolutionary theory (assuming the later are the types of questions you are seeking?)


Step 2:  Polite responses and welcome.  This one from the very nice Reed who wouldn't say "shit" if he had a mouthful.

 
Quote
Your premise is incorrect. Science accepts new data all the time, and scientific data that challenged current theories of evolution would have no problem. There are plenty of acrimonious disputes in real science, but eventually the most useful models prevail. If ID produced a more useful model than evolution, it (or whatever part made it useful) would eventually be accepted... unfortunately for ID proponents, ID currently doesn't produce any useful model of anything. Dressing "goddidit" up in some sciencey sounding jargon doesn't provide any useful insight.


Step 3:  A hearty thanks from bj and a little pause to do some book learning'.

 
Quote
On a side note, I have been reading up on the links you posted as well (thanks for getting me up to speed). Also, Elsberry, thanks for your thorough response.


Oops!  We have an unexpected jump to Step 6 as bjray writes:

 
Quote
In due time (ie: this weekend). It just so happens that I have a plethora of things to attend to including: class reading/assignments that are due soon (the syllabus you have is only 1 of my classes), the joys of life outside of the classroom, and college basketball of course. But have no fear, I will post again.


p.s.  glad to learn, bj,  that you're the only one on the planet with things to do.

Step 4: The offensive directly out of the Creationist Playbook.  Let the games begin!  First we have a classic "I don't know anything about ID, even though I could ask my professor, Dr. Dr., who is right over there."  Second, is the bullshit about what "we" know and don't know about the Theory of Evolution because bj's just about to change the subject.

 
Quote
So where were we...I think it was something along the lines of people expressing their honest feelings about Dembski and also wanting proof for how to calculate CSI for things.

Well, unfortunately, I can offer you no good advice on how to calculate such readings of an object using his CSI theory (if you will). Thing is, I have not in my spare time (the little there is), nor as a part of class, actually read his work on CSI.


And …
 
Quote
Another thing I'm working on trying to understand from my evolutionary friends is their rationale for recent developments in molecular biology.


Yeah, you read that correctly.  Molecular Biology.  From a guy with, my guess, a C in high school chemistry.

And …
 
Quote
What I'm interested in is going back to Darwin and his thought of evolution. For instance, what was his purpose in thinking up his theory of evolution (and survival of the fittest)?


Sure, bj, what you're interested in can be found with a 5-minute Google search but you're oh so confused!  Yeah, why did Darwin spend all that time "thinking up his theory of evolution" when he could have been perfecting the Margarita?

Step 5:  barrage of rebuttals, mockery and resignation (and indignation) that "here we go again with a creationist."

fnxtr sums it up nicely:

 
Quote
Wow.
So many misconceptions, so little time.
I leave the fisking to the pros.


Fisking was done directly and politely by cubist and Wes.  Thanks for taking the time.

Step 6:  Ignoring of replies, more creationist talking points and finally "too busy to reply" followed by a flounce.

 
Quote
I'm not an expert in any of the areas mentioned thus far in this discussion. However, it does not mean that I do not have an idea of what I am talking about.


Right, not knowing what one is talking about has never stopped a creationist from talking about it.  Harry Frankfurt defines this as "bullshitting."

Pull on the boots, boys, 'cause here she comes!  Watch out for falling species and C-14 radiation!  I call these disjointed quotes the Best of BJ.

Abandon all Learning and Knowledge ye who pass here!

 
Quote

It would seem to me that evolution does not stand to every "evidence" it provides.

I'm saying is that evolution does not do all that you say and praise it for.

Matter a fact, I already knew that evolutionary proponents had written material attempting to explain their side. It's interesting stuff.

(and cue the flounce)

All right, for starters. I cannot for the sake of my own time respond to everyone one of your questions or comments.

I am informed about the difference between evolution, abiogenesis and big bang. While maybe all can be considered different “scientific enterprises”, they all have at least one thing in common: Evolutionary theory sprinkled about them.

The explanation of morality (previously mentioned by me as self-preservation, albeit the latter is probably considered a subset of the former) by evolution is incomplete, that’s why I have a problem with it.

I can show how evolution has gotten at least two things wrong. 1) Name for me anything that you (or anyone) has ever seen actually evolve from one species to another? (Now you say, we haven't, it takes millions/billions of years for anything to evolve.) 2) Carbon dating. Accurate only to a few thousand years, as scientists have calculated. So, when said dinosaur bones were carbon dated and not linked to the millions of years evolutionists preconceived, eh, throw out the carbon dating; doesn't fit our theory.

What I am saying is that God created the world and everything in it (including all that we know..and don't know about science, etc..)

I'm sorry to point out, but you're mistaken that evolution has not stood up to every evidence. It has stood up to every evidence that it promotes, yes, of course, why wouldn't it. But it throws out the evidence that does not support it.

And just so you know, as long as their is breath in my lungs, if my child's school board attempts to not teach weaknesses of any side, especially evolution (why because it is the primary scientific theory taught, not just one I randomly chose to "pick on"). Then I'll teach them myself.

BTW, your morality citations do not prove anything but that scientists have written on the matter.

Here is my source for morality.
The Holy Bible, Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21



I think we're close to an Official Flounce.  We've had the talking points and the standard creationist hissy fit about how unfair we are.  Finally, abandoning everything presented, resorting to bible quotes as "proof" and there's no going back.  Flounce Ahoy!  

And creationists wonder why we laugh at them.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2010,15:07   

Don't forget ignoring any and all questions asked, even if they are simple yes/no answers.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4519
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2010,15:54   

BJRay:

Quote

And just so you know, as long as their is breath in my lungs, if my child's school board attempts to not teach weaknesses of any side, especially evolution (why because it is the primary scientific theory taught, not just one I randomly chose to "pick on"). Then I'll teach them myself.


Since you've demonstrated here that you don't know what evolutionary science is comprised of or premised upon, that you are willing to repeat convenient falsehoods told about evolutionary science, and further that you have no inclination to scrutinize even the philosophical basis upon which "weaknesses" are claimed, how is it that your "teaching" would be anything other than propagation of ignorance?

Quote

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.


Clergy Letter Project

Emphasis added.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Henry J



Posts: 4112
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2010,16:48   

Quote
Real scientists also say that phlogiston is crazy. If you want anybody to give a shit about how real scientists say ID is crazy, you really need to demonstrate that ID is not in the same, justly dismissed, class as phlogiston

But wasn't phlogiston at least an honest attempt to understand an observed pattern in a phenomena before it was otherwise understood? (In this case, combustion.)

----

As to the question of whether speciation has been observed, I'm sensing the implicit but incorrect assumption that the current theory would be undermined by the absence of seeing this process in operation. A theory's validity does not depend on seeing everything that is implied by the theory. It depends on seeing some of the phenomena that are implied by the theory - in this case, things like nested hierarchy, geographical distribution of species, temporal distribution of species, changes in populations over generations since observations started, remnants of traits from ancestral species that are no longer used by their descendants, etc.

Besides, speciation in itself is simply the reproductive isolation of part of the species from the rest of it, after which the isolated populations will accumulate differnt changes in their genomes since they aren't swapping DNA with each other anymore (at least not to a significant extent).

Incidentally, while hydridization and polyploidy events are examples of speciation, I would have thought they would be a tiny minority of speciation events. Aren't most speciation events the accumulation of different changes that eventually diminishes the chance of swapping DNA between the populations? (Of course, that type of speciation probably takes a rather long stretch of time.)

Henry

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2010,16:54   

Quote (Doc Bill @ April 25 2010,12:41)
Step 2:  Polite responses and welcome.  This one from the very nice Reed who wouldn't say "shit" if he had a mouthful.

Heh. I also made a prediction in that post (way back on page 2)
                 
Quote
There are many here who will engage in serious discussion, as long as you do likewise. OTOH, if you show that you aren't capable of engaging in rational discussion (e.g. Robert Byers), then eventually all the responses you get will be mockery. If you want an excuse not to address serious questions, "OMG TEH MEANIE EVILUTIONISTS SAID NASTY THINGS" is ready made for you.

I'm sure bjray believes he is engaging in rational discussion (on his side at least!), but sadly, Gish galloping from one vague unfounded assertion to the next, while failing to acknowledge errors or respond to simple questions doesn't really cut it. Neither does "I don't really know anything about <some topic> but <insert standard creationist claim about topic>".

We've seen this a thousand times before bjray. We could replace you with a simple script that pulled from talk origins index of common creationist claims and there would be no qualitative difference in the conversation.

You can still change this. All you have to do is make an effort to learn about the topics you are trying to discuss, and actually address questions and errors, rather than jumping to the next vague claim. Given the wide range of topics involved, you'd be advised to pick a specific one (e.g. "is an evolutionary basis of morality plausible", or "has speciation been observed" or "is IC evidence for design")

Or, you can keep doing what you are doing. It's boring, but we are used to that, and it does give us an excuse to post lolcats

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2010,17:31   

Let's put it this way:

BJ, do you have anything for us other than vague references to things evolution can't do, a misunderstanding of science (and the bible), and a personal belief system that is offended that you might be related to monkeys?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
  444 replies since Feb. 22 2010,14:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (15) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]