RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,07:56   

Quote
 
These tidbits from your favorite DI fellows aren’t evidence, Dave.
If they are not, then could you propose an example of what IS evidence?  Let me guess ... mountains and mountains of 'scholarship' from the science establishment to support Naturalistic Explanations Only?  This was the kind of odds Galileo was working against too.  Are you telling me that I should believe your evidence and reject mine because yours fits with the majority?


One of the things about science that YEC's just can't get their heads around is that there just isn't any "my evidence" and "your evidence." Science demands transparency and replicability. So all of the evidence we have comes from that dreaded "establishment." Unless there's a YEC research program I'm not aware of, all you have to go on is the evidence uncovered by the hard work of scientists, spit on by the cretins at AiG et al.
Quote
 
Second, what does “life-sustaining universe” mean?
Exactly what it says.  And I challenge you to propose some parameter changes and ask a biologist how likely it would be for life to continue.  The problem with naturalistic speculators like yourself is that you guys like to say "Well, we only know about life on earth ... sample size of one.  There could be other planets, other universes, who knows!"  OK, great.  I agree.  And there could be a Fairy Godmother for all I know.  But if we are going to admit wild speculation into the arena, let's admit ALL kinds of wild speculation into the arena.  My favorite is "Parallel Universes".  I don't know how people can tell me with a straight face that there might be an infinite number of parallel universes, then in the next breath tell me I'm a wild speculator for proposing an Infinite God character.

It's a simple question (with complicated implications), and you didn't answer it, Dave. And there are demonstrably "other planets," so the 'parameter space' that would allow for life is a completely open question, just in the universe we are sure exists. You'll notice that I didn't say anything about multiverses, not because I agree with you that the concept is on an epistemological level with your "Super-Intelligence," but because, in a simplistic debate like this, it's open to your facile dismissal. Why don't you respond to the arguments I did make, rather than the ones you wish I'd made?

Quote
Regarding the Denton "howler" ...  THIS is the howler ...
 
All the evidence available in the biological (and geological) sciences in fact supports the proposition that life began ~3.8 billion years ago
*cough* because we arbitrarily made some massive initial conditions assumptions so it would come out that long


We did? This is interesting. Can you lay out for me a few of these "massive assumptions"?
Quote
and that from that time forward the most numerous, diverse, robust, and tenacious life-forms have been prokaryotes.
the old 'what do you think makes humans so special, just look at the bacteria' saw ... sometime I'm going to do a thread on the implications of this thinking on law and culture ... talk about a howler ... this one will be way better than Rush Limbaugh and the Tree Huggers!

Again, you're responding to something I plainly did not say. Microbial life has dominated this planet from the dawn of life to now, and will continue to do so, right up until the sun, a bloated red giant, swells up to devour the earth. From a prokaryotes 'point of view,' the universe is made for it. And I can't imagine anything being worse than "Rush Limbaugh and the Pill Poppers," so have fun with that.

Quote
Multicellular, animal life has been around for maybe a billion years,
based on our flawed assumptions in dating supposed 'index fossils'

Again with the mystery assumptions. And I think you're confused. Index fossils are mostly used to date rocks, not necessarily other fossils, and certainly not the earliest. The date is derived from the earliest trace fossils, and the radiometric dates of the rocks themselves. Why don't you finish toppling the facade of evolution before you start in on digging out the rotten foundations of nuclear physics, there, tiger.

Quote
most of that as relatively undifferentiated worm-like creatures. Mammals have been around for 80 to 100 million years, primates about 40 million, hominids 7 to 8 million, and genus Homo maybe two millionDitto above ... funny ... every non-YEC history book I can find anywhere says things like "4000 (or so) BC: History Begins" (I never find over 10,000).   Hmmm... what did all those 'Homos' do for 1,996,000 years?  You're telling me they all of a sudden started writing and making artifacts only in the last .000000001% (or whatever) of their existence on the planet ... yeah, pretty plausible

"Writing" and "making artifacts" are separated by millions of years. Is it too much to ask that you try to perceive that technology developed through time? I mean, why cave painting, when they could've invented TV and been done with it?  
Quote
The human conception of a creative “Super-Intelligence” is about the only thing the Bible dates correctly, being about 5 or 6 thousand years old. In other words, roughly .000001 of the history of life, or .0025 of the existence of our genus. Pretty long build-up for the punchline, wouldn’t you say?
the buildup is in your imagination, Mr. O'Brien, which is great.  I like imagining things too.  Have you seen Narnia?  It's a good one for the imagination, but it's not about science, unless we redefine science ... which I'm not opposed to as long as the rules are fair.

If it's in my imagination, then evidently it is also in the imagination of the entire scientific community. Conspiracy theories? The rules are unfair? How dreadful.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,08:27   

I give up.  With every response Dave makes he confirms he's simply the same old run-of-the-mill young-earth creationist fundamentalist Christian who just happens to believe he has some novel approach to the tried old arguments.  Well, I;ve got news for him.  Expanding the definition of science to encompass supernatural phenomena is not a novel approach.   It is at the very heart of what both the creationist and ID movements have been trying to do since the beginning.  It's never worked before, and will never work in the future.

The only ground he's given in this debate is on terminology alone.  He hasn't really been listening to anything we're saying--at least, if he has, it hasn't moved him one jot.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,08:59   

Quote
Same for science classes.  We shouldn't be telling kids 'God created the world' in science class and we shouldn't be telling the world that 'Evolution created the world' in science class.  We should be telling them 'Most scientists believe some form of Darwin's Theory of Evolution to explain the appearance of life.  Many non-scientists and a minority of scientists believe in some form of supernatural cause for the appearance of life.  Creationism and Intelligent Design Theory are two of these views.'


This is incorrect. The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the appearance of life. Origins of Life ("abiogenisis") theories are entirely separate from the Theory of Evolution. Nor does the Theory of Evolution have anything to say about the origin of the earth or the origin of the universe. Entirely separate theories deal with those issues. It's common among creationists to assume that the Theory of Evolution is an all-embracing origins theory.

Again, Dave, this reinforces my impression that you've done next to no reading about what evolution actually says, as opposed to what creationists think it says.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,09:08   

Dave, I asked you very early on in this thread to explain why you think the earth is only thousands of years old, not billions of years old. So far, the only thing you've come up with, after several very long posts, is that the evidence for an earth billions of years old is based on "flawed assumptions." The evidence isn't based on "flawed assumptions"; it's based on a detailed understanding of nuclear decay and geophysical processes, among other things. No one "assumed" the earth was billions of years old; the evidence showed that it was.

You're going to have to explain what those "flawed assumptions" are pretty quickly if you're going to maintain whatever shreds of credibility you have left. And believe me, this isn't a side issue: it's critical to your claim that the Bible is inerrant. If the Bible is off by six orders of magnitude on an fact as basic as the age of the earth, that doesn't leave it much credibility on other matters.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,09:13   

Quote (afdave @ May 03 2006,10:28)
I see what you are saying, but even in this case, it is only absolute certainty to the person (or people) who built it and flew it. Think about it.  All other people who hear about it will get INDIRECT evidence--they will read about it, see the report on TV, etc. and of course this is quite reliable for the example you raise.  But TV and newspaper reports can get unreliable when reporting less cut and dried events.

What  about you, Dave? Didn't you say you were a pilot?

You don't design airplanes -- but you, and most people, do have direct evidence of a heavier than air machine flying. You've got a non-argument there. Is there anyway you could ever deny to yourself that it is possible for heavier than air machines to fly?

Evolutionary programming and genetic algorithms are that kind of evidence. It may be indirect to you now -- but you've got to be stubornly denying the obvious for you to deny such things exist.

It is still as absolute a proof as  the human animal can get.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,09:15   

Quote (tacitus @ May 03 2006,13:27)
I give up.  With every response Dave makes he confirms he's simply the same old run-of-the-mill young-earth creationist fundamentalist Christian who just happens to believe he has some novel approach to the tried old arguments.  Well, I;ve got news for him.  Expanding the definition of science to encompass supernatural phenomena is not a novel approach.   It is at the very heart of what both the creationist and ID movements have been trying to do since the beginning.  It's never worked before, and will never work in the future.

Have you ever met theist who actually had a novel take on these arguments?  I haven't.  The boilerplate is the same no matter what they claim or think.

But you are right about afDave: he hasn't actually responded to a single logic point raised.

He's boring.  ???

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,09:30   

Quote (afdave @ May 03 2006,10:28)
My problem with Danny Hillis' has nothing to do with the concepts of 'absolutes'.  It has everything to do with the question of 'What exactly does the Hillis demo tell us?'

Read the book I linked and you'll find out.

http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/

You'll learn some basic ideas about things like "search space," co-evolution, evolutionary computer algorithms and get a very brief note on the mathematics involved.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,09:43   

Quote (afdave @ May 03 2006,10:28)
No one has yet shown me an example of a worm-like creature evolving into a squid or a dinosaur-like creature evolving into a bird, ....

Evolution in animals takes a long time so you can't see it directly, (though you can get direct results with bacteria and fruit flies). We can, however, show you tons of evidence that it happened. You want a worm-like creature evolving into something? How about this bit of sample evidence:
http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/news/2005-06/jan/09.shtml
http://www.physorg.com/news9717.html

The genes of animals have extra bits of DNA sequence, called introns, that don't code for proteins. Humans have many and flies have fewer. Some assumed that a simple fly genome might be more ancient, but flies go through far more generations in the same period of time than humans or other animals. Genes don't always get more complex during evolution. So, animals have a lot of introns, and quickly-evolving species like flies have lost most of them.

We share introns with a worm-like creature that lived more than 550 million years ago, a last common ancestor of almost all living animals, including worms, flies and humans.

Evidence of a dinosaur-like creature evolving into a bird goes like this:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/Dinobirds.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news....yx.html

What you're talking about is phylum level evolution. Here is something you should read about creationist arguments:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm

How about an ape-like homid into a man?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761566394

Creationists have nothing like that kind of evidence not because they're not trying -- that had more than a thousand years head start on looking for evidence -- but because their evidence isn't there.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,11:20   

Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ May 03 2006,14:15)
He's boring.  ???

Yep.  Once they make it clear that they reject methodological naturalism, there's really no point in continuing the discussion.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,12:32   

Here's something else to think about, Dave.

You're really in the position of someone claiming heavier-than-air flight is impossible. The evidence for an ancient earth, and for the fact of evolution (as opposed to the Theory of Evolution), is absolutely overwhelming and ironclad. Those of us who are familiar with this evidence know this (you have demonstrated conclusively that you are not aware of this evidence).

Therefore, the only things you can say that will be of interest to the rest of us is why you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old and macroevolution doesn't happen. In other words, you need to show in detail why the vast body of evidence supporting these two contentions is incorrect. N.B.: you can't just show that a few pieces of evidence here and there are incorrect, because the evidence is cumulative. You'd have to refute virtually all of it.

But nothing else you can say on the subject is really of interest. Your methods, sources, life history, etc. aren't really advancing your argument. Nor are analogies to watches, airplanes, or other machines. Either presenting evidence that the earth is young, or demonstrating that the evidence of its antiquity is incorrect; or evidence not only that evolution is impossible, but that the Bible's account of the origin of species is correct, are really the only things that are going to get you anywhere here.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Joe the Ordinary Guy



Posts: 18
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,14:58   

Well, I just want to jump in and once again thank everyone for modeling the appropriate responses to Creationist blather. Afdave is certainly charming and affable, and he periodically throws in a little self-deprecating humor, but I, too, finally decided that he is unreachable. For me, it was these comments:

Quote
I was never a logician, by trade, but that does not mean I can't become one very quickly, especially when I see gross incompetence in the field.

Really? Without actually BEING one, Dave can see “gross incompetence”? Huh, that, to me, suggests that Dave can NOT “become one very quickly”.

Quote
I may not get very far with closed minded professional scientists, which I hope you are not, but I hope to put some truth out there in an area where I currently see a lot of error.

Dave hopes to put some “truth” out there. Not “corrections of data”, or “new and compelling data”, but “truth”. And of course, he “sees a lot of error” in spite of having no training other than reading some articles.

Quote
Why does it always seem that every time the word 'God' is even mentioned, everybody runs for cover and says it's not science?

No one “runs for cover”. Everyone “says it’s not science” for the simple reason that… wait for it… it’s not science! This is one of the things that truly puzzles me about fundies and biblical literalists. Why the obsession with being scientific? You’re talking about GOD. That is, if I recall, a RELIGIOUS topic. Not all things in the world are the same in all respects. Some things are different from other things in significant ways. Religion and Science would be two things that are not the same, but different. Why the insistence that the auto mechanic could really, really use flour, eggs and milk as part of his toolkit?

Quote
A lot hinges on this, too.  What people think about origins and the nature of mankind is VITALLY important to law and society.  This is why you see me being so passionate about this issue.

I think this is the real reason for Dave’s enthusiasm. Obviously, the world is going to h3ll in a handbasket, and someone has to do something, quick! Nevermind that old people have said this about young people since there have been old people and young people, THIS time, it’s SERIOUS! The other observation I would make is that there have been more than a few “societies” since the time of Christ. Of those with some form of Christianity as their religious foundation, there is significant difference in their laws and social structures. This suggests that there is not as direct a correlation as Dave may be hoping for.

Quote
My real goal is two-fold:  (1) to really get to the bottom of why Creationism is so objectionable to a lot of good scientists.  This is why I am HERE, not over at AIG or DI, (2) I have personally seen a lot of excellent support for being a Creationist, but I could be wrong.  If so, who better to tell me I'm wrong that professional scientists over here? (3) If I am right, the implications are enormous and all of humanity should know about this.

1) Creationism is objectionable because is CLAIMING to be science, but it is NOT science. If it WAS science, scientists would treat it as such. If it DID NOT CLAIM to be science, scientists would have no problem with it. 2) Oddly, in spite of ALL of the professional scientists here telling Dave he is wrong, he’s not getting it. Perhaps the answer to the “who better” would be… Dave’s minister. 3) Enormous implications for all of humanity? Wow! Ya think? Dave better hope there’s, like, no one else working on this question, or else they may tell all of humanity before he does and steal his thunder.

Quote
I think the REALLY NEW THING that I am presenting to you is not necessarily new evidence, but a NEW WAY OF DRAWING CONCLUSIONS FROM THE EVIDENCE, which I actually believe you put into practice every day in your scientific and other endeavors, but which you may not have thought to put into practice into the Origins question.


Quote
I consider ALL possibilities for explaining and describing the universe, not just so called 'naturalistic ones' which we presently understand.

This betrays such a misunderstanding of the scientific process that it is hard to know how to respond. After several promises of “evidence coming soon”, Dave changes tracks and offers a New Way of Drawing Conclusions; if you want Conclusion A, use Method A, and if you want Conclusion B, use Method B; what could be more useful than that?

My understanding is that the success of science is largely BECAUSE OF its strictly self-imposed limitations; ONLY natural phenomena, ONLY repeatable experiments, ONLY provisional acceptance of explanations. Once you admit supernatural explanations, you’ve diluted the usefulness of your explanations.

Dave was intriguing to me because he came on initially like someone who really did want to learn. It was kind of sad to see him reveal his inability to get it.

But thanks again to those who patiently respond; we lurkers find it valuable.

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,06:58   

Hello Everyone!

I begin this morning with a quote from Corkscrew because I can still see that we are not in agreement on HOW to present my case and WHAT constitutes 'science' ...

Quote
AFDave: again, I think we have a slight confusion of terminology. What you're describing as an hypothesis would, if I understand correctly, be more accurately considered a conjecture.  My understanding is that statements about the universe subdivide into the following categories:

Conjectures - statements that fit all the known data (these are produced by the largely-intuitive process of abduction)

Hypotheses - conjectures that are falsifiable

Data - conjectures that have been verified (there's no term for conjectures that are merely verifiable)

Predictions - conjectures that are both verifiable and falsifiable, and that haven't yet been verified or falsified

Science is concerned primarily with deciding which of the infinite number of possible hypotheses for any given situation is best. It does this by applying three principles: predictivity, parsimony and credibility. Predictivity means that an hypothesis must give us some idea of what we'll find next (otherwise it's scientifically useless), parsimony means that an hypothesis must be efficient in its use of "magic numbers" (so, for example, five dots in a row would be best described by a linear equation not a quintic equation), and credibility means that an hypothesis must have survived attempted falsification. Of these, credibility is the most important, followed by predictivity and then parsimony (this is partly because predictivity is a necessary condition for credibility).

Your conjecture does not, as it stands, make any predictions, so can't be considered an hypothesis. To rectify this, you'll need to:
1) increase its specificity until you can use it to make a prediction of the form described above
2) confirm that the current best-of-breed scientific hypotheses would not also make that prediction (ideally, they shouldn't even leave open the possibility of that prediction being true, but you can't have everything)
3) go out and test the prediction

I repeat: for your conjectures to be scientifically valid, it is not sufficient to present existing evidence in support of each of them. To match the level of current origins science, you must also be able to derive and confirm predictions from them. Otherwise, it really is just a "just so story". Predictivity is what makes the difference.


This objection is commonly called a "Demarcation Argument" ... possibly you all are very familiar with this in which certain "Demarcation Criteria" such as verifiability, falsifiability, predictivity, etc. are used to say "This is not science" or "that is not science."

While I would agree that Corkscrew's arguments are true for some endeavors within some branches of science, I do not think they are true for all of them.  Historical geology is one field that I would assume everyone here considers to be a scientific endeavor, yet I am not aware that the rules above apply.  My understanding of the data which we have in historical geology is that it is fixed.  We go out and observe the rock formations and begin making theories about WHY they are the way they are.  Of course, we can also test some samples in the lab to determine isotope content subject to certain initial conditions.  But I am not aware of anyone being able to make predictions of "how the next mountain range will be built" or "where the next oil fields will be laid" or "when, where or how a new gold mine will be formed." (If some of you know this last one, please tell me)  Rather, what we are concerned with is HOW the geologic formations got there  and WHAT EVENTS might have caused them, and this is a different business than predicting orbits of satellites, yet we rightly call it science.

Corkscrew uses the term 'origins science' and I agree that the study of the ORIGIN of all things IS INDEED SCIENCE.  However, some distinctions must be made.  A Neo-Darwinist's attempt to explain the origin of species (or we might say phyla here) by mutation and natural selection is in my opinion a scientific endeavor, but not because of the rules above.  Some of the rules certainly apply  when predicting relatively minor changes such the size of finch beaks, moth colorations, fruit fly anomalies, and my kid's disposition, etc.  But when ND's begin talking about how a worm developed into a squid, or how a land-mammal developed into a whale, they have crossed a big line.  Now they cannot make "predictions" in the same sense, i.e. "Put that worm in a bucket in your backyard, add X, Y, Z and wait one year and you will have a proto-squid."  They can do this with minor variations in finches and fruitflies, however.  They can say "Take some finches from South America with long beaks, put them on the Galapagos Islands and wait 10 years.  Then come back after 10 years and you will see only finches with short, strong beaks." (or whatever ... you get my point).  Do you see the difference?  One field of study, which I call "Designed Adaptation" (I think ND's call it confusingly to me -- Evolution) allows one to apply the demarcation tests of Credibility, Predictivity, Parsimony, mentioned by Corkscrew, and even Experimental Validation.  But with the former enterprise, which I have trouble labeling--shall we call it Macro-evolution? (worms to squids, eyes from eyespots, flippers from feet, etc)--we are not able to do any such thing to my knowledge.

I submit to you that in light of these considerations, my attempt to propose a Hypothesis for an Intelligent Designer as the Cause of all life on earth IS AT LEAST IN THE SAME CATEGORY OF DEMARCATION as current Neo-Darwinist attempts to explain life on earth (I call this Macro-Evolution, but I am open to a different term).

1)  BOTH have access to data which is FIXED.  We cannot observe flippers to feet happening today, and we cannot observe my postulated creation of dolphins.
2)  BOTH assume that AN EVENT in the past or a SERIES OF EVENTS in the past caused the phenomena being studied.
3)  BOTH are seeking to come up with a true description of the event or events that took place in the past.
4)  NEITHER can test the process that formed the phenomena today by experimental methods.
5)  BOTH require the use of analogy to things which ARE known to us
6)  BOTH require the scientist to DRAW INFERENCES TO THE BEST EXPLANATION

OK?  There you have my argument for why I think my structure is valid.  Before moving ahead with more evidence supporting Point 1 of my hypothesis, I would like to have your feedback.  For those who don't think I am being responsive with your questions, keep in mind that I am trying hard, but I also need to stay focused on the topic of this thread.

I did study the Human-Chimp chromosome fusion prediction and I found what appears to be some serious flaws in reasoning.  This is posted as a separate topic. I will be interested in your replies.

Quote
Evolution in animals takes a long time so you can't see it directly, (though you can get direct results with bacteria and fruit flies).

I am glad to see an acknowledgment that you cannot see evolution in animals.  I had never heard of that.  I am aware of the fruit fly and bacteria thing.  What kind of changes do we see?  I am only aware of relatively minor changes, which I would call 'Designed Adaptation.'  Are you saying that someone has observed, for instance, a fruit fly evolving into a house-fly like insect?

Quote
This is incorrect. The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the appearance of life. Origins of Life ("abiogenisis") theories are entirely separate from the Theory of Evolution. Nor does the Theory of Evolution have anything to say about the origin of the earth or the origin of the universe. Entirely separate theories deal with those issues. It's common among creationists to assume that the Theory of Evolution is an all-embracing origins theory.
OK.  Maybe someone should come up with one.  Isn't there something called a GUT? (Grand Unifying Theory).  That's sort of what mine attempts to be.

Quote
Dave, I asked you very early on in this thread to explain why you think the earth is only thousands of years old, not billions of years old.
I have to get past Demarcation Arguments and Point 1, then we will look at it.

Quote
Evolutionary programming and genetic algorithms are that kind of evidence. It may be indirect to you now -- but you've got to be stubornly denying the obvious for you to deny such things exist.
They are excellent evidence for what I call "Designed Adaptation" (moths, fruiflies, etc.) and are certainly quite useful, but they are not convincing to me regarding Flippers from Feet, etc.

Quote
One of the things about science that YEC's just can't get their heads around is that there just isn't any "my evidence" and "your evidence."
Agreed.  I did not mean to imply there is separate evidence.  I only meant evidence that I have seen.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,07:18   

Re: micro/macro

1+1=2  BUT

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 =/= 10?

In other words, what is the barrier to cumulative microevolution events resulting in macroevolutionary change in a lineage?

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,07:31   

hey half a dave

Forget about the.. ah theory (snigger)BS I've got a much better idea for you. Take a tip from someone who really knows how to sell a great idea(giggle). Merda d'artista available for a small price http://www.heyokamagazine.com/heyoka-3-manzoni.htm
much more valuable than ID its a collectable....a bit like ID.
You should go out and get all those books while they last
half a dave before they become as rare as rocking horse s**t.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,07:32   

Quote
4)  NEITHER can test the process that formed the phenomena today by experimental methods.
What we can do is test the mechanisms that we hypothesize caused macroevolution. We can also make predictions based on what we understand from these processes, of what we expect to find in other organisms.

Quote
5)  BOTH require the use of analogy to things which ARE known to us
How so? If you like we can stop using analogies for the purpose of this debate.

Quote
6)  BOTH require the scientist to DRAW INFERENCES TO THE BEST EXPLANATION
No one has said otherwise. This in no way means of course that both inferences are equally valid.

Quote
I did study the Human-Chimp chromosome fusion prediction and I found what appears to be some serious flaws in reasoning.
No it doesn't. I don't mean to be rude but you don't seem to have much of a concept of how biology works at all. If this was a mistake like you claim someone would have already noticed it.

It would be better for all concerned if you just present your evidence. We will judge it in the same way that we judge the evidence for evolution.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,08:09   

Dave, you've posted another great big long post on defintions, methods, etc., when what everyone here really wants to see is evidence. I cannot fail to point out that you have not yet presented any evidence for the following claims:

1. The Bible is inerrant;
2. The earth (and presumably the rest of the universe) is less than 10,000 years old; and
3. Evolution cannot account for the origin of species (and higher-level taxa).

You've been admonished several times that you'll wear out everyone's patience if you don't get down to supporting these three assertions.

Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,11:58)
Quote
This is incorrect. The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the appearance of life. Origins of Life ("abiogenisis") theories are entirely separate from the Theory of Evolution. Nor does the Theory of Evolution have anything to say about the origin of the earth or the origin of the universe. Entirely separate theories deal with those issues. It's common among creationists to assume that the Theory of Evolution is an all-embracing origins theory.
OK.  Maybe someone should come up with one.  Isn't there something called a GUT? (Grand Unifying Theory).  That's sort of what mine attempts to be.


In some sense, Dave, all of experience comes down to quantum mechanics. But if you think you're going to come up with a theory that explains the hierarchy problem in particle physics and how birds evolved from dinosaurs, you'd better get cracking. The "GUTs" (Grand Unified Theories) of particle physics attempt, with indifferent success, to unify three of the four known forces of nature (gravity excluded). They don't even begin to be as ambitious as to attempt to explain the origin of the universe, the origin of the earth, and the origin of life, and have nothing whatsoever to say about the evolution of life.

Quote
I have to get past Demarcation Arguments and Point 1, then we will look at it.


No you don't. Demarkation arguments aren't going to help you. We want to see evidence to support your assertions, and you're not going to get any peace until you present such assertions. Quibbling about "demarkation arguments" is a waste of time.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,08:23   

Not to belabor the point, but it seems Davey is very confused about the term "testable predictions".  He's expecting Nostradamus-type predictions, like how many fingers humans will have one million years from now.  He doesn't seem to appreciate actual scientific predictions, like human/chimp DNA similarity, chromosome fusion, finding specific fossils, etc.

Of course, this is certainly a minor complaint compared to his dismissal of methodological naturalism.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,11:33   

Quote
You've been admonished several times that you'll wear out everyone's patience if you don't get down to supporting these three assertions.

Relax.  Relax.  We'll get there ... besides, aren't you having fun beating up on a YECer?  Just think ... you might even make a convert!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,11:43   

Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,16:33)
Quote
You've been admonished several times that you'll wear out everyone's patience if you don't get down to supporting these three assertions.

Relax.  Relax.  We'll get there ... besides, aren't you having fun beating up on a YECer?  Just think ... you might even make a convert!

Beating up a YECer? Fun? Not much sport really.
Make a convert?  Why would we care to make one of you?  You won't even Google that rubbish from AIG for truthiness before cutting and pasting it here.  Can't see how much use you'd be to science.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,11:44   

Actually, not really. Since you haven't actually presented any "evidence" yet, all we've really been able to do is ask you to present it.

Granted, it was slightly fun to watch you pull up 30-year-old research to attempt to refute one piece of evidence in support of evolution, only to have it get torn to shreds, but we see this kind of thing all the time from creationists.

What we really want to see is your evidence supporting your assertions. We haven't seen that yet.

Creationists spend about 95% of their time trying to critique scientific research they don't have the competence to critique, and another 5% in lobbying efforts aimed at the non-scientific community. That leaves what percent for actual research?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,15:26   

Quote
Beating up a YECer? Fun? Not much sport really.
Mmmm ... proud words!  Hope you can keep it up for the long haul :-)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,15:44   

Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,20:26)
Hope you can keep it up for the long haul :-)

Not likely.

If you can't figure out that microevolution in your lifetime + millions of years = macroevolution then people will eventually see that trying to teach your religion darkened brain anything is about is profitable as Brian Greene trying to teach his dog string theory.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,16:06   

Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,16:33)
Relax.  Relax.  We'll get there ... besides, aren't you having fun beating up on a YECer?  Just think ... you might even make a convert!

It's actually depressing to see another human being so gleefully embracing ignorance and lies.  The worst part is that many of us feel helpless to do anything about it.  We can argue until we're blue in the face, but nothing ever seems to snap you true believers out of that trance.  Any anger you sense is just coming out of our frustration.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Joe the Ordinary Guy



Posts: 18
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,17:11   

Dave, let me try this approach:

I’m not a scientist. I’m just a regular guy. I am considered knowledgeable and talented in my chosen field, (business video communications) and the people who consider me so are my peers. I have interests and activities outside of my chosen field; these are hobbies (collecting PEZ dispensers, writing original music).  In my hobbies, I am NOT an expert, and I sometimes seek information from people who I determine may know more than I.

From what you’ve told us, you were an Electrical Engineer, an Air Force Pilot, and a successful businessman. Cool. I bet you’re smart and know a lot of stuff.

Now, I don’t know about you, but in MY life, I have found that there are many things I DON’T know. Plumbing. Car repair. Tax return preparation. Ballroom dancing. Gourmet cooking. Quantum mechanics. Evolutionary biology. And many more.

For these things, I rely on Experts. I mean, I suppose I COULD study the tax code and prepare my own returns, but you know what? I don’t wanna. It doesn’t interest me. So I hire an accountant to do that for me. I trust him to do so professionally, and so far, so good. And I suppose I COULD learn to cook better, but I usually get a better meal when I go to a restaurant, so when I want a really good meal, I go to a restaurant. I trust the chef not to poison me, and so far, so good. And there are some things that I simply, physically, cannot do. My knees are way too shot to ever let me learn ballroom dancing. And my brain is way too small to ever let me learn quantum mechanics. So I trust the professionals in those fields as well.

Science (like Religion) is a human endeavor conducted by human beings. It is, therefore, imperfect. (Like Religion.) I believe that the class of professionals called “scientists” has no inherent reason to lie to the rest of us. I notice that when they catch one of their own in a lie, they essentially destroy the liar’s career. I’m confident that they sometimes make mistakes, but the nature of their endeavor is to continually refine their knowledge and correct mistakes as they are found.  I understand and appreciate that the nature and amount of their training is far more than I could handle, and I respect them for their knowledge and ability. I trust them.

You, apparently, do not.

Could you tell me why?

Thanks.

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,17:30   

I trust them with many, many things as well.  I am not a hermit who rejects science.  I love all the research that our enormous scientific community is doing and most of what they do is not affected by my debate here.  

There is really one really big thing I resent.  And that is the idea that humans are nothing more than highly evolved animals.  This to me first of all has never been proven but many scientists speak as if it has, and secondly, history has shown what this type of belief can do in a society if it is believed by the leadership. I not only believe it is unproven, I believe it is patently false, and I believe that I can show that my assertion that mankind is no animal (in spite of our little chimp discussion today), but that he is in a different category--made in the image of the Creator God with the ability to commune with this God, is very well supported by the evidence.  

The rest of the stuff I don't care nearly so much about.

See you tomorrow!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
jupiter



Posts: 97
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,17:38   

afdave, you've asserted that your view of the world and its origins is true because a) most people believe it and b) you and others are marshaling political support for it.

Yet you agree with Behe that a two-foot stack of research, produced and challenged and confirmed over many decades, is meaningless.

Are scientific research and its results determined by democratic vote, or not? If not, you have no support at all. If so, who's franchised? How often would the votes take place? Who sets the ballot? Are the votes national, or statewide, or county-by-county? How would the voting affect, e.g., pharmaceutical research? If scientific research isn't voted on but scientific pedagogy is -- how would that work?

You reject so-called "macroevolution" because you've never witnessed it. In theological terms, aren't you being a bit presumptuous, assuming that the Lord's works are limited by what you can perceive? In practical terms, if you flew a plane relying on nothing but your own senses, how would that work out?

Your thinking is pretty flabby, for a skeptic. Or anyone else.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,17:48   

Hi afdave ;)

Well, God made us right after all the other animals, and we share a lot of the same characteristics with them... Do you think the people who wrote Genesis knew exactly how God made all the animals, or us, out of dirt? They only write a sentence or two. How did God do it?

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,18:33   

Quote
I love all the research that our enormous scientific community is doing and most of what they do is not affected by my debate here.


Well, actually, none of the research is affected by your debate.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,19:29   

Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,22:30)
There is really one really big thing I resent.  And that is the idea that humans are nothing more than highly evolved animals.  This to me first of all has never been proven but many scientists speak as if it has, and secondly, history has shown what this type of belief can do in a society if it is believed by the leadership.

Why do you resent the idea that you're an animal, Dave? (Would you prefer to be a plant?)

The evidence that human beings are animals (as opposed to, say, amniosperms, fungi, viruses, or archaebacteria) is so utterly overwhelming as to leave the suspicion that doubters aren't fully in possession of their senses. Not only can we tell that humans are animals, but we can tell how closely or how distantly they are related to other primates, other mammals, other amniotes, other vertebrates, other animals, other eukaryotes, etc. I'm sorry this makes you feel resentful, but I suppose that can't be helped.

I guess if it makes you feel better to believe that humans were specially created by God and bear no closer relationship to other animals than they do to, say, the color blue or the number 3.4747907, I don't really have a problem with that. But if you think you're going to persuade the rest of us that none of us are actually animals, I suggest you try a less challenging hobby. Like, for example, building suspension bridges using the two smallest toes on your left foot and items found around the office.

Oh, and if you're worried about the political ramifications of a belief that humans are animals—look around you and observe the political ramifications of a belief that they are not.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,21:26   

True Believer

So, Dave, your only gripe is really with common descent, from ape to man? That's it? That's all? Then why all this other useless noise and antics? Lets focus on the chimp/human thing then and ignore the rest of the BS.

Tip: Vitamin C. I used to be a YEC fundie, Vitamin C did it for me. Why do you need Vitamin C? What other animals... come on Dave, show us you can do some googling....

  
  6047 replies since May 01 2006,03:19 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (202) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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