bjray
Posts: 13
Joined: Mar. 2010
|
| Quote (OgreMkV @ April 24 2010,15:27) | | Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,13:44) | 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. 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, 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? Although, there is an answer, so one of us is right, the other wrong.
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 go back to Darwin, although that is apparently the wrong thing to do (as mentioned by many of you). Evolution attempts to explain that morality fits within its theory based on kin and tribal survival. Ie: survival of the fittest and having the best care for the weaker among kin or the tribe. Thus, the “gene of self-sacrifice” is carried on due to the fittest taking care of the weaker among kin or tribe. Good, great, that may help explain some parts of morality (also..where’s the this gene of self-sacrifice?). But what about altruism and humans treating every human right, even if they know it cannot be reciprocated? Take wars for example. Almost every war has had some backlash of how a person’s own nation treated the other. Why is this? From an evolutionary perspective, why care about another. Because if self-preservation is a motive, is it really genuine care at all?
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.)
All right, till next time.
P.s. J-Dogg, I am thankful for the responses I have gotten. |
| Quote | | I am informed about the difference between evolution, abiogenesis and big bang. |
Obviously, not enough scientific versions of these.
| Quote |
While maybe all can be considered different “scientific enterprises”, they all have at least one thing in common: evolutionary theory sprinkled about them. |
Find a single reference that says this. As has been explained to you, the word 'evolution' can be used to describe anything that changes. Heck, Ford has used 'evolution' to describe the latest Mustang.
[QUOTE}
Furthermore, the notion that the big bang best fits current scientific evidence does not necessitate it being factual. [/QUOTE]
But it does imply that it is more likely to have happened that way than the Incan creation myth.
| Quote |
(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. |
That is the key word. You believe therefore you don't bother to look further. You ignore any evidence that conflicts with your belief and anyone who presents evidence otherwise is trying to disrupt your belief system.
| Quote |
This fits the best evidence I have. (Go ahead, get caught up on “what evidence”.) |
Then I suggest you get a new source of evidence, because your current source sucks. I mean that literally. If you believe that the evidence that 150 years of scientific research into Astronomy, Cosmology, and Physics best matches a designer, then you are deluded and quite possibly stupid. No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
| 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).
|
Then why are you trying to convince people whose job IS the nitty gritty that they are wrong? Honestly, you're talking to people here who have been studying this for longer than you've been alive (assuming you're a college student). I average two books in Biology per year, 1 in Physics, 1 in Astronomy, and 1 or 2 in some technology a year... and I've been doing this for over 20 years. And I'm not a professional scientist. Just an interested amateur. If you can't keep up with that, then don't freaking bother.
| Quote |
Evolutionary explanations for such things: ie: big bang, commit a logical fallacy. Let me explain the best I know how.
|
Here's your logical fallacy: If A=B and C=D, then if A is wrong, then D must be wrong.
| Quote |
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.
|
Let's try this: If a cop find a man standing over a dead man. The living man has a knife. The dead man has 12 stab wounds in him. The knife is bloody. The body is still warm. The living man has blood splatters all over him and is presently eating the dead man's liver.
According to you, because we didn't see it happening the living man should not be convicted of murder.
| 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)
|
Umm.. that's not how it works. That's how 'creation science' works. Assume what you're trying to prove.
Here's how science works. Two organisms look alike (observation). Maybe the two organisms are related (hypothesis). The two organisms are not related (null hypothesis). If the two organisms are related, then many things about them will be similar (experiment). Scientist then investigates anatomy, morphology, protein similarities, DNA/gene sequences, reproductive ability, fossil record of both organisms, etc. If all of these things show that the two organisms are closely related, then the hypothesis is supported.
That's how it works. It will never be 'proven'.
| 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? Although, there is an answer, so one of us is right, the other wrong.
|
I will happily agree to disagree... if you and your side (i.e. ID) quit influencing school boards to force the teaching of ID and the 'weaknesses' of evolution.
Any competent science teacher will explain all of science positive and negative. There is no reason to single out evolution for special treatment.
Maybe, when ID has 150 years of evidential support behind it, then it will be treated as evolution is in schools. However, year 1 hasn't started yet, because no one has any evidence for ID.
| 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. I go back to Darwin, although that is apparently the wrong thing to do (as mentioned by many of you). Evolution attempts to explain that morality fits within its theory based on kin and tribal survival. Ie: survival of the fittest and having the best care for the weaker among kin or the tribe. Thus, the “gene of self-sacrifice” is carried on due to the fittest taking care of the weaker among kin or tribe. Good, great, that may help explain some parts of morality (also..where’s the this gene of self-sacrifice?). But what about altruism and humans treating every human right, even if they know it cannot be reciprocated? Take wars for example. Almost every war has had some backlash of how a person’s own nation treated the other. Why is this? From an evolutionary perspective, why care about another. Because if self-preservation is a motive, is it really genuine care at all? |
Evidence against evolution is not evidence for ID.
Oh BTW:
Scientists find evidence of the evolution of morality in monkeys
The absence of reward induces inequity aversion in dogs
Monkeys show sense of fairness
Food Sharingin Vampire Bats
These are just the links from Wiki. There's a fair bit of research into the evolution of 'morality'. I suggest you study up on things before making statements regarding them.
| Quote |
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.)
All right, till next time.
P.s. J-Dogg, I am thankful for the responses I have gotten. |
No one says that evolution is the end-all-be-all of biology. There are many significant questions remaining to be answered even in evolutionary theory. However, real scientists look for answers. They don't say "Well, I don't know how this works, therefore no one will ever understand it, therefore God (excuse me, a designer) did it."
Since you won't answer questions about evidence (you admit that you have none), how about answering this question:
Is it OK to lie and steal if it supports your religion (or other moral believe system)? |
Eww, someones in a tiffy.
First of all, I've attempted not to misrepresent the evolutionary perspective or side of things and I don't do this for a living.
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.)
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.
| Quote | | Any competent science teacher will explain all of science positive and negative. There is no reason to single out evolution for special treatment. |
Open your eyes. This doesn't happen, unless school boards are mandated it. And I'm glad people go to school boards to ensure that both are taught, including weaknesses.
I never asserted (and I repeat myself) that evidence against evolution is not evidence for ID. Sheesh, do you read previous posts? If not, I'll quote here for you: | Quote | | I'm not trying to pick apart some random scientific theory. It happens to be the most widely held among "big dog" scientists. Therefore, it deserves scrutiny. Alternatively, I'm not suggesting that by disproving one, the other is automatically correct. What I'm saying is let’s take what evidence we can look at and discuss our options. |
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.
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.
Here is my source for morality.
The Holy Bible, Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21 says:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened
|
