|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/12/2006 11:16:26 AM | Coffee...
If your theory is creationism...how do you seperate the creator part from it...I was hoping you might explain in a bit more detail.
I understood Creationism / I.D. arguments as always explaining the origin of life with a grand designer.
If your theory is as you stated, limited to micro-evolution, then you would seemingly be holding onto a piece of evolutionary theory and claiming it as your own. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/12/2006 11:24:25 AM | "Creation is the theory that the Earth was populated with the fully developed organic life forms that we see still today with minor variation coming from micro-evolution."
How cute. Coffee is trying to play science again. Sorry, but that claim has absolutely no support from empirical evidence, which makes it a theory, yes, but not a scientific one. The notion that the stars are not massive bodies of thermonuclear fusion, but instead are angels, is a theory. Unfortunately it, as well, is not supported by the empirical evidence. The evidence from Genetics, Evolutionary Developmental Biology and Paleontology all disprove the claim of simultaneous creation. In fact, if "the earth was populated with the fully developed organic life forms that we see still today with minor variation" then how do you explain the plethora of long extinct species? Are they the conspiratorial works of Satan?
"First off, "After their kind". Meaning that Homo sapiens will bear homo sapiens, pigs will produce pigs etc. It can be predicted."
Son, that is hardly a scientific prediction. That is an obvious observation. Your level of confusion is becoming amusing.
Funny- Bright you said almost the exact same thing before I finished my edit. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/12/2006 11:25:19 AM |
First off, "After their kind". Meaning that Homo sapiens will bear homo sapiens, pigs will produce pigs etc. It can be predicted.
That is not a prediction, that is an observation.
To be a prediction it would have to say something along the lines of, the progeny will always be identical to the rest of thier species, or some such thing.
The problem with that is that it is not true. Even an observation as basic as like begets like is false. Bacteria can difer vastly from thier parents. In one single generation, a bacteria can mutate so much that it can no longer be classed as the same species as its progenitors. The AIDS virus for example, did not exist 100 years ago, its is a completely new Virus and is seperate species of virus to anything else. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/12/2006 11:40:40 AM | " I can think of a number of different ways that creation can be true that doesn't necessitate your assumption."
What assumption??? I wasnt making one, you were , and you just did it agin...
I was stating that the "agent og creation" as you put it was very much a part of the equation you are purporting to be the actual case in the "who done it and how" saga that this thread turned into..
And as such..ie,.part of the equation...it was also in question...you are not going to be able to seperate the actor from the act...That is all I was saying and I wont go any further than that...
I am not looking to rumble ...only giving My opinion and your taunt of ,.." Is this the best you can do for a rebuttal? "...signals to me that this is your primary reason for posting here...I do not think that this is either helpful nor is it very wise..and I will not engage in it any further...
Your "opinion" is noted, examined and rejected...not because of your beliefs...(whatever they may be) but because of your very faulty logical technique in this..
I am thing that this thread was originally the question
"Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School?"
And near as I can tell you havent answered the question, only sought to call into question other member's opinions...
Admin frown on thread hijacking.. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/12/2006 11:45:15 AM | As to micro-evolution...I should clarify I meant to say "holding onto a piece of evolutionary theory, twisting around, and claiming it as your own."
Shame on me for missing the edit function in time. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/12/2006 12:42:37 PM |
Majestic- I'm going by the definition in the dictionary. You want to use your own opinion of what it means.
I was also going by the definition in the dictionary. The difference is that I understand it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/12/2006 7:30:03 PM | If your theory is creationism...how do you seperate the creator part from it...I was hoping you might explain in a bit more detail.
Seperate the same way abiogensis is a theory apart from evolution itself. It would be scientific hypocrisy to demand that a theory needs to explain the first instant and an alternate theory doesn't.
If your theory is as you stated, limited to micro-evolution, then you would seemingly be holding onto a piece of evolutionary theory and claiming it as your own.
Not at all. There is no question that there is a certain amount of evolving within a species and there is a possibility of some new species if there are enough mutations. However, not to the degree that it comes to macro-evolution.
To be a prediction it would have to say something along the lines of, the progeny will always be identical to the rest of thier species, or some such thing.
Sorry, not up on all the scientific jargon but I was figuring you guys were smart enough to figure out what I meant. My bad, making assumptions.
In one single generation, a bacteria can mutate so much that it can no longer be classed as the same species as its progenitors. The AIDS virus for example, did not exist 100 years ago, its is a completely new Virus and is seperate species of virus to anything else.
What proof is there that the Aids virus didn't exist 100 years ago in a more benign form? What proof is there that it wasn't scientifically engineered? There are enough stories that it is too different to have come from the wild. Studies are indicating that bacteria mutations are pimarily through lateral gene transfer which doesn't appear to be a factor in the higher orders. Seems like comparing apples to oranges as far as the evolutionary process is concerned.
Another prediction for Creationist theory is that there would be a sudden appearance of life in the fossil record. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/12/2006 8:21:25 PM | "Seperate the same way abiogensis is a theory apart from evolution itself. It would be scientific hypocrisy to demand that a theory needs to explain the first instant and an alternate theory doesn't."
Wrong again. Evolution, and I don't even know how many people have told you this repeatedly, is a theory about the mechanisms and causal factors that explain the data we observe. It is largely contingent upon empirical evidence and the empirical verification of specific predictions or logical conclusions of the theory, or a hypothesis within the theory, as well as logical consistency and coherency. Creationism explains and predicts nothing. All creationism says is that Evolution is false, and offers no scientific theory in replacement. The only testable claim it makes is that all life was created simultaneously, a claim which is demonstrably false. Abiogenesis is a nascent study of the origins of organic molecules from inorganic molecules. It is only tangentially related to Evolution.
"Not at all. There is no question that there is a certain amount of evolving within a species and there is a possibility of some new species if there are enough mutations. However, not to the degree that it comes to macro-evolution."
This comment is very amusing, because it's flawed on so many levels. You admit to a mechanism by which microevolution leads to macroevolution (although it is a misunderstanding) and then you say that it doesn't lead to macroevolution. If enough evolution, as you say, occurs that it may lead to "some new species" (I'm chuckling as I write this, because your understanding of Evolution is comical), then you are essentially talking about macroevolution. If you are willing to go that far (even though you are misguided in your explication of the process) then why not just accept that speciation occurs through time? If you are willing to say God programed some variability and plasticity into life, and that this plasticity can lead to "some new species" then why stop short of the logical conclusion, that he programed the mechanisms from the start, and Evolution is his tool?
"Sorry, not up on all the scientific jargon but I was figuring you guys were smart enough to figure out what I meant. My bad, making assumptions."
This says it all. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE THEORY. Stop talking out of your posterior. You are a sap. You have been conned by psuedo-scientists with an agenda. Your sources are lies and misrepresentations; you need to access legitimate resources if you care to actually discuss the issue, because YOU AREN'T DISCUSSING THE ISSUE. I don't know how else to make you understand this very simple point. Are you cognitively unable to grasp that? Go Google "flat earth" and see what comes up. Are they telling the truth? Is it science? You have been conned, and your knowledge of science is too thin to recognize it. This is exactly what the creationists are banking on.
"Another prediction for Creationist theory is that there would be a sudden appearance of life in the fossil record."
On what scale do you mean sudden? On a geologic scale, which is on the scale of tens to hundreds of thousands of years? Or do you mean instantaneous, because there is no evidence of the latter. Of the former, there is plenty of evidence throughout history of such events, the Cambrian explosion being a significant one, which is coherent with punctuated equilibrium. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/12/2006 8:24:06 PM | Another prediction for Creationist theory is that there would be a sudden appearance of life in the fossil record.
That is not a prediction. Its an irrational assertion that keeps getting repeated by Creationists over and over and over again. You could just as easily say that according to your theory there are fossils anywhere in the Earth's strata because God put them there and then say that the fact that they have been found there is a prediction. It isn't a prediction, its an arbitrary psuedo-scientific assertion. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/12/2006 8:27:42 PM | : Another prediction for Creationist theory is that there would be a sudden appearance of life in the fossil record.
That is not a prediction. Its an irrational assertion that keeps getting repeated by Creationists over and over and over again. You could just as easily say that according to your theory there are fossils anywhere in the Earth's strata because God put them there and then say that the fact that they have been found there is a prediction. It isn't a prediction, its an arbitrary psuedo-scientific assertion.
***********************************************************************No It`s an oxy moran | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/12/2006 9:01:25 PM |
Not at all. There is no question that there is a certain amount of evolving within a species and there is a possibility of some new species if there are enough mutations. However, not to the degree that it comes to macro-evolution.
Hehe, that should have read:
Not at all. There is no question that there is a certain amount of evolving within a species and there is a possibility of some new species if there are enough hereditary traits. However, not to the degree that it comes to macro-evolution.
Fruedian slip? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/12/2006 9:09:45 PM | First off I really don't see why there is a debate over creation and evolution it is so simple.
evolution is a fact. i wont even debate it. The evidence is there, in the present , and fossil record ; end of that dilema.
Second :The universe/multiverse; what ever you want to call; had to come from somewhere. Also, something caused life to spring forth when there was none. Poof now we have "god" end of that dilema.
Seems to me that evolution, and creation are kind of interdependant on each other.
Or it Could be noted that Evolution is just the ongiong process of creation.
And in five hundred years if man is still here on this earth: Man will look back at our views on the subject much like we do today; when considering we thought the earth was flat once . Think of all the time, and man-power wasted on this subject that could have been put into medical reseach or the like .
I have read many interesting posts in this forum . Have fun debating people! Cio/ | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/12/2006 9:59:18 PM |
Creationism fits within the definition of "theory". It has been repeatedly tested, is widely accepted, and can be used to make predictions.
Ok, please state the Theory of Creationism.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/12/2006 10:26:35 PM | Big_eyed_owl wrote:
I know it's been said many times but it just happened again twice. Both the above lines taken from Tsur's and Flyguy's posts attack creationist themselves rather than any argument of theirs.
My comment was directed to the *constant* use of fabricated quotes by Creationists in this thread, frequently the SAME quotes used previously in the thread by a *different* Creationist.
Really, I've asked *several* times on this thread (all 120+ pages) that Creationists should take SOME sort of care with their use of quotations, and yet, over and over, we've seen Creationists keep using misquotes and distortions of arguments.
Now, do they know they're misquotes, or not? If they know they're misquotes, isn't that lying? If they don't, isn't that evidence they don't understand what they're posting?
Can't people take the time to understand their OWN positions, never mind their opponents? The number of really brutal misrepresentations of basic evolutionary theory by Creationist (and non-Creationist) posters on this thread is painful.
So yeah. I'm attacking Creationists - the ones who post misquotes and then don't apologize when they get told they're misquotes. You know why? It's dishonest and lazy. You want to blame someone for that? Blame the idiots who spread the misquotes around Creationist websites for others to cut&paste from.
If you don't understand the argument, *learn*. Don't just parrot someone elses words you don't understand. It makes you lazy and/or dishonest when you can't be bothered to take the time to do so. And it's the *hallmark* of Creationists. Whenever I see a Creationist post a bunch of quotes, I *know* most of them are either irrelevant or fake. Why? Experience - because they keep using the SAME misquotes, over and over. They never apologize, they never admit they were wrong, they never learn.
On the Evolution argument one of my questions is how nature/environment or whatever an evolutionist would say is determining how creatures evolve could cause a creature to involve into something that has the ability to creat controlled widespread change(many would say destruction) in that thing that controlled how they evolved.
I would also wonder why only humans evolved the ability to do the above.
Other life forms have greatly changed the environment before man ever showed up. Photosynthesis was a huge change - the appearance of oxygen in the atmosphere would have wiped out most life on the Earth, which would have been anaerobic. Then the evolution of predation would have been a huge change as the early life forms like stromatolites would have been decimated when something figured out how to eat them - they'd have no defenses. There's a reason you find stromatolite fossils all *over* the planet, but today they're only in one place (that I know of) on the west coast of Australia - the bay is hypersaline and almost nothing can live in it *except* stromatolites.
Hominids (and some other species), having evolved intelligence, however, have evolved the ability to remove certain selective pressures. For example, I'm strongly myopic, and 100,000 years ago I'm sure I'd have fared poorly in the hunter-gatherer societies present at the time. Today, I do quite well. Short-sightedness is no longer a disadvantage, so in the absence of a selective pressure (assuming there's a genetic component to myopia), the incidence of myopia (or presbyopia) will increase.
So it seems to me you're asking 'how did man learn how to reduce selective pressure'. The answer to me is simple - we're intelligent animals who learned how to manipulate the environment. There were others who learned this too - we're just the only ones left. We either killed off or assimilated the Neandertals and other hominid lineages Personally I'd call any species of Homo 'human', but then not too long ago some people considered various members of Homo sapiens sapiens as 'nonhuman' or 'subhuman' based on really ignorant criteria... (c.f. 'Hamitic theory').
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/13/2006 12:42:33 AM | Tsur writes
So yeah. I'm attacking Creationists - the ones who post misquotes and then don't apologize when they get told they're misquotes. You know why? It's dishonest and lazy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the small part of the 120+ page post I've seen I agree with your opinion that it is creationist more than Evolutionist posting misinformation and so can see your frustration
that being said I don't see why you need to single out creationist rather than simply stating how lazy and dishonest etc you think people who post misinformation are.
Tsur writes
Other life forms have greatly changed the environment before man ever showed up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------nd---------
For this reason I went back and edited my post right after I posted it to make sure it read "has the ability to creat CONTROLLED widespread change" Something I contend is unique to humans and uniquesness is a trait that I would say is to be expected more in a universe created by a process that involves intelligence than one created from a process that I thought involved randomness but which after reading some of this debate brings up two more questions
Is evolution by natural selection a random process?
If it is not as I think I've heard contended by Evolutionist than how can that be with a major component of it being random genetic mutations or is this not what Evolutionist contend?
I contend intelligent design is a testable theory while creationism is not.
they are not the same
Intelligent design simply says that there must have been an intelligent involved in the creation and transformation of life
I.D. does not argue against a godless/creatorless view of creation
it argues against and only against creation and transformation of life haveing happened by a random process/ (a process that does not involve an intelligence)
The view of evolution by natural selection as a machine that created all life is consistent with I.D. as long as the machine is held to contain intelligence
To the argument that I.D. logicly requires the explanation of where the intelligence came from this is no more logical than saying Evolutionalist need to expain where "natural" came from in the theory of evolution by natural selection If nature always existed I can say for I.D. that the intelligence always existed.
I'll post what attributes of I.D. I think can be tested in another post due to the length of this one. Sorry for the length but I haven't posted on this thread in awhile before the 126th page if I did at all. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:59:53 AM | Hey you want to take a second and explain to us what scietific tests Intelligent Design can be subjected to?
"I contend intelligent design is a testable theory while creationism is not."
I am pretty sure this has been dealt with. Evolution does not have purpose or intent, it is random. What is so hard to comprehend about that statement. Giraffes do not have long necks because they stretched for trees, and 'Evolution' decided that - whoa go go gadget neck.
"The view of evolution by natural selection as a machine that created all life is consistent with I.D. as long as the machine is held to contain intelligence."
Your comparison fails. I.D. pressupposes an Intelligent Designer - that presupposition is contained within the very name, thus it is a valid question to ask for proof of, or an indication of that designer beyond - its all to complicated for there not to be.
Evolution does not concern itself with the question of how life got started, as many have noted, evolution concerns itself with the progression and changes that have happened throughout the history of life on this planet. The only pressupposition that evolution makes is that life exists. How that life came into existence is not of concern to the science of evolution.
"To the argument that I.D. logicly requires the explanation of where the intelligence came from this is no more logical than saying Evolutionalist need to expain where "natural" came from in the theory of evolution by natural selection If nature always existed I can say for I.D. that the intelligence always existed." | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/13/2006 9:32:41 AM | "Is evolution by natural selection a random process?"
Yes and no. There are causal factors that are random, such as random genetic drift or climatic changes in the environment, but those factors shape the process in a non-random way. In other words a caldera eruption may be a random event in relation to you and I as we go about our daily lives, but the selective pressures that that event places on the organisms or species in the area is anything but random. Those animals that are able to survive such an event will pass on their genetic material. It's random in the sense that the animals had no idea a caldera eruption was immenent, and did not evolve traits specifically for that purpose, but it is not random in the sense that the event "chooses" some genetic determinents over others. Also, it is non-random so far as the internal constraints of established genetic patterns go, or the external constraints of the higher order patterns evoked by non-linear dynamical systems. That is a complex issue, but just think of it this way- you can't push a square peg into a round hole, so physical forces do restrict to a degree what are possible outcomes. As a point of analogy, because of surface area to volume ratios, a human could not retain his shape and evolve to thirty feet tall as he would collapse under the forces of gravity. Non-linear dynamical systems, which the complex interactions of genetics and environment manifest, also impose constraints.
"it argues against and only against creation and transformation of life haveing happened by a random process/ (a process that does not involve an intelligence)"
A process that does not involve intelligence is not by necessity random. You are confusing terms. Unintelligent forces impose order on nature. Anyone who has taken a high school physics course can understand this. So if all I.D. contends is that it opposes utter randomeness then there is no argument. Glad we could clear that up.
"The view of evolution by natural selection as a machine that created all life is consistent with I.D. as long as the machine is held to contain intelligence"
Again, whether or not intelligence is involved is irrelevant to the theory. Such contemplations leave the purview of science for philosophy. Interpret it on a philosophical level any way you like. It has no bearing on the scientific theory one way or the other.
"To the argument that I.D. logicly requires the explanation of where the intelligence came from this is no more logical than saying Evolutionalist need to expain where "natural" came from in the theory of evolution by natural selection If nature always existed I can say for I.D. that the intelligence always existed."
That may be true if I.D. actually postited any scientific theory in opposition, but it doesn't. It is only a very poorly executed refutation of Evolution, and offers no scientific theory in its stead. The refutations consist of lies, misrepresentations and egregious misunderstandings of science and scientific methodology. And Evolution does very explicitly explain where "natural" comes from- NATURE! You didn't seriously say that did you? The caprices of nature are a causal factor in selection, and the theory very clearly and in great detail explains that process. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/13/2006 9:42:13 AM | Big_eyed_owl wrote:
From the small part of the 120+ page post I've seen I agree with your opinion that it is creationist more than Evolutionist posting misinformation and so can see your frustration
that being said I don't see why you need to single out creationist rather than simply stating how lazy and dishonest etc you think people who post misinformation are.
Because misquoting is a *fetish* with Creationists. I've been on talk.origins since 1992 or so, and Creationists have been using the same misquotes (and new ones, I grant them that) since before that. It's so bad, and so repetitive, that some folk over at talk.origins have been putting up the Creationist Quote Mining Project to make it easier to figure out exactly WHAT misquote Joe Q. Creationist is using.
Is evolution by natural selection a random process?
Mutation is generally considered random; natural selection is in response to environmental effects, so really isn't random. I mean, if you've got a longer beak you'll get the harder to reach seeds in a dry year (or more of them, or with less effort) so you'll tend to survive. Not random, really, although the drought is somewhat. Natural selection is only one mechanism of evolution though, there are others.
I contend intelligent design is a testable theory while creationism is not.
they are not the same
Intelligent design simply says that there must have been an intelligent involved in the creation and transformation of life
ID is Creationism. Maybe in theory there's some pure form of it that isn't, but in reality, it's simply Scientific Creationism with the word 'Creationism' changed to 'Intelligent Design'. It's the same people (Phil Johnson, for example) who pushed SciCre in the 1980s on bogus 'equal time' claims that are pushing ID today - look at the Wedge Document to see their motives - it's religious.
I.D. does not argue against a godless/creatorless view of creation
it argues against and only against creation and transformation of life haveing happened by a random process/ (a process that does not involve an intelligence)
Evolution doesn't exclude a creator either, either God or the little men from the planet Xordax. To claim otherwise is another Standard Creationist Untruth. The fact that some evolution supporters are atheist is true, many are theists. The fact that most mainstream religious denominations have no problem with evolution might tell you something. But the origin of life is really an open question (I've stated my position previously on this thread.)
The view of evolution by natural selection as a machine that created all life is consistent with I.D. as long as the machine is held to contain intelligence
Strawman. Evolution deals with changes in populations, not how it was created or arose.
To the argument that I.D. logicly requires the explanation of where the intelligence came from this is no more logical than saying Evolutionalist need to expain where "natural" came from in the theory of evolution by natural selection If nature always existed I can say for I.D. that the intelligence always existed.
Except we have evidence of the Universe existing for 10+ billion years, and of the solar system for 4.5 billion years, and evidence for life on Earth for around 4 billion years. I'm not saying we aren't a massive terraforming project by the Xordaxians, I'm just saying the actual evidence for their existance is zero.
If ID'ers (the other term is IDiots, but that's perjorative) want to play on the same field as evolutionists, they need to do some research, and get some actual evidence. Their star researcher, Behe, got made to look like a clown on the stand in Dover. They need to do better before trying to force their way into science classes.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/14/2006 7:25:55 AM | Romantic...
Your quote
"Where you come off accusing and comparing this 'denial' syndrome in the same vein of Factual Creationist evidences is beyond me."
I am sorry, did I miss something in the first 120 pages...where was this? Humour me and tell me about the factual evidence Creationists rely upon. (Note that I am assuming this evidence will meet some sort of scientific standard, and will be testable & verifiable)
"Hmm, gee, I am sure the USA Government and many other nations will take exception to this, as they have been studying SCIENTIFICALLY this very real phenomena for many years now."
If by UFO's you simply mean 'unidentified flying objects' then yes, I am sure that Tsur will agree. However if you mean 'Aliens' and such, then WHOA....where is the scientific proof for that, because the world is waiting. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/14/2006 8:31:02 AM |
If by UFO's you simply mean 'unidentified flying objects' then yes, I am sure that Tsur will agree. However if you mean 'Aliens' and such, then WHOA....where is the scientific proof for that, because the world is waiting.
The ability of people to believe in any number of hoaxes or shades of quackery is truly unsettling, isn't it? And yet so basically and charmingly 'human'. Until you run into one in person...
My point is that 'denial' is a interesting psychological issue. No matter how much evidence is presented that clearly contradicts the views the 'believer' holds, it's ignored. It's not like I'm the only person who has made the connection between the tactics and methods of C'ists, UFOlogists and Holocaust Deniers - it's not uncommon to draw the parallel. (let's call the type of person a 'denier')
In each case, you've got this little band of True Believer (deniers) who, in the face of overwhelming evidence, simply insist that no, their views are correct, and that all of mainstream thinkers (either scientists or historians) are wrong. It borders on a minor insanity, some type of monomania or something, doesn't it?
And you can point out the simple, basic factual errors in their arguments time and again, and they're utterly incapable of correcting themselves. How many bogus Creationist quotes have we seen in this thread, and yet, not one of them has apologized for using them, even when several people have corrected them? We've seen quite recently what faking evidence in science gets you - see the disgrace of the Korean scientist who faked his results. But faking evidence in the society of 'true believers' gets you *quoted* as a 'reliable source'... over, and over, and over again.
Then there are the 'mindless attack' phrases associated with the various forms of hoaxes: 'evolution denies the existance of God', 'the Holocaust was a Jewish hoax to drum up support for Israel' or the like. I'm sure you could find many more, covering UFOs or Scientology or whatever. I'm not interested in specifics, really, it's more the general psychology of 'deniers'. Each claim is simply untrue, obviously, but they keep repeating them like they're reciting a mantra.
I'm not singling out any one denier on this thread, although I think they make themselves rather obvious. When someone points out the errors in their arguments, from use of faked or out-of-context quotes, or from simple blunders they make in statements about evolution, it's never that they're wrong - it's somehow their opponent who is lying, distorting, etc. I don't know what to call that inability to rationally evaluate their evidence, maybe 'cognitive dissonance' or something. It's very common among the 'deniers' though. It's a very anti-rational, anti-science mindset, and I wonder if it's what led them to falling for the claims in the first place, or if they developed that attitude *after* they became 'True Believers' as the only way to protect it?
A few years ago I started writing an essay on the mindset of 'deniers' and how they use the same methods to attack their opponents. I just don't have the proper psychological training or knowledge to really phrase it though, so I put it aside. Maybe it's time to dust it off again.
Again, I stress I do not draw a moral equivalency between the groups, just point out that they use the same tactics to attack their opponents.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/15/2006 1:21:05 AM | | I had a really smart friend in school that thought the god made fossil bones, but not dinosaurs. He also read books like "the coming war with Japan" and refused to drive a toyota. He respected how wide the road to hell was. His joy in his own salvation was unsetteling to me because it included so few and he felt rightous. He sold inclusivity with love in a manner very midwest lutheran, driven by his fathers antique cadillac. I went to a christian rock concert and felt like the glassy eyes, loving jesus all the while would turn on me like zombies. I live in the bible belt. I care about many people who take pity on me for going to the bad place. I have already been in Catholic school. They don't like catholics down here either, so being saved in one house of christ isn't good enough. I wish so many who would push for creationism in the schools would call it like it is, fast food jesus, and not a veiled attempt at science. If god sent his son to remind you how to live and he did it with such a vengence, why do you need to save the world? Why aren't more fervent christians environmentalists? I hate it when a bunch of do gooders go to cuba to build a church or run to south america to ruin a perfectly savage bunch of head hunters with their tidy middle class manners and mini mag lites. Hope they get bit by a bushmaster. They'll destroy the world so long as everyone is saved. I love Jane Goodall. don't know where that came from but I'm tired of the culture of politics, especially in my country (the confederate states of america) not fully blasting those who wave flags to change the constitution. Some of the greatest americans will be in hell and I hope god is happy about that. There is no reason to believe god is good if this were the case. I recently met a little girl who told me her name was aryan hope, she didn't understand the meaning and I literally had a gag reflex. Her father was a very decent man, except for his core values, kind of like our nation. I'm above such a rant, but it's terribly late, and i live here. gosh, im going to regret this post hell with it zip | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/15/2006 1:30:10 AM | Wonkavision wrote
Anyone who has taken a high school physics course can understand this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tsur wrote
Because misquoting is a *fetish* with Creationists. I've been on talk.origins since 1992 or so, and Creationists have been using the same misquotes (and new ones, I grant them that) since before that. It's so bad, and so repetitive, that some folk over at talk.origins have been putting up the Creationist Quote Mining Project to make it easier to figure out exactly WHAT misquote Joe Q. Creationist is using.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing said has convinced me that putting down a group of people( as apposed to putting down thier arguement) is scientific or logical.
Being logical and scientific seems to be something you both repeat often. So if you want to be scientific or logical you should explain the contridiction of these two things.(putting down groups of people and saying you value being scientific and logical)
f
To explain how I think the theory of I.D. can be scientificly tested I say the following.
The theory of I.D. can not be tested with complete accuracy. Neither can the theory of evolution by natural selection though it can be tested more accurately than I.D.
If there was an intelligence involved in the creation or transformation of something it is logical that their would be a dicernable pattern throughout that whole thing that can not be explained logicly by looking at only the thing under question. So that is what would be looked for/tested for in all the data we have on biology. Is their a pattern in the rate of species creation that stretches across the entire 4.6billion? year history of life? In the number of deaths/births in that time? Is there a pattern in the different places different life forms were created at over the whole 4.6billion years. If there can be found one and only one or evidence of more than one pattern but that look like they all lead to one pattern and that pattern can not be logically explained using what has been found out about and acepted as common knowledge about nature, than that would be prove in support of the theory of I.D.
To the argument that the theory of I.D. requires a creator I have already stated my argument against that and have not seen anything posted that convinces me that my argument is in error.
"it argues against and only against creation and transformation of life haveing happened by a random process/ (a process that does not involve an intelligence)"
Wonkavision wrote
A process that does not involve intelligence is not by necessity random. You are confusing terms. Unintelligent forces impose order on nature. Anyone who has taken a high school physics course can understand this. So if all I.D. contends is that it opposes utter randomeness then there is no argument. Glad we could clear that up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ok. Got me there in that I worded the statement wrong.
It should read "it argues against and only against creation and transformation of life having happened by a random process and/or a process that does not involve an intelligence."
wonkavision wrote
Yes and no. There are causal factors that are random, such as random genetic drift or climatic changes in the environment, but those factors shape the process in a non-random way.In other words a caldera eruption may be a random event in relation to you and I as we go about our daily lives, but the selective pressures that that event places on the organisms or species in the area is anything but random. Those animals that are able to survive such an event will pass on their genetic material. It's random in the sense that the animals had no idea a caldera eruption was immenent, and did not evolve traits specifically for that purpose, but it is not random in the sense that the event "chooses" some genetic determinents over others. Also, it is non-random so far as the internal constraints of established genetic patterns go, or the external constraints of the higher order patterns evoked by non-linear dynamical systems. That is a complex issue, but just think of it this way- you can't push a square peg into a round hole, so physical forces do restrict to a degree what are possible outcomes. As a point of analogy, because of surface area to volume ratios, a human could not retain his shape and evolve to thirty feet tall as he would collapse under the forces of gravity. Non-linear dynamical systems, which the complex interactions of genetics and environment manifest, also impose constraints. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems to me you are saying that natural selection is a nonrandom "sorter" of random genetic mutations. So that the material it "sorts" may be random but the sorting method is not. The question then is the sorter(nature) made of random processess and if it is, how does something made of random processes perform a nonrandom function?
It occurs to me that for that explanation to work the process of natural selection would have to have the dominent influence over all the other processes involved in the creation and transformation of life in the theory of evolution by natural selection. Do evolutionist contend that this is true?
It also seems to me though that according to evolutionist it is the environment that is used to determine what species are selected and what species die off. Seeing that you mentioned climatic change which seems to me to involve a change in environment or a portion of it, as a causal factor that is random, that should put a randomness into the selection method used by natural selection.
Wonkavision wrote
does very explicitly explain where "natural" comes from- NATURE! You didn't seriously say that did you? The caprices of nature are a causal factor in selection, and the theory very clearly and in great detail explains that process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By ask ing where natural comes from I didn't mean litature/word wise  I assumed that you would know I was asking where nature came from(what created it?). Where during any of my posts did I ask about something to do with litature or words that might cause you to interpret it that way? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/15/2006 1:41:15 AM |
Nothing said has convinced me that putting down a group of people( as apposed to putting down thier arguement) is scientific or logical.
Actually, he is referring to the tendency toward deplorable methods of the group, not the value of the group itself as human beings. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/15/2006 6:15:08 AM | Your question is particularly timely in light of all the debate and battle between
those who support evolution and those who are trying to bring intelligent design to light.
I read Bill Dembski's book "Intelligent Design" almost ten years ago before anyone else really knew what it was. What is interesting is that the description of ID in popular media is so watered down it does not really reveal the important questions that ID raises. The media says that ID is a theory that the Universe is so complex that it must have been created by some sentient form. That is true, but it was not the entire point of Dembski's work. Dembski simply pointed out that using a simple formula, One can determine Intelligent design in all areas, not just the origin of the universe. In short the formula is thus.
improbability + specification = Intelligent Design.
That is if an incident is found to be highly unlikely to occur by chance, and there is purpose and/or order found within that incident, then that incident is thus proven to have occurred by design.
Now this seems simple and it's simplicity is in fact what opens ID to accusations of "pseudo-science." However I would like to point out that this formula is used by people everyday in order to prove design. In criminal justice, forensic science, and even every day life.
If you saw a stack of pennies on a table all facing heads up would you believe me if I told you that they fell out of my coin purse and just landed that way?
If you saw a stack of bricks assembled in such a way as to form a structure with rooms and doors and a roof, would you believe that they fell out of a dump truck that way by chance.
It is reasonable in both instances to say that design is proven with or without the presence of an observable creator. But those who wish to debunk ID would have us to believe that the earth just happened to develop both plant and animal life. That both plants and animals just happened to develop in such a way that they evolved both independently (Clearly different forms of life) and interdependently (one cannot exist with out the other). That the sun just happened to provide the element needed for plants to make oxygen so that animals could breathe. That everything in Creation serves a purpose in the ecosystem it's observed in. They would have you believe that all these things are just mathematical probabilities that compete in a battle to survive that results in a gradual progression to something that is better tomorrow than it was yesterday.
So it is my opinion that these coincidences (see also anthropic principal) coupled with a clear purpose for these coincidences not only proves Intelligent design of the Universe, but also that This design lays the fundamental groundwork for all other design that man himself engages in. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/15/2006 8:48:56 AM |
What proof is there that the Aids virus didn't exist 100 years ago in a more benign form?
The fact that it dose not exist in historical record before about the 1960s. Any disease that is that easily transmitted and can spread worldwide in just a few years, would have some precursor to tell us its presence (Just like with bird flu, we new about it before it actualy spread to humans!)
What proof is there that it wasn't scientifically engineered?
Are you honestly sugesting that a government body created AIDs as a viral weapon (look ou8t, the paranoia bettles will eat you!)? Against whoum and for what purpose?
Studies are indicating that bacteria mutations are pimarily through lateral gene transfer which doesn't appear to be a factor in the higher orders.
Which studies are these?
Can I also point out that AIDs is not a Bacteria it is a Virus. Virus are incapable of transfering DNA from one to another.
Another prediction for Creationist theory is that there would be a sudden appearance of life in the fossil record.
Realy, cause this is also a prediction that Evolution makes.
Calvinray
That both plants and animals just happened to develop in such a way that they evolved both independently (Clearly different forms of life) and interdependently (one cannot exist with out the other).
Plants can exist without animal life, they did so for a substantial part of earths history after all.
They would have you believe that all these things are just mathematical probabilities
Only in so much as that they have a certain likelyhood of ocuring. Not that they are coincidences but that they are a necisery interdependant series of factors. IE plants are green, because red light was the one most eficently absorbed by the first plantlike organisms.
coupled with a clear purpose for these coincidences not only proves Intelligent design
There are no coincidences in evolution. Go on, try and find just one. The universe works on a system of laws, thus evolution follows the laws of the universe (thermodynaimcs, speed of light, ect), no coincidence, and a high degree of desighn, but no intelegence behind that desighn.
big eyed owl
Is evolution by natural selection a random process?
No, this is a comon misconception. Evolution follows a chaotic path, but as with chaos thory, it is not random, just far to highly complex for us to understand. There are paterns that ocour and can be observed due to the laws of the universe interating in specific ways, in chaos theory for example, the water molecules coming out of a tap are moving chaoticaly, yet they always flow in a predictable patern. In Evolution the same thing can be seen, birds that feed on the same foodstuffs have similar body structures and almost identical beeks despite being difrent species, because these structures are the best adapted to thier enviroment.
If it is not as I think I've heard contended by Evolutionist than how can that be with a major component of it being random genetic mutations or is this not what Evolutionist contend?
This is a random proces, but it is filtered through a series of Natural laws. For example if you throw a bunch of cois at a gril, one or two will go through the bars, the ones on the same orientation as the grill, the others will not. On the other side of the grill you will see only the coins with one orientation. This is how natural selection works, only the mutations that fit into a ecological niech will survive and produce new ofspring. Thus you get a random proces that is filtered through natural laws to become an ordered and structured.
I.D. does not argue against a godless/creatorless view of creation
it argues against and only against creation and transformation of life haveing happened by a random process/ (a process that does not involve an intelligence)
I'm glad you added the () bit, as evolution only argues for a proces that follows a desighn, it just dose not argue for or against an inteligence to that desighn. It is the question of inteligence that is realy at the key of this debate, and that can not be tested for or against, as such it has no place in a science class untill it can be. | |
|
|
| Page 125 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
