|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
 Posted - 09/05/2005 : 09:17:32 [Permalink]
|
Why is it that IDers and Creationists almost always come across like this? I guess when you submerge yourself in the irrational, it becomes the norm for you.
As we say in the tech world: "Garbage in, garbage out." |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 09:58:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Gallileo did not reject the belief of creationism, however, he rejected the belief of the sun revolving around the earth.
He rejected a common explanation of the nature of the world we live in, and developed a theory that better describes the natural world. The former theory was in fact somewhat scientific, in that the heliocentric model with epicycles made very good predictions for planetary movements without the need for adjustments of those predictions for decades at a time. This theory was held to be true for a thousand years. None the less, it was inadequate, and the solution provided by Newton and Kepler was much more elegant.
quote:
We now know without a doubt that this is so and few, if any, still believe the sun revolves around the earth.
The new theory is more elegant, however, for some this new knowledge has no practical value, so why should they change their mind?
quote:
Now you are comparing Gallileo's theory with evolutionary theory.
Why shouldn't we? It's a new theory that makes a better scientific explanation of the diversity of life than the old one. And in both examples, The Church is attacking the new theory because the new one poses a threat its established power.
quote:
Today, in a day of great increases in scientific knowledge we still have scientists and ordinary people who believe in God and a Creator, numbering in the billions.
Yes, but how many of the believing scientists that reject the theory of evolution are researching in the field of biology, and goes by the name of Steve?
Important note: Just because you believe in a creator does not mean you disbelieve the ToE. There are many heads of churches of many congregations that support ToE as the best explanation for the diversity of life on planet Earth. The biggest of these being the Catholic Church.
quote:
If Darwin's theory was as strong as Gallileo's and as easily provable, we wouldn't still have such numbers now would we? The fact that so many still find fault in the Darwinian theories lends itself to the weakness of his arguments, not the stupidity of people.
Not stupidity of people, but the lack of knowledge. Not many people know much about the ToE, how it works, what it explains. You have time and time again in this thread demonstrated that you don't understand it. Otherwise you wouldn't insist saying "man evolving from chimps". Or referring to man's and chimp's common ancestor as monkey. Primate, yes. Ape, possibly, but definitely not monkey.
quote:
People are, in fact, much more educated and versed on Darwin than ever before, yet still his theories lack credibility and logic to many of us.
That depends entirely on what country you live it.
In Sweden, which have waaay higher literacy (than the US), creationists are a fading minority. I bet the_ignored can verify that the same is true for Canada. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 11:03:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
So now I have to come up with a theory. Pointing out flaws in the existing is useless.
Yeah, you didn't realize this?
quote:
I guess those poor souls who can't see the flaws are better off.
No, flaws can be useful. They can lead to the sharpening of a theory. But you haven't pointed out any flaws, only what you perceive to be problems, which as Dave has said numerous times is due to your lack of understanding.
quote:
Man, the poor accountant who finds flaws in business practice and records like those checking out Enron. He doesn't have that right unless he's a businessman with a better business plan than the Enron execs. The lowly lab tech who notices a scientist 'fudging' the report is wasting his time reporting it...he'll probably lose his job. Forget that he was trying to be truthful, who cares about that? He doesn't have a better theory, so, hey, stop thinking and just obey.
What are you babbling on about? Your analogy is totally flawed. There have been "lowly lab techs" squawking about Evolution for nearly a century and a half and every single audit has always shown the books to be in perfect order. It no longer appears as if he is only trying to be truthful. It seems like the lab tech has an axe to grind and simply refuses to accept the scientist was right all along.
quote:
Actually, I have a better theory. If you haven't guessed it by now you never will.
Really? You have a scientific theory that offers a better explanation for evidence? One that makes predictions, is testible, and can be falsified? In short, one which is capable of withstanding the same objections you level at Evolution? Because I know of no such theory.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/05/2005 11:04:06 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 12:05:56 [Permalink]
|
THe chances are almost nill for one species, not to mention millions. Is it any wonder that you cannot convince me by simply saying, "well, it happened, so there we are". Such ridiculous arguments that I've heard from evolutionists boggle the logical mind. Science and probability are not on your sideSo are the chances of winning the lottery.
The chances for the UK lottery are 1 in 14million which is about 0.00000007 percent. But is does happen to there you go. Fact is, we're here and all the evidence points to some sort of evolutionary theory.
Good point. However, the chances of the one person winning 2 lotteries in a row are extremely remote. How about 20 or 200? Now we are getting closer to the chances of multiple beneficial mutations occuring by chance, turning one species into another. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 12:08:41 [Permalink]
|
i]Originally posted by Dude[/i]
Its actually kinda amusing to watch you flounder around like this. Please continue.
Easy to flounder on a sea of uncertainty.
By the way, your quote of Madison was missing a word...it should read, "Religious " |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 12:56:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Good point. However, the chances of the one person winning 2 lotteries in a row are extremely remote. How about 20 or 200? Now we are getting closer to the chances of multiple beneficial mutations occuring by chance, turning one species into another.
In humans, the rate of mutations is about one per 3 billion base pairs per child, on average. Assuming that 100% of the differences between chimps and humans are due to human evolution since the last common ancestor (LCA) of the two species (unlikely), and that only one child per person will make it to reproduce themselves every twenty years (also unlikely), and that humans have been evolving independent of chimps for only five million years, that works out to an absolute minimum population of 140 individuals at all times for a 35-million base-pair change. Please note that all of these numbers are conservative - they lean towards your argument. Now, if we make it more conservative by assuming that out of all possible mutations, only 0.1% are beneficial (nevermind that it isn't the case that all mutations between the LCA and humans are necessarily beneficial, given that chimps don't get malaria or a host of other diseases that humans do), we still need only 140,000 individuals (on average) to accomplish the same task.
Anthropologists believe that for most of the last three million years, the nearly-human population of the world has been "probably less than 10 million," which would be generally be more than 140,000.
Do you have any hard numbers you can use to refute this conservative probability argument?
Can you make any statements which refute my argument that you're not arguing against evolutionary theory as proposed by evolutionary biologists, but instead are arguing against a mockery of evolutionary theory proposed by creationists? "Easy to flounder on a sea of uncertainty" is a good start to admitting your expertise in this area. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 13:20:29 [Permalink]
|
Tell you what, why don't you actually calculate the probabilities, and post your calculations here for everyone to see? Because I have no idea how to properly calculate the effects of natural selection, genetic drift, or any of the other non-random mechanisms of evolution.
Dave, I don't need to be an advanced mathmetician to read and understand the basics of their work on probability in relation to natural selection.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 13:22:05 [Permalink]
|
When I read Darwin's work in regards to mutations I soon realized that he was in the dark as to the actual biological process and had oversimplified how it worked. Such was the state of understanding in his day. The deeper modern studies go into the complexity of these processes, the more apparent the problems with Darwin's theory. The more complex the genes and cells, the more difficult to explain random genetic mutations proceeding into extremely complex systems of life that are more complex than the preceding. And thus, some scientists are searching for ways to explain that which cannot be explained by material evolution. The relatively new field of intelligent design attempts to deal with these questions.
It is clearly not simply a "scientific" debate, however. Many holding to material evolution from a naturalist viewpoint strongly oppose any new science implying "intelligence" and not simply random or natural selection. Rather than allowing a free discussion of new ideas, it seems many are bent at quashing that discussion before it hardly starts. THis is hardly the "scientific viewpoint" that allows for a free flow of ideas and debate. The implications of a new theory that studies extremely intricate and seemingly planned systems of life with this viewpoint opens new doors of understanding and research in the scientific community.
Those that think it is some "pseudo science" have either yet to study it or simply fear the consequences to their own positions should it take hold and actual research continue.
Whatever conclusion anyone in this forum has come to about it, you cannot reasonably dismiss it without researching it further. I would suggest: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 13:29:24 [Permalink]
|
"And I don't think anyone truly claims the Theory of Evolution to be absolute. It is a complex description of the real world, and it has flaws. It does not pretend to be The Ultimate Truth" Dr. Mabuse
Indeed. So why not entertain other theories, rather than simply try to plug everything in biological science into the Darwinian framework? If the shoe fits, wear it. If it rubs your foot raw, maybe it's the wrong shoe. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 13:46:59 [Permalink]
|
GeeMack: another plausible explanation:
1. Each species was planned as separate entities and did not proceed one from the other.
2. Some "natural selection" or "only the strongest survive" was part of a built in feature, which is part of the ability to adapt within species (micro evolution).
If these premises are true, there is an inherant complexity or simplicity within individual creatures, keeping them within the boundaries of their original design.
Upon study, this inherant complexity or simplicity can be shown as consistently outside the boundary of natural, chance mutation.
If, indeed, "mother nature" allows for mutations to occur that significantly change a species, this was part of an inbuilt intelligence in the life systems of that creature and not a "natural and random occurance driven solely by "selection process".
It can also be true that environmental changes or extreme
circumstances can trigger such changes, not simply random mutations coalesing into positive changes.
** Note that these are not just my ideas on the matter, but put in my own words from many writers on the subject.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 09/05/2005 14:02:59 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 13:56:10 [Permalink]
|
DR. Mabuse: "He rejected a common explanation of the nature of the world we live in, and developed a theory that better describes the natural world. The former theory was in fact somewhat scientific, in that the heliocentric with epicycles made very good predictions for planetary movements without the need for adjustments of those predictions for decades at a time. This theory was held to be true for a thousand years. None the less, it was inadequate, and the solution provided by Newton and Kepler was much more elegant."
Consider that this very type of event is beginning again today in our lifetimes, only it is evolutionary theory that is the majority opinion today and a new theory (intelligent design - or something like it)will emerge to replace it, more capable of explaining the current 'black holes' in evolutionary theory. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 13:56:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar...
So why not entertain other theories, rather than simply try to plug everything in biological science into the Darwinian framework?
Go back to page 6 and read the posting where you are quoted saying specifically, 15 or more times, that you have an alternative theory. Present it. Back it with your evidence. Follow the scientific process. Lay it out in an organized and rational way. You continue to demand that other theories be considered yet you haven't once described a single other theory. The only thing you've provided evidence for is that you're full of shit, all noise and no substance. Is this theory of yours as easy to present as you claim over and over again, does it perhaps not really exist at all, or are you simply incapable of explaining it?
* spelling edit |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 09/05/2005 14:00:19 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 13:58:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar...
1. Each species was planned as separate entities and did not proceed one from the other.
Planned by who? Where's your evidence of such an occurrence?
|
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 13:59:20 [Permalink]
|
| Dave, did you actually come up with that paragraph on your own, or copy it from someone else? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 14:03:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Dave, I don't need to be an advanced mathmetician to read and understand the basics of their work on probability in relation to natural selection.
Whose work? If your faith in the improbability of evolution rests upon the work of someone else, why not tell us who it is?
After all, you can tell us that this mathematical work refutes evolution, but until we can examine it ourselves, we have no reason to believe you.
From your next post:quote:
The relatively new field of intelligent design attempts to deal with these questions.
No, it doesn't. Intelligent design is a political movement which has as its primary goal the overturning of "materialistic science." But since the idea of a "non-materialistic science" is a contradiction in terms, IDists have nothing to offer of their own. There is not a single ID argument which was not first formulated by creationists decades prior to the ID movement as a whole.quote:
Many holding to material evolution from a naturalist viewpoint strongly oppose any new science implying "intelligence" and not simply random or natural selection.
ID has no science. There is no theory of intelligent design. None. There is no current ID research being done. None. What is objected to is the idea that the non-science of ID should be jammed into public-school science classes.quote:
Rather than allowing a free discussion of new ideas, it seems many are bent at quashing that discussion before it hardly starts.
No, the ideas of ID have been examined in detail and refuted decades ago. There is no science there. The discussion began well before Darwin was born, and was finished shortly after the structure and function of DNA was fully discovered.quote:
THis is hardly the "scientific viewpoint" that allows for a free flow of ideas and debate.
Yes, well, go and look at all the dissenting viewpoints on the blogs of IDists. William Dembski deletes all contradictory views from his blog, while we here at the SFN haven't deleted a single post of yours on this topic. The IDists cry for an open and honest debate, but then fail to allow for one. Most of the prominent IDists, in other words, are as hypocritical as you are.quote:
The implications of a new theory that studies extremely intricate and seemingly planned systems of life with this viewpoint opens new doors of understanding and research in the scientific community.
No, it doesn't. ID promises to squash scientific inquiry by claiming to have the ultimate answers. If that's true, no more study is required, and science is finished, period.quote:
Those that think it is some "pseudo science" have either yet to study it or simply fear the consequences to their own positions should it take hold and actual research continue.
Those who cling to ID have either yet to study it or simply fear that "atheistic evolution" is a threat to their religious beliefs.quote:
Whatever conclusion anyone in this forum has come to about it, you cannot reasonably dismiss it without researching it further.
I've been researching ID for the last four years, at least. Does that count?quote:
I would suggest: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science
Ah, of course, the famous "list of peer-reviewed papers" which the DI loves to tout. Of course, the Meyer article listed first was not peer reviewed, having been hustled into print by a sympathetic editor of the journal (which later dismissed the article as not meeting their standards). So, the list contains at least one bald-faced lie.
Why would you defend a bunch of liars, Doomar?
In another post:quote:
So why not entertain other theories...
What other theories? If you can articulate the theory of intelligent design, you'll be able to do more than Dembski, Behe, Wells and Johnson put together. None of them has been able to state what their theory is.
In still another post:quote:
1. Each species was planned as separate entities and did not proceed one from the other.
2. Some "natural selection" or "only the strongest survive" was part of a built in feature, which is part of the ability to adapt within species (micro evolution).
If these premises are true, there is an inherant complexity or simplicity within individual creatures, keeping them within the boundaries of their original design.
What is the mechanism which limits the amount of change possible? Nobody has yet been able to show that one exists. Its presence is an assumption, Doomar. You said assumptions were bad. So by your own definition, your ideas are unscientific.
And finally, you appear to accuse me of plagiarism:quote:
Dave, did you actually come up with that paragraph on your own, or copy it from someone else?
Everything I've written which is not in quote tags of some sort is my own writing, Doomar. Why don't you just answer my points, instead of trying to change the subject? I don't even know which paragraph you're talking about. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
