Our Creationism Is Only Ever As Good As Your Evolutionism!

newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Our Creationism Is Only Ever As Good As Your Evolutionism!

Creationists should really be applauding evolutionists. The strength of our position depends upon the thoroughness with which you attempt to show proof of yours. A sloppy evolutionist means a weak creationist.

Take code-breaking for example, a code-breaker can only be sure that any information he gleans from an intercepted message is real and not imagined, if randomness can be ruled out as an explanation of the product of any decryption. In other words, if the result of his efforts were actually allowed by probability, then he would have a very weak case. If the product of decryption were the defence in a court of law, and the calculation of probability were the prosecution. Then the strength of the defence is the thoroughness of the prosecution.

Similarly it is with creation and evolution except of course that it is nature and randomness acting together that has to be ruled out as opposed to just randomness on its own. Only if evolution is sufficiently ruled out will creation have any case at all (I am using creation in a general sense here and do not mean to imply genesis). The more rigorously evolutionists try to show that the forms of life we see around us (including ourselves) can be attributed to their model, the more creationism can be certain of its validity (I say this as one of them of course, evolutionists would disagree).

So the two models of the origin of species are actually partners so to speak. At least this is true (or should be true) from a creationist perspective. Evolutionism depends upon the skepticism of belief in the supernatural, ironically it would seem, so does creationism.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Are you sure about this? 

Are you sure about this?  Adaptation I can agree with, but I don't see how one species has ever come from another.  When did monkey ever become man?  Never been proven, and true never been disproven.  What new animal out there ever came from another completely different animal.  It has never been proven.

As an evolutionary scientist, I totally disagree with you, and I suggest you check out the essay and discussion called the fundamental axioms of evolution which I wrote. The evidence for the pan/hominid genus split is huge. Amino acid tracking and paleontology, as well as analysis of the links that still exist (if you are, and I am not saying you are, just if, you are one the people who uses the argument "if man came from monkeys why are they still here"? You should really check out that essay). Also, new evidence suggests that man is simply not a quantum leap from a chimp. Genotype analysis clearly shows the slow progression over the last four million years when the Hominid  split off from Pan. Genotype evidence is corroborated by phenotypical evidence, which shows the slow progression of the jawbone, skull and skeletal structure.

The evidence is overwhelming.

Also, newmodeltheist, if you are reading this too, why havent your responded to my previous comment? 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
LFC wrote:

LFC wrote:

and there has not yet been a failure of evolutionism, so whats your point?

Are you sure about this? Adaptation I can agree with, but I don't see how one species has ever come from another. When did monkey ever become man? Never been proven, and true never been disproven. What new animal out there ever came from another completely different animal. It has never been proven.

I also recommend you read deludedgod's essay. It's excellent. (I need to read it several times due to my less-than-stellar scientific education at a fundy school.)

There are many, many, many fossils that show intermediate forms: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Sometimes I get the feeling that if you show a creationist a "missing link" he'll want you to fill in the two holes you just created. Smiling

If you're interested in hominid evolution, check out From Ape to Man - History Channel special .

Recently, a nearly complete Australopithecus afarensis "child" was found (though brain size put it closer to Pan (chimpanzees). Very interesting stuff! http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060920193509.htm

Seriously, evolution is fascinating. I love paleontology and natural history now that I'm free to study it without stepping on creationists' toes. Smiling

BTW, one of the reasons I get angry with creationists is my family didn't let me learn the truth about the animals that fascinated me.  Every time--every single time--we watched a documentary and evolution was mentioned, my father would scoff loudly and sometimes change the channel so we wouldn't be exposed to such "poison."  This is the same father who poisoned me with religion, the same father who piled on physical and emotional abuse.  He was an angry, spiteful man who died an angry, spiteful death at an early age.  It is such a relief to be able to think for myself, to think freely and not cower before an angry, spiteful father and his angry, spiteful god.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


LFC
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-02-27
User is offlineOffline
no definitley not one of

no definitley not one of those.....that wonder why the monkey is still with us.  I like the monkey so I am glad about that.  However, in my dabbling through some of this stuff over the years.....and I will look more into your work...I have never heard a scientist on either side say "I got It".  Now I have read alot of theories on how this could be an option or that could be an option, but only if these certain 200 things line up and the stars are alined (okay not that bad....but close).  Fact is we are still learning about what our DNA and RNA and the CIA...wait for get them in our bodies.  We seem to run into more questions than answers, and that being the case how can I thiink that you studin some DNA from a million years ago and you can tell what was going on for sure.  Can you speculate and (I hope I spell this right) theorize it?  Yes you can, and you being a scientist do that.  I would assume, no I am pretty sure that you feel that your work is important and right.  I am a firefighter paramedic, and for years I gave Lidocaine to help with PVC's.......I did it because of what I learned I thought it was right.....everyone in the medical field thought so....until we found out we were wrong.  And funny thing....I wouldn't be surprised if there were other medical environments in our country that still think it is right.  So what I am trying to get at is that I will look into your work....and with an open mind


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Sorry deludedgod!! “Also,

Sorry deludedgod!!

“Also, in your first post what on earth do you mean by "the strength of the creationist position". Creationists only have any sort of power in the US and the Islamic fundamentalist nations. The rest of the world has moved on and the entire scientific community, myself included, is laughing at this backwardness.”

By this I mean the theoretical strength of the argument for design. Much like the code breaker who cannot assume the decryption is real until chance has been entirely ruled out of the equation (in origins though it is nature and random mutation that needs to be completely ruled out). I was not referring to political influence.

Again, as I have made clear, I do not regard the acceptance of design as backwardness. I used to believe in evolution, as a teenager, and saw nothing wrong with it until its fallacies became apparent. The issue here is interpretation of what I would call natural historical evidence rather than scientific evidence. Scientific evidence makes predictions about the outcomes of experiments. Much of evolutionary evidence (the part of evolution that we’re disputing that it) is in fact historical evidence. An evolutionist might say ‘we predict we will find this and hey presto, we look here and find this evidence’ but this is not the scientific method. No more than if I were to say ‘I believe that there was a battle in such and such a place ages ago, I predict I will find a weapon of some sort buried in the ground.’ When dealing with the past one uses the historical method. Gathers all the evidence one can by making observations, and then construct a model based on what you find. Scientific and historical methods are the complete opposite of each other.

I discovered another example of this problem yesterday evening when I watched a lecture on this website that debunked ID. Actually some good points were raised and I am disappointed with the behaviour and stance that ID is taking at the moment (although I haven’t heard their side of the story so I shouldn’t judge too quickly). However, in this talk the evolutionist (Ken Miller I think was his name if I remember) cited the fusion of human chromosomes as evidence of common descent with the great apes. From an evolutionary perspective, the difference in the number of chromosomes between Humans on one hand and Orang-u-tans, chimps and gorillas on the other (46 vs. 48) needed to be accounted for. Accordingly, with much apparent delight, the difference could be accounted for because it turns out that two of the human chromosomes had fused together. If this hadn’t been the case then evolution theory (at least where it applies to human evolution) would have been on shaky ground. As it is though, it seems to be the explanation of why humans have 46 chromosomes and great apes have 48. But what of it? It doesn’t actually mean anything substantial. We already know that the primates are relatively similar genomes so nothing new there. Miller was apparently saying that this is validation of evolution of human life over creation. It is nothing of the sort. All it means is that all the primates used to have 48 chromosomes, but that now humans don’t because their chromosomes fused together at some point. What of it? Evolutionists would say that because they made a prediction then their model is scientific. But this is the use of what amounts to evidence of a historical nature, how do they know that their prior assumptions are not just delusions. Science deals with demonstrating nature in action, evolution of species deals with the past. They are just fitting the observations in to the pre-existing mould of common descent when common descent need not be implied at all. (ps have you had a chance to look on the other thread about the viral insertions yet? I am interested to hear your ideas)


LFC
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-02-27
User is offlineOffline
I can see why you would be

I can see why you would be mad, and hurt by that up bringing.  I was the exact opposite in my family.  I was forced to go to church until I was old enough to stay home by myself.  So I don't really count that as forced.  I again on my own accord went many years later.  What I found.....after getting through the dooms dayers out there was a very loving God.  The God that I have grown to know doesn't force you to do anything.  You can't listen to the people that try to shut out everything that doesn't have to do with God or the ones that judge you and tell you that your place willl be in Hell.  Simply because they are no judge.  Let's face it no one can force you to love them.....not really love them.  Dinosaurs and that whole time period was great to listen too.  I have no doubt about species being able to adapt and change small things.....and I am pretty sure I saw that from ape to man video, I will make sure it is what I saw.  I better slow down on what i have to look into or my wife will get on me for being on the computer too much when I am home! HA.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
You do know that the genome

You do know that the genome of man and (chimpanzees I think) is about 99% the same?

Also, evolution can be observed in the here and now. Ever hear of anti-biotic resistance? That is one example.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


LFC
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-02-27
User is offlineOffline
96% isn't that right my

96% isn't that right my scientist friend?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
96% isn't that right my

96% isn't that right my scientist friend?

No. The difference is not that wide (in genotype expression, a 4% difference is vast). Also, difference is a loaded term. Humans can code for proteins identical to chimps that twist into far more complex shapes. Also, humans can have more base pairs regardless of the number of genes. Here's something interesting for you from a design standpoint: The ameoba, which is so simple is it basically a simple protozoic ball of fluid encased in a lipid membrane propelled by some psuedopods, that engulfs other little organisms by phagocytosis. Yet in terms of base-pairs, it has 1000 times the amount of genetic code that humans do, (amoeba have about 7 trillion, while humans, which are the most complex thing known to exist in the universe, have 3 billion). Also, differences can also be explained by Karyotype, the packaging method.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
LFC wrote: I can see why

LFC wrote:
I can see why you would be mad, and hurt by that up bringing.

-snip-

What I found.....after getting through the dooms dayers out there was a very loving God. The God that I have grown to know doesn't force you to do anything. You can't listen to the people that try to shut out everything that doesn't have to do with God or the ones that judge you and tell you that your place willl be in Hell.

Hi LFC.  

I didn't "listen" to anyone.  Back when I first started questioning there was no Internet.  Everyone around me was telling me (or trying to force me) to trust god.  The halfway decent Christians were trying to tell me how loving god was.  The nasty Christians were trying to tell me I was demon-possessed and other weird-ass shit.

I came to my conclusion completely on my own, using reason.  It was very painful because there was hell to pay.  Every single Christian in my life either abandoned me or hurt me in some way.  Christianity doesn't make people good.  If anything, it makes people nasty.  Christians who are decent people are decent not because of Christianity, but in spite of it.

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” -- Steven Weinberg.

As for a "loving" god, that certainly isn't what is portrayed in scriptures.  The bible is so contradictory that you can find an extremely evil god or a good god, depending on what verse you happen to be reading.  I know the bible.  There is far more evidence in it for an evil god than for a good god--if you want to count myth as "evidence."

In short, intellect as well as bad experiences with religion and and religionists led to my atheism. Theism is at best silly; at worst, dangerous.

 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


LFC
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Good points.  I believe I

Good points.  I believe I listened well.  What makes me sad is this.  I am a firefighter and work with many people that are athiest, and some that just don't care.  It is a very similar story, people (parents/friends) trying to convince them to believe one thing.  On top of that punishments for not....my friends...I am not saying you.  It seems that you lost a lot of people in your life over this.  It seems to me that the ones that turn people away from Christ are the very ones that He exists.  They seem to get mad a point fingers and judge.  It is a fact that many churches will not be in His Graces when (I believe) He comesback.  Alot of Christians walk around like their sh.. don't stink.  They will bomb abortion clinics and tell gays they are going to hell.  You say He is a evil god, I say He is a just God as well as a loving God.  I absolutely agree that being a christian does not make you good.  In fact I don't believe there is any difference between me that believes and any of my friends that don't.  Let me see....we lie, drink, steal, lust....yep I don't see a difference.  Only difference being I have a relationship with Him and He forgives me with no questions.  Do I tell my friends they are going to hell?  No, why because I don't know....I am not their judge.  Only He knows a person's heart the deepest parts of it.  So I sit here and go through this site and look at all the well let me just call them attacks on my friend Jesus....I know all have been attacked by the same religion that knows my God.  What bumbs me out is that we have twisted Him, and have caused the Hate/dislike.  personally it would be cool to have people that didn't believe find out that I do and they say something like this.....I am more of a hands on guy/gal need to see something to believe, but it sure would be cool if He did.  Then atleast I believe (if the meaning of Christ is still a fairy tale) would be liked instead of hated.  Man sometimes I get long winded. sorry about that.

 


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote: One

newmodeltheist wrote:
One doesn't test for creationism, that's the point.  Creationism is only successful upon the faliure of evolutionism.

 

FALLACY OF REDUCIO AD ABSURDUM

Reducio ad absurdum only works if 2 propositions are mutually exclusive. Evolution vs Creation is NOT an example.

You are irrational...


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
kmisho

kmisho wrote:

newmodeltheist wrote:
One doesn't test for creationism, that's the point. Creationism is only successful upon the faliure of evolutionism.

 

FALLACY OF REDUCIO AD ABSURDUM

Reducio ad absurdum only works if 2 propositions are mutually exclusive. Evolution vs Creation is NOT an example.

You are irrational...

True enough.  

I'm curious as to why the theistic poster continues to behave as if creationism and evolution are the only two answers, directly pitted against one another.  He has been given abundant reasons why this is not the case and yet continues to attempt to prove god's existence by "debunking" evolution, which is impossible beccause it is a scientifically proven theory. (No, it isn't a hypothesis anymore.)

It's like arguing that the sun revolves around the earth; therefore, god exists.  Embarassed  

Piling absurdities atop one another and insisting you're right when you have been repeatedly proven wrong does not help your case.  Why are you ignoring the fact that evolution and creationism are not the only two solutions?  Why are you ignoring the fact that disproving evolution (an impossibility) does not equal proving the existence of any god, let alone your god?

Fallacy upon fallacy upon fallacy.

Please take time to consider that you've been proven wrong on your initial assumptions.  It's time to re-think your position. 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I’m not sure I understand

I’m not sure I understand why my view is irrational! I am saying that if nature can explain living things, then one should not invoke any other explanation. Evolution then (being a theory of natural origins) is the theory that ultimately decides the strength of the creationist position. Only if evolution fails to provide the necessary explanation will creationism be a valid option to choose anyway. The strength of a creationists argument depends upon how completely evolution is ruled out. If evolutionist don’t try hard to defend their case, then creationist cannot legitimately have a case either. If evolutionists are half-hearted, then how can we as creationists truly know that there isn’t a natural explanation waiting to be discovered. I am showing the irony of the creationist position, that’s all.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:

Todangst et al

If you were walking along in the desert and came across a perfectly spherical rock (or stone as I think Americans would say), perfect that is, beyond which you had ever seen before. Then you you would conclude that this were a phenomenon in need of explaining.

Assuming that it is an artifact commits the fallacies of arguing from wonder, and begging the question.

 

Quote:

That conclusion alone would mean that you have rejected chance as a cause.

As a likely cause, you mean. You can't just reject chance a priori.

Also, evolution is not chance. 

 

Quote:

No-one ever appeals to chance as an explanation.

Incorrect. Chance occurences happen all the time.

You really don't know much of anything about evolution. Why not stop debating a subject you're ignorant in, and learn about it instead? 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote: I’m

newmodeltheist wrote:
I’m not sure I understand why my view is irrational! I am saying that if nature can explain living things, then one should not invoke any other explanation. Evolution then (being a theory of natural origins) is the theory that ultimately decides the strength of the creationist position. Only if evolution fails to provide the necessary explanation will creationism be a valid option to choose anyway. The strength of a creationists argument depends upon how completely evolution is ruled out. If evolutionist don’t try hard to defend their case, then creationist cannot legitimately have a case either. If evolutionists are half-hearted, then how can we as creationists truly know that there isn’t a natural explanation waiting to be discovered. I am showing the irony of the creationist position, that’s all.

It's quite simple, really. Since the failure of evolution will not provide backing for creationism, the strength of creationism would be in no way affected were evolution to fail.

It's a basic false dichotomy.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Firstly todangst. I have

Firstly todangst. I have never said that evolution is chance. Where did you get that Idea?

Secondly No, chance isn't an explanation for anything. To invoke chance is to admit that one has not encountered a phenomenon in need of an explanation after all, in other words it was an illusion. Hence no-one can legitimately invoke chance as a explanation.   Anyone who invokes chance as an 'explanation' for 'something' is in error.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
kmisho. If evolution (the

kmisho. If evolution (the name given to the naturalistic explanations) were to fail. What other explanations are there to account for life eccept creation (life by intelligent design of some sort)?


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Thirdly todangst "Assuming

Thirdly todangst

"Assuming that it is an artifact commits the fallacies of arguing from wonder, and begging the question."

arguing from wonder is the same as excluding chance. Or rather it is noticing 'something' or detecting a phenomenon from the random sense noise of everyday life or the surrounding landscape.


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Are you ever going to

Are you ever going to respond to at least a few of the anomalies in that list?

Here's another of my favorite sites about evolution.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
noor wrote: Are you ever

noor wrote:

Are you ever going to respond to at least a few of the anomalies in that list?

Here's another of my favorite sites about evolution.

I liked your first site. I'll check out this one, too.

Fun, fun, fun!

newmodeltheist, todangst is right.  You don't know very much about evolution.  It might be a good idea to learn about it before you try to debunk it. 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
“I'm curious as to why the

“I'm curious as to why the theistic poster continues to behave as if creationism and evolution are the only two answers directly pitted against one another.”

Consider my post to kmisho. Can you come up with another explanation for life?

“He has been given abundant reasons why this is not the case and yet continues to attempt to prove god's existence by "debunking" evolution,”

Abundant reasons? You should have no problem with the above then.

“which is impossible beccause it is a scientifically proven theory. (No, it isn't a hypothesis anymore.)”

I plainly disagree don’t I? I would also question your definition of scientifically proven theory.

“It's like arguing that the sun revolves around the earth; therefore, god exists.”

What!!!

“Piling absurdities atop one another and insisting you're right when you have been repeatedly proven wrong does not help your case. Why are you ignoring the fact that evolution and creationism are not the only two solutions? Why are you ignoring the fact that disproving evolution (an impossibility) does not equal proving the existence of any god, let alone your god?”

Please actually write something noteworthy. Actually write a refutation.

“Fallacy upon fallacy upon fallacy.”

Squawk upon squawk upon sqwark

“Please take time to consider that you've been proven wrong on your initial assumptions. It's time to re-think your position.”

Oh I think I’ll hold out a while longer yet.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
noor. I'll tell you what,

noor. I'll tell you what, why don'y you pick out your favouites.

other girl: SQUAWK!!!!!!


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori wrote:

Iruka Naminori wrote:
noor wrote:

Are you ever going to respond to at least a few of the anomalies in that list?

Here's another of my favorite sites about evolution.

I liked your first site. I'll check out this one, too.

Fun, fun, fun!

Glad you liked the links. Smiling



deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
At this I simply reiterate

At this I simply reiterate my old post:

As a scientist, I would argue the exact opposite of your assertion. you see, in the scientific method, when a scientific research paper is published with the results of an experiment, all the other scientists immediately play devils advocate. They look for holes, the attack it, they try to replicate it...this is how science advances. Of course, the multipe aspects of evolution were subjected to this rigorous testing BUT it has also been subjected to a huge amount of public critique from religious/creationist/skeptical public, which forces the scientifc community to provide answers...which it does. Evolution has been more savagely assaulted than any other theory (I cannot understand why a scientifc theory would be a political controversy: Do people ask each other about their stance on electromagnetism?) Yet it has survived. Creationist nonsense-spewers help us when we answer all of their questions.

Regarding the origin of life and RNA...evolution cannot answer that. The theory does not extend that far back. From the moment RNA appeared on Earth, evolution provides a god-free explanation. At the moment there are hypothesis on life's origin, including abiogenesis, panspermia...and god. All three are assertions, so none have weight. However, science operates on an occams razor principle regarding hypotheses. Panspermia would require you to assume the existence of alien life that came to earth, the probabilities of which are astronomical. God requires you to believe that there is a extramaterial out of space and time deity who infused the primordial soup with RNA. The odds again, are astronomical. Abiogenesis on the other hand...merely requires you to assume that ancient molecules obeyed chemical law. Thus it is the most widely assumed.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote:

newmodeltheist wrote:
other girl: SQUAWK!!!!!!

What, precisely, are you trying to say?

This is the "Kill Them with Kindness" forum and you are not behaving kindly.  When you first showed up, you called us "wicked and irresponsible" and yet expected us to be kind to you.  That's why your welcome was less than auspicious.

I have not attacked you as a person in this thread.  I have simply pointed out that you don't know very much about the subject of evolution.  I know a little more than you do on the subject, but decidedly less than, say, deludedgod.  If deludedgod or Yellow Number 5 were to point out something I'm wrong about concerning evolution, I would listen and learn because they are better informed than I am.

There is no need to be insulting because I did not insult you.  I only questioned your knowledge on this particular subject because it seems to be lacking. 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
noor: the first five

noor: the first five articles of 'On Observed Speciation and Speciation Models' are all OK by me, nothing there that I or any other reasonable person could not accept in principle.

The rest I will read at some point, not necessarily tonight though.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori

Iruka Naminori wrote:

newmodeltheist wrote:
other girl: SQUAWK!!!!!!

What, precisely, are you trying to say?

Newmodeltheist had nothing good to say. It's a sign of weakness. 


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
American Atheist

American Atheist wrote:
Iruka Naminori wrote:

newmodeltheist wrote:
other girl: SQUAWK!!!!!!

What, precisely, are you trying to say?

Newmodeltheist had nothing good to say. It's a sign of weakness.

I thought it was a reference to the parrot on her avatar also Sticking out tongue


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori: I'm sorry,

Iruka Naminori:

I'm sorry, I feel quite bad now. I didn't regard your feelings enough. I was just a bit irritated when you and others assume I know nothing when I am not as ignorant as you may suppose. todangst made a silly comment that I was saying that evolution was by chance when I actually said no such thing and he obviously not taken on board my comments. If you think I have made a mistake somewhere please just indicate what you think it is and give me a chance to defend myself properly.

My original post. Wicked and irresponsible was provocative. but considering the nature of this site, and the provcative nature of the blasphemy challenge I thought that it would all be part of the fun and taken with a bit of salt even though I did have a serious point to make. (Actually, seeing that christian who wants to have a meeting with the RRS made me feel a bit ashamed of my initial response.  You are people with serious questions and a point to make.  If he can act so well in response to you then I'm sure I should as he is a christian as is more directly attacked by the BC). 

Anyway I will keep the parrot impressions to myself from now on!!! ; )


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote:

newmodeltheist wrote:
Consider my post to kmisho. Can you come up with another explanation for life?

Yes.  You have committed the fallacy of false dichotomy.

Here are some alternatives to "My god created the universe" and evolutionary theory: 

  1. Allah created the world.
  2. From Vishnu's navel, a lotus flower grew. In the midst of the blossom was Brahma.  Vishnu commanded Brahma to create the world. (Note: these myths are still believed by millions...even more than believe in Christianity.)
  3. Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto, Takami-Musubi-no-Mikoto and Kammi-Musubi-no-Mikoto created the world. 
  4. Creation myth du jour: http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html 
  5. The great green arglebargle sneezed up the universe as is. Many who believe in the great green arglebargle fear the advent of the colossal galactic handkerchief. I believe this theory came from Douglas Adams.
  6. The Turtle vomited up creation when it got a bellyache (Stephen King's IT).
  7. The Flying Spaghetti Monster stretched out his Noodly Appendage and lo, he created a mountain, some trees and a midget. The rest, as they say, is history.
  8. An advanced alien society planted life on this rock.  This is a theory that is on par with creationism.  No one can tell me where the aliens came from.  No one can tell me where their god(s) came from.
  9. We are all transcendent beings who have existed from the dawn of time.  We believe we have only lived for a short while because as we pass from life to life, we forget our previous life.  No god exists, as such...just the infinite glory of life recycling itself again and again.  This life arises from a natural energy source that has existed for all time.
Anyone else want to contribute?

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:
“I'm curious as to why the theistic poster continues to behave as if creationism and evolution are the only two answers directly pitted against one another.”

Consider my post to kmisho. Can you come up with another explanation for life?

Prove that there isn't one.

newmodeltheist wrote:
“which is impossible beccause it is a scientifically proven theory. (No, it isn't a hypothesis anymore.)”

I plainly disagree don’t I? I would also question your definition of scientifically proven theory.

A fact does not require your agreement to be a fact. You just become a fool for ignoring it.

newmodeltheist wrote:
“It's like arguing that the sun revolves around the earth; therefore, god exists.”

What!!!

Pretty much.

newmodeltheist wrote:
“Piling absurdities atop one another and insisting you're right when you have been repeatedly proven wrong does not help your case. Why are you ignoring the fact that evolution and creationism are not the only two solutions? Why are you ignoring the fact that disproving evolution (an impossibility) does not equal proving the existence of any god, let alone your god?”

Please actually write something noteworthy. Actually write a refutation.

We have. You dodge and ignore them.

newmodeltheist wrote:
“Fallacy upon fallacy upon fallacy.”

Squawk upon squawk upon sqwark

Bullshit upon bullshit upon bullshit.

newmodeltheist wrote:
“Please take time to consider that you've been proven wrong on your initial assumptions. It's time to re-think your position.”

Oh I think I’ll hold out a while longer yet.

Indeed. One day it might click for you though.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I have made clear in this

I have made clear in this and other threads that I am using the term creation generally to mean creation by intelligence. A few posts ago I wrote.

"If evolution (the name given to the naturalistic explanations) were to fail. What other explanations are there to account for life eccept creation (life by intelligent design of some sort)?" I thought that was clear.

So therefore religious myths (1-8) are all under the heading 'creation' despite the fancy forms of the intelligent agents in question.  Actually, sneezing!!  what the hell would that come under?  I don't think this is a legitimate 'explanation ]' though as it is a parody.  It is an appeal to nonsense. 

And are you seriously SERIOUSLY trying to tell me that those noodly appendages don't really exist?  I've seen them....SEEN them with my own eyes I tell you!!!   I wondered what FSM stood for.

The last idea was very very good.  I'll give you that!!!  That would force me to revise my original statement.  I would say yes there are still only two rational explanations for phenomenon.  And that no-one ever appeals to either chance or 'it just is'  or 'its always been that way' as an 'explanation'.  An explanation by definition explains 'something' and these statments are a tacit denial of 'something' or a noteworthy phenomenon that needs explaining.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
vastet: For the second time

vastet: For the second time I have come across a poster who I simply do not mind ignoring. You are a pseudo-intellectual.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Yes, I'm back and throwing

Yes, I'm back and throwing out the reminder that this is the Kill 'Em With Kindness thread.

The rules are more stringent here for everyone.  No cursing.  No personal insults.  No name calling.

A couple of posts have come dangerously close.

Please!  Keep everything nice, folks.

Thanks. 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote: If

newmodeltheist wrote:
If evolution (the name given to the naturalistic explanations) were to fail. What other explanations are there to account for life eccept creation (life by intelligent design of some sort)?" I thought that was clear.

What you don't get is that an inability to lay out a scenario is not evidence that a scenario doesn't exist, or cannot exist. A person who can only see black and white might assume that black and white are the only colours to see. But they'd be wrong. I'd deal with a bunch of things here, but I noticed something interesting before clicking on "quote".

newmodeltheist wrote:

vastet: For the second time I have come across a poster who I simply do not mind ignoring. You are a pseudo-intellectual.

Typical theist. I destroy all your arguments so you run away with your tail between your legs crying foul. Grow up.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote:

newmodeltheist wrote:
If evolution (the name given to the naturalistic explanations) were to fail. What other explanations are there to account for life eccept creation (life by intelligent design of some sort)?" I thought that was clear.

Actually, if you look at my last suggestion, it requires no intelligent design and no personal god, only an unthinking natural energy force from which life forms draw sustenance. This natural energy force pervades all and resurrects us again and again.

I pulled it right out of my kiester, drawing from what little I know about Buddhism and the Force from the Star Wars movies. I admit it has a lot in common with intelligent design because it was 1) made up by Homo sapiens and 2) is completely unscientific. Smiling

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: Please! Keep

Susan wrote:

Please! Keep everything nice, folks.

I'm trying, thank you. Smiling 


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote:

newmodeltheist wrote:

The last idea was very very good. I'll give you that!!! That would force me to revise my original statement. I would say yes there are still only two rational explanations for phenomenon. And that no-one ever appeals to either chance or 'it just is' or 'its always been that way' as an 'explanation'. An explanation by definition explains 'something' and these statments are a tacit denial of 'something' or a noteworthy phenomenon that needs explaining.

Okay...sorry. I guess you did read them all. Smiling I just pulled that one out of my kiester, as previously stated.

But once again I must tell you that evolution does not appeal to "chance." There are three different scientific ideas that many creationists don't like because they contradict scripture: 1) the big bang, 2) the beginning of life and 3) evolution. These three areas have nothing to do with one another and the third, evolution, has been proven as scientific fact. It is impossible to study animal life and paleontology for any length of time without realizing that all life fits within an evolutionary framework. That's why I urge you to check out noor's sites. I find it absolutely fascinating.

As stated, evolution does not rely upon chance. It relies upon "natural selection." I highly recommend that you watch this video: The Blind Watchmaker. It is based on Richard Dawkins' book of the same name and explains the mechanism of natural selection far better than I ever could.

Perhaps the very beginning of life appeals to "chance," but there are billions and billions and billions of planets that could sustain life, so it doesn't seem as impossible as it usually seems at first glance. Scientists don't have a workable scientific theory for the beginning of life. They do, however, have some good hypotheses.

A lack of a scientifically-accepted explanation for the very beginnings of life doesn't automatically mean "god did it." If you look at history, there has been a tendency for scientists (yes, even scientists!) to use the "god did it" excuse when they reach the end of their knowledge. As science has progressed these "gaps" in knowledge have grown smaller and smaller. Scientists, as a group, have become more and more likely to rule out the "god did it" excuse. That's why most top-notch scientists are atheists. They realize that natural explanations are more likely than the standard "god did it" excuse.

What alarms many scientists is that when someone decides "god did it," he or she immediately loses curiosity and stops seeking for alternative answers. This happened to many great scientists of the past who were also theists. An atheistic scientist will not accept "god did it" as a viable explanation and will instead keep looking for the truth.

Saying "god did it" is referred to as "the god of the gaps" excuse and it is frowned upon by those who have noticed that the gaps are fewer and smaller than they once were. The reason "the god of the gaps" idea is so dangerous is it keeps people from seeking knowledge. Theists often lack curiosity. As soon as they decide god did it, that it's some mystery that cannot be explained, they will stop looking for other explanations. Also, theists tend to use black and white thinking: If science can't explain it, god must have done it. Over and over, this kind of thinking has been proven wrong. Scientists have noticed the trend and have become more and more atheistic as a result.

What gets more done, science? or creation "science"?

 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist: Here is an

newmodeltheist: Here is an excerpt from one of the sites noor posted that may help you better understand evolution.

Misconceptions About Evolution

Newspapers, TV programs, and other media have often inadvertently circulated inaccurate information about evolution. As a result, many myths have been established as truth in the minds of the public. To sort out fact from fiction, check out the misconceptions and corrections below:

Misconceptions #1: Evolution is something that happened in the past and is not in play today.
Misconception #2:
The process of evolution doesn’t affect humans.
Misconception #3:
The evolutionary path always leads from simple to complex.
Misconception #4:
If you believe in evolution, you think that humans were directly descended from modern species of monkeys, chimpanzees, or gorillas.
Misconception #5:
The only proof for evolution is the fossil record, which has “gaps” in it, so evolution must be incorrect.
Misconception #6:
Evolution is just a theory, just as intelligent design and creationism are theories.
Misconception #7:
If you accept evolution to be a well-supported theory, you can’t believe in God.

 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:

Anyway I will keep the parrot impressions to myself from now on!!! ; )

Thank you. Smiling

Actually, my parrot is quite personable and very intelligent. I very much like the fact that he is descended from small theropod dinosaurs. Smiling Take a look at these little beauties: microraptors. They are members of the dromaeosaur family (deinonychus, utahraptor, velociraptor, dromaeosaurus, etc.). Fossil impressions of flight feathers were found on their arms and legs. I love this artistic rendering:

My parrot has a an attitude problem just like I do sometimes. I got carried away in another thread and posted a bunch of pictures of him destroying a towel: http://tinyurl.com/2t9bz3

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori. Hello. I

Iruka Naminori.

Hello. I have now woken up. Its early morning in my part of the planet. I have to go to work soon. But I wanted to write a quick response.

“But once again I must tell you that evolution does not appeal to "chance." There are three different scientific ideas that many creationists don't like because they contradict scripture: 1) the big bang, 2) the beginning of life and 3) evolution. These three areas have nothing to do with one another and the third, evolution, has been proven as scientific fact.”

Once again, I must say that I do understand the tenets of evolution. I may disagree with you about the validity of the theory but it is not because I am ignorant of it. The big bang and abiogenesis you are right have got nothing to do with evolution. (Often when two completely different world-views come into contact, the very different prime assumptions tend to cause confusion. This has become more apparent to me when debating on this site. I have in the past made comments like ‘is inadequate to explain the origin of the genetic code’ (or words to that effect). Of course, as one who does not accept the evolution of complex life-forms from simpler ones, by the origin of the genetic code I mean that of many different forms of life that I view as informationally distinct shall I say. An evolutionist will see that quote and automatically conclude I am talking about abiogenesis.

Also, It is essentially this form of evolution, complex from simple (via the selection of random mutation) that I dispute. I don’t dispute natural selection or the evolution of life itself, such as the examples that noor has presented (those that I have seen at the moment). I just dispute the notion that new genetic information can arise by naturalistic means. Virtually all evidence for evolutionary theory that I have seen is either evidence for the form of evolution that is undisputed, or it is essentially historical evidence that is simply fitting observations into a pre-existing ideological model. In previous threads I have been distinguishing between what I have been calling micro and macro evolution. These are terms that distinguish between the two forms of evolution. deluded god disagrees about the use of the words it would seem (or at least he ascribes these words to a different phenomenon that fits his ideological bias, but then that is exactly what I do as well) but I stand by my distinction between natural selection on one hand, and natural selection acting on random genetic change to produce complex life, on the other.

Thanyou for the Dawkins link. I enjoy his work even though I disagree with him on many things.

“What alarms many scientists is that when someone decides "god did it," he or she immediately loses curiosity and stops seeking for alternative answers. This happened to many great scientists of the past who were also theists. An atheistic scientist will not accept "god did it" as a viable explanation and will instead keep looking for the truth.”

In a round about way this is the meaning of my original post on this thread. Creationists need evolutionists to keep looking. Ironic for us isn’t it.

“What gets more done, science? or creation "science"?”

Creation ‘science’ isn’t science at all. Complex life from simple life isn’t either though. Of course science gets things done. This is not an issue of science vs. religion, but of naturalism vs. supernaturalism. A profound difference.

P.S. I like your reptilian bird picture.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Firstly, you still have not

Firstly, you still have not responded to my comment except for the last sliver of it regarding creationist position.

Secondly, your comment regarding science looking only for natural explanations is fallacious.

Science: Answers how and what questions by observation and data.

Religion: Answers more semantic "why" questions which are philosophical and arbitrary.

If we can "find an explanation", then it is natural, because if it was "supernatural", then by definition that would not be able to be explained. The idea of supernaturalism slams into the logical limits of science, a human endeavor that only deals in what is provable or testable. By definition, anything supernatural is neither provable nor testable. It is not good science (hell, it isnt science at all) to attribute supernatural explanations to ANYTHING. There are religious scientists of course, but they keep their science and faith in seperate boxes, and in the lab, they leave their spirituality at the door.  

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:
kmisho. If evolution (the name given to the naturalistic explanations) were to fail. What other explanations are there to account for life eccept creation (life by intelligent design of some sort)?

This is just a dodge.

"evolution (the name given to the naturalistic explanations)"

False... Evolution is a particular theory that says particular things. It is not a blanket for non-magic guesses.

And here I see the essence of your error. Evolution and creation could BOTH be true at the same time. God could have created evolution.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod. Here is a

deludedgod.

Here is a post outlining the way I see things. Please let me know your opinion and ask if you think I have failed to answer your questions.

“As a scientist, I would argue the exact opposite of your assertion. you see, in the scientific method, when a scientific research paper is published with the results of an experiment, all the other scientists immediately play devils advocate. They look for holes, the attack it, they try to replicate it...this is how science advances.”

Peer review is part of the traditional paraphernalia of science but it is not the essence of the method itself. The scientific method I would describe in its simplest form thus. First explanation. Second observation. The first part involves constructing an explanatory model of a supposed natural phenomenon. The second involves testing this model through experimentation in which a successful model is able to make predictions regarding the outcome of the experiment. This is how science can be sure that the answers it gives are real and not just a case of picking out the observations you want to fit a preconceived idea. It is important to note that this method can only deal with natural phenomena. One cannot construct a model and test its power to predict unless one assumes a priori that one is dealing with nature. It is also important to note that this method is only used to discover natural process at work. In other words it deals in the present. The experiment, if successful is a demonstration of a natural phenomenon in action. A model can be tested in all sorts of ways, continue to make predictions, be repeated and so on because science reveals things as they are. The most successful model, the one that can explain the most and can withstand repeated and varied tests may be regarded as provisionally ‘true’ until a superior model replaces it if indeed one ever does. One final thing here. For an explanatory model to be scientific, it has to have been successful and continue to be successful in experimentation. No matter how good the model, if it fails under test conditions or cannot be tested for whatever reason, it remains unscientific.

Contrast this with the historical method. This may be rendered thus. First observation. Second description. The first part involves collecting facts by making observations. The second part in fitting together what you have found into a rational description of historical events. This method does not provide definitive models as science can claim to do. Observations can be interpreted in different ways in this method. Different facts may be used as evidence for completely opposing models. A fact is an impartial observation whereas evidence is a fact used in support of a descriptive model. This method deals with events of the past and does not reveal processes in action. A historical description then is always open to interpretation of the facts.

How do we account for biological life? The answer to this question will require the services of both the scientific method (in order to reveal how life is) and the historical method (in order to deduce its origins).

The answers provided by science are non-negotiable. What does science tell us about the origin of species? Does it tell us that evolution is fact? Well, sort of, it depends on what is meant by evolution. Evolution is gradual change and science has certainly revealed gradual change in living organisms. Science has revealed that descendents can be very different from their ancestral stock. It reveals that natural selection can change a population and that one population can branch out to form many new ones, as different from one another as they are from their ancestors. Science also tells us that in any given population, there are natural limits as to what permutations of characteristics are able to be expressed. Artificial breeding can produce many variety of domesticated plants and animals from wild stock, but with limits. Whatever is produced must essentially be contained within the original stock at the start. There is a limit to what can potentially come about by evolution. These are scientific fact as things stand.

Both The General Theory of Evolution (TE) and (what I will call to distinguish it from religious mythologies) The General Theory of Creation (TC) are both excepting of science. Both accept the evolution of species with one important difference. TC accepts it to a limited degree, TE accepts it to an unlimited one. TC accepts that many forms of life share a common ancestor, and that this ancestral gene-pool was rearranged and separated out by natural selection to give the multitude of creatures today, each in there various categories. TC maintains that the original gene-pools contained within themselves the variety of forms that were subsequently produced. The TE on the other hand maintains essentially that all the species of today are part of a continuous process of evolution which eventually unites all life in a common ancestor, the genetic material of later species was not necessarily contained within the earlier ones, but was produced by means of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations. The TC does not believe that natural selection of random mutation can account for the code for life and thus attribute the information of the original gene-pools to intelligent design.

TE maintains that TC is unscientific as it invokes non-natural forces. This is of course correct. TC maintains that TE is unscientific but it does this for more complex reasons. TC maintains that the natural selection of random mutation has never passed experimental examination to anywhere near the requirement to make it even semi-reasonable let alone scientific. TC also maintains that the probability of producing new viable organisms through random mutation of existing ones is low enough to be completely negligible even with incremental steps. TC especially maintains this because said scenario has to account for all life on the planet. TE maintain that TC is incredible because it invokes something that has no proof. TC maintains that the intelligence can easily be inferred from analysis of the genetic code and that the identity of the intelligence is a conclusion drawn from the evidence rather than an explanation that requires evidence of itself. TC also maintains that intelligence is a quality that can be identified through its effects irrespective of the identity that exhibits it. Both TC and TE draw different conclusions from historical facts. TE will not entertain any other explanation from natural-historical records that does not already fit its model that it regards as scientific. TE says that evolution has already been scientifically proven. TC maintains that TE does not distinguish between scientifically validated evolution and its own hypothetical evolution that has no scientific backing. TE believes that its hypothetical evolution has backing from the fossil record. TC regards this as circular reasoning and that the whole of TE is founded on a belief. TE says that TC is founded on a belief and so cannot be taken seriously or even entered into debate with without bringing down the whole of science and rationalism into a new dark ages. TC maintains that this is gross hypocrisy. Both sides effectively loath the other and regard this contest as nothing less than a battle for the soul of mankind.

This then is the state of play from my point of view.

“If we can "find an explanation", then it is natural, because if it was "supernatural", then by definition that would not be able to be explained.”

Supernatural is not the explanation, it is a conclusion based upon the explanation of design by intelligence. There is an important difference. The design inference is used all the time in normal circumstances as an explanation for all sorts of phenomena.

“The idea of supernaturalism slams into the logical limits of science, a human endeavor that only deals in what is provable or testable. By definition, anything supernatural is neither provable nor testable. It is not good science (hell, it isnt science at all) to attribute supernatural explanations to ANYTHING.”

Agreed but read the above comment.

p.s. I have still not had a response re viral insertions on the other thread. Have I made a good point in my comments or am I unaware of something else involved.

Kmisho:

Evolution is a collection of theories united by their naturalistic outlook.

I don’t think God could create evolution any more than you could design a roulette wheel that gives you the same number each time you spin whilst still maintaining a random probability for each number. These are mutually exclusive concepts. Anyway, why would he create a middleman when he could just do it himself?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Both The General Theory of

Both The General Theory of Evolution (TE) and (what I will call to distinguish it from religious mythologies) The General Theory of Creation (TC) are both excepting of science. Both accept the evolution of species with one important difference. TC accepts it to a limited degree, TE accepts it to an unlimited one. TC accepts that many forms of life share a common ancestor, and that this ancestral gene-pool was rearranged and separated out by natural selection to give the multitude of creatures today, each in there various categories. TC maintains that the original gene-pools contained within themselves the variety of forms that were subsequently produced. The TE on the other hand maintains essentially that all the species of today are part of a continuous process of evolution which eventually unites all life in a common ancestor, the genetic material of later species was not necessarily contained within the earlier ones, but was produced by means of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations. The TC does not believe that natural selection of random mutation can account for the code for life and thus attribute the information of the original gene-pools to intelligent design.

The bottom part "cannot account for the code of life" is the crux of the matter. Evolution does not (I mentioned this numerous times) deal in primordial chemistry. Once RNA appeared on the scene it can provide a god-free explanation for life from RNA to man. Also, if you still dont like macroevolution, I suggest you look at human evolution. There are 25 links over 4 million years. We can gather fossil remains of the 25 speciative links, examine them and compare the slow progression of teeth, backbone, jawbone, skull, for the links that did not go extinct, we can give MRIs and compare brain structures and we can observe how that evolved. We can decode the genome of each of the 25 links and pinpoint the precise mutations that took place that took us from chimp to man. We can use amino acids tracking to determine when they took place.

How much more evidence do you want??? Your description of the historical method might have better applied to Darwins evolution studies, but now that we can decode genomes, we can look directly at the map, good as new, as it has been preserved for eons. Genes are the ultimate fusing of the historical and scientific method. They are perfectly preserved and they contain an organisn's autobiography. Using them we can pinpoint the jumps in evolution. By the way, there is one more thing I want you to research: punctuated equilibrium. 

Obviously we cannot pinpoint ALL the jumps in evolution because the fossil record is so woefully incomplete, there are undoubtably many extinct steps that are lost forever... but we can gather enough evidence to construct a phylogenic tree of life.

Sorry for not answering your ERV question. I have not been paying attention to that forum because the asshole who was flaming on it has left (he was trolling) I'll get on doing that.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
“The bottom part "cannot

“The bottom part "cannot account for the code of life" is the crux of the matter. Evolution does not (I mentioned this numerous times) deal in primordial chemistry.”

I will quote myself as part of an answer to this…”Often when two completely different world-views come into contact, the very different prime assumptions tend to cause confusion. This has become more apparent to me when debating on this site. I have in the past made comments like ‘is inadequate to explain the origin of the genetic code’ (or words to that effect). Of course, as one who does not accept the evolution of complex life-forms from simpler ones, by the origin of the genetic code I mean that of many different forms of life that I view as informationally distinct shall I say. An evolutionist will see that quote and automatically conclude I am talking about abiogenesis.”

“Once RNA appeared on the scene it can provide a god-free explanation for life from RNA to man.”

If by ‘god-free’ you mean that it can explain all life-forms on earth by means of natural selection acting on random mutation then this is an explanatory model, yes, but it is not a scientific one. It is nought but an ideological assertion.

“Also, if you still dont like macroevolution, I suggest you look at human evolution. There are 25 links over 4 million years. We can gather fossil remains of the 25 speciative links, examine them and compare the slow progression of teeth, backbone, jawbone, skull, for the links that did not go extinct, we can give MRIs and compare brain structures and we can observe how that evolved. We can decode the genome of each of the 25 links and pinpoint the precise mutations that took place that took us from chimp to man. We can use amino acids tracking to determine when they took place.”

This is very interesting I will admit, but it is still natural-historical evidence not scientific evidence. As with all such evidence, the facts on which it is based are open to dispute. This does not mean that this model that you present is false necessarily, but that evolutionists have fitted the facts into a pre-supposed model (as would creationists of course). The real test is which model fit’s the facts best. The term speciative links is a bias term and those fossils will need to be examined to determine if the differences can be adequately explained by reference to 1) separate primate groups 2) natural variation within each group 3) the degree to which an adequate or accurate reconstruction of skulls is possible from the relevant fragments. 4) sundry other things like deformation and effects of fossilization etc. The mapping of mutations is interesting though. But again this is a bias statement and the relevant genomes would need to be evaluated in the same way as the fossils. Is there a calculation of probability for the supposed mutation pathway? This is much like the test I mentioned in a conversation with you earlier this week on another thread.

“How much more evidence do you want???”

What I want is for both sides to be able to present a case from the facts. As I said, evidence is facts used to defend a bias.
P.S. what’s ‘trolling’


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
“Your description of the

“Your description of the historical method might have better applied to Darwins evolution studies, but now that we can decode genomes, we can look directly at the map, good as new, as it has been preserved for eons. Genes are the ultimate fusing of the historical and scientific method. They are perfectly preserved and they contain an organisn's autobiography. Using them we can pinpoint the jumps in evolution. By the way, there is one more thing I want you to research: punctuated equilibrium.
Obviously we cannot pinpoint ALL the jumps in evolution because the fossil record is so woefully incomplete, there are undoubtably many extinct steps that are lost forever... but we can gather enough evidence to construct a phylogenic tree of life.”

Genomes I agree are like libraries to study. The are, in as much as they are preserved, like ancient texts from the past. I would disagree with you about the fusing of scientific and historical methods though. It is the clear distinction of the scientific method that gives it its esteemed status. Scientific evidence can be used in support of a theory though, even if the theory itself is not scientific. Constructing a historical model of certain jumps in evolution is what I would regard as a suitable course of action for an evolutionist. If a specific jump could be proposed and the genetic probability could be estimated then this would at least provide something tangible to explore, in other words a phylogenic tree of life incorporating a calculation of mutation probabilities.

As far as I am aware, Punctuated Equilibrium was proposed to account for the gaps in the fossil record. Stating that evolution consists of long periods of equilibrium, punctuated by periods of rapid evolution that does not readily show in the fossil record. This is an interesting theory but of course it is appealing to lack of evidence. Its like saying that evolution must be true even when there is no fossil evidence for it. Surprise surprise this is a win , win situation for evolution theory. If the facts don’t fit, then use lack of evidence as proof.

P.S. Am I imagining things or are you able to modify your posts after they are submitted? I’m sure I didn’t see the above before.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I simply want to know that

I simply want to know that IF you wanted to disuss evo vs. creationism, why you didn't go to the science or evo forums?

I'm not about to read, let alone dive into this convo now, yet I'm the guy you should be talkining to.

I skim this forum, at best. You want to talk science, go to the science boards - don't hide here. 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Hide! Whose hiding. I

Hide! Whose hiding. I debate with deludedgod here, I responded to his essay thread. I even posted on the evolution threads but you hadn't responded to my posts there either last time I looked, although I haven't checked there today but I will in a moment.