(KoM, fair enough: I don't want to make it seem like I'm going to make fun of him for petty reasons, and I was starting to feel bad about saying it the way I was anyway.)
[ December 09, 2009, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: 0Megabyte ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, look. He writes like he's in second grade, fine. But in strict, complete fairness, a thesis should not be evaluated by the formality of its language, but by the quality of its arguments and data. So while your quote is fine for mocking Kent Hovind, an endeavour I heartily support, it is not quite right to use it for mocking his thesis. Pick something further in.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Eh, I'm more disappointed in his supervisor(s), if they let him submit it in such an informal tone.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think you're overestimating the professors of Patriot University, EL.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The quote sounds like a pretty informal start, but I agree with KoM - it doesn't by itself really give us any reason to think his evidence or conclusions are faulty.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Yes, and I apologize. It wasn't really fair to start off in such a way.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Is it common to refer to a doctoral thesis as a book?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Then again: I skimmed through it looking for the aforementioned arguments and data, and didn't find any. Now there are admittedly a good number of assertions, which perhaps look a bit like data if you're not familiar with what actual information looks like. One that particularly struck me was where he was arguing that teaching evolution is bad for the US scientific establishment, on the grounds that (quoting from memory) "we are turning out students that many other nations can beat, academically". Now this may or may not be true, but as a general rule, if any such thing were asserted in an informal web-forum debate, there would be an instant cry of "source please!" Then there is the post-hoc, propter-hoc reasoning: The US teaches evolution, the US has bad students, therefore the first caused the second. What, European nations are still teaching Biblical creationism? You never heard of a regression analysis? Sheesh. I hope this sort of thing would not fly in your average junior-high project; for a doctoral thesis, well. Never mind the tax evasion, he should have been locked up for this alone: It is a clear case of libel against every other PhD in the world.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Is it common to refer to a doctoral thesis as a book?
Only, I suspect, if it started out as a commercial project and you were eventually convinced that there was no money in it, but it might add some academic lustre to your name. That might also account for the vastly informal tone.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To be clear, this isn't actually a doctoral thesis. Liberty University isn't accredited to give out doctorates (or really any sort of recognized degree at all). You can call it whatever you like, really, but it's not a doctoral thesis by the common use of the term.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
The writing in this so-called thesis isn't merely childish, the construction of the arguments is as well. On page 83, Hovind informs us he has written a poem and quotes it. His arguments contain information that is at best irrelevant, at worst incorrect and tops if off with frequent non-sequiteurs and leaps to conclusions without explicitly taking us there. His references are embedded and incomplete, and no Bibliography is provided.
I would expect this level of argument from a particularly dedicated but not tremendously intelligent Middle Schooler.
For me, it's not so much that Hovind's PhD is a joke, which we have known since he got it, but that Hovind himself thought, aged well into his twenties, that this was the sort of material that Doctors produce.
quote:The Flood was about 2400 BC, which makes it about 4400 years ago. The Tower of Babel was probably built within the first three to five hundred years after the flood. Let's just assume it was 1900 B.C. when the Tower of Babel was built.
It's a bit like the first episodes of every season of So You Think You Can Dance, when those very poor dancers come on and the judges ask them if they really thought they were at the level displayed by the top dancers on the show.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Liberty University is an accredited school. The paper in question was submitted to Patriot University, which is not.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
D'oh. I meant Patriot, obviously.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
One of the saddest days for me was when I took my master's thesis and did The Flesch analysis. Apparently, an 8th grader should be able to read it with ease. I know how the analysis works and why mine scored the way it did (lots of acronyms and abbreviations), but it still irks me.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Like I said, I don't think many people in the know think Hovind's degree was ever valid, but I think that people are generally surprised by how bad it is.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Thats one quality university/shack.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Wikileaks is great.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Everyone who knows anything knows Hovind got his degree from a diploma mill. But, count me as one who is still shocked at how bad this really, truly is. I mean, I expected somewhat shoddy work (and I've read dissertations and master's theses that I didn't think were up to snuff but were approved) but I didn't expect THIS.
Sad. Very sad. I agree with Teshi - it seems impossible that anyone could think this was anywhere near the level of work appropriate for a PhD. Did he get all of his degrees from this university, or did he go to a legitimate one before? How can he get to the point where he thinks this is okay, even for undergraduate work?
Are we sure this is legit? It just seems so improbable that anyone would write this and submit it as a dissertation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It does not seem improbable that Kent Hovind would have submitted this as a dissertation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I went through the whole thing. Reading it was like a capstone on the story of "Dr. Dino" — of great interest to people like me who followed his story during his halcyon at the forefront of the creationist struggle against evolutionary theory. We knew about "patriot bible university," we knew about his conflicts with the law, about his travels across the country as a spokesperson and debater, about his dino park.
Ultimately, the guy is a massive tragedy of a human being. His idiocy and his self-centerdness was not constrained just to looking silly. It ultimately cost him his liberty. Ruined his life.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
He makes the catholic league look good.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I notice none of the local creationists are speaking up in its defense. It's a pretty bad piece of work when not even a creationist can be found to praise it. Perhaps there will be less quoting of "Dr" Hovind in the future? One can only hope.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How does a guy with such - I don't even want to say slim - non-credentials get to be prominent enough that people know who he is much less pay attention to him?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
He's got better credentials than most other creationists.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
That's a very good question. Why would someone with such credentials be big enough in the creationist community to have people listen to him? Even people I know? (which is part of why I noted this so strongly. People I know use his words. It's scary, really.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How does a guy with such - I don't even want to say slim - non-credentials get to be prominent enough that people know who he is much less pay attention to him?
He uses the exact same evidence that you rely on for the rest of your religion: Repeated assertion. You have no room to criticise.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
Is Kentucky Fried Chicken any less tasty because Colonel Sanders didn't have a commission from any "accredited" army?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If Colonel Sanders were second-guessing soldiers in the field based on his military experience, I'm betting it'd be relevant.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No, but I think it might have been a bit worse if comrade Sanders didn't know what he was about, and showed it in his every sentence, and then insisted on getting a paper-mill 'diploma' and waving it in the face of anyone who had ever seen an actual dang chicken.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, I was not (at that moment) criticizing his evidence; I was questioning what it took to become a famous "expert".
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The same as in any other religion: Willingness to put in some time and learn the jargon; plus perhaps some luck, as in becoming a top actor. Since there's no competition on evidence (as you well know), it comes down to having a big smile and an outgoing personality. Nobody is going to actually check whether claimed credentials are any good; why bother? He's repeating the truth you already know; if the argument or credential is good, that may be a bonus in talking to the unbeliever, but it's hardly necessary. After all, there's such a thing as a different standard of evidence.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
KoM, go ahead and ask kmbboots out already. I'm tired of all the elementary school hair pulling. If you want, pass her the "Do you like me?" note. Remember to include a "maybe" option. It leaves you an out.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
I'd like to take this opportunity to ask both of them out.
KOM and kmnboots, please get out.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hey. KoM is not my fault. I asked a perfectly reasonable question. How did this guy get to be famous?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And I gave a perfectly reasonable answer: Nobody checked up on him, because the evidence and the credentials are not the important part.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
My point exactly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Anyone else want to answer? Is he a Joe the Plumber kind of thing? I hadn't heard of him but clearly he is making the rounds.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You've never heard of Kent Hovind? He was a bigger deal a few years ago, before he got sent to prison.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No. Sigh. I live in a cave. Or rather, I live in a liberal University town where creationists may as well be hippogriffs. I only find conservatives on the internet.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
Remember when the Duggars went to Dinosaur Adventure Land (check you TiVo)? He was the founder.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I've never heard of him before this either.
From what I can gather, boots, he was more charismatic and...enterprising is maybe a good word than others.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah...so he just had enough money to make himself famous. (don't watch the Duggars) Thanks.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
From what I can tell, there's this pool of credulous conservative christians out there who are seemingly chomping at the bit to give money and attention to charismatic charlatans and/or crazies who say the right things. He was just another instance of this.
I think he was outlandish and so obviously incredibly flawed that people opposed to him found him really easy to focus on too.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Goodness, the crappy things that can bring fame.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
With his diploma being fake, that means that he bore false witness and was a false prophet (real profit though).
As such he is a dark stain on the evangelical Christian community.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't know. Conservative christian activists aren't exactly known for their honesty.
And to be fair, it's possible that he regards his diploma as real.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: And to be fair, it's possible that he regards his diploma as real.
I suspect this is very likely. Most people whose degrees come from known diploma mills get quite insulted when that fact is pointed out to them.
(I'm referring to accredited schools (often nationally rather than regionally, which is a less rigorous form of accreditation) that are known by everyone in higher ed to have far less rigorous standards, accept unlimited transfer credits (including from non-accredited schools), allow students to test out of 75% of the credits towards graduation, etc. This school doesn't even meet those criteria, but nonetheless.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Is it common to refer to a doctoral thesis as a book?
It's pretty common for doctoral candidates and Ph.D's to refer to their dissertation as "their book" but its more or less a slang term. I've never heard a dissertation called a book in any formal discussion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Short copy: Hovind was "Dr. Dino," an outspoken creationist who devoted his life to countering 'darwinism,' and became probably for a time the most visible individual in the pre-Dover creationism debate. He's fantastically full of conspiracy theories. His "Hovind Theory" is one of the wackier things you have ever heard, and sounds kind of like something Ron Lambert would come up with. One of his gimmicks was to offer a reward of $250,000 to anyone who proved evolution, then made his standards for proving evolution impossible (including the requirement that you prove that "Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves" — hovind calls evolutionary theory and atheism 'synonymous').
He ran around everywhere, talked at private schools, produced materials for creationists, opened Dinosaur BS Land, asserted he didn't need a permit to do some things, got in trouble with the law, asserted he didn't need to pay taxes, government asserted that he had to pay taxes, he got charged, he still refused to pay taxes, he got sent to court, he refused to relent, he got sentenced to ten years in jail for tax evasion. He rots there today.
The end.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I notice none of the local creationists are speaking up in its defense.
I for one am reluctant to speak in Kent Hovind's defense because I do not agree with his stand about local government control over his property (building codes, etc.)--and I have told him so-- and because his scientific arguments have not always been the best thought out. (And I have suggested to him some arguments he ought to drop and told him why.) However, say what you want about his scientific rigorousness, the fact still remains that many evolutionist apologists have become fearful of debating him in public because he is so good at debating the subject. He has the heart of a Christian Evangelist and a burden for souls, and that is something I honor. I was very sad to learn of his legal travails, and regard it as evidence of Satan's attempt to lead Hovind to sabotage himself--which is one of Satan's favorite tactics with people who become especially troublesome to him.
I know that when I have presented evidence and arguments in support of Intelligent Design and Creationism, and which contradict Evolutionism and Geologic Gradualism, the number one argument I have gotten is something to this effect: "Oh no, scientists are too honest and honorable, they would never cook the data or suppress it. Stories about them sabotaging the careers of other scientists who question Evolution must be exaggerations or misrepresentations. Scientists would never behave that way."
I would request that those who have felt this was a valid argument should take a long and close look at the CRU Climategate revelations, and think again. And look again at Ben Stein's fairly recent documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. See if it is still possible to explain it away as just "exaggerations or misrepresentations."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:many evolutionist apologists have become fearful of debating him in public because he is so good at debating the subject
How are you defining "good?" He is good at controlling the tone of the debate; he is not good at making logical arguments.
quote:the number one argument I have gotten is something to this effect: "Oh no, scientists are too honest and honorable, they would never cook the data or suppress it..."
No, that's not the #1 argument you've gotten. The #1 argument you've gotten is "the small mountain of contradictory data out there suggests that those people are crackpots fixated on a few edge cases."
quote:See if it is still possible to explain it away as just "exaggerations or misrepresentations."
Yeah, it is.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Ron, you will never convince us. Ever. However, your attempts are often highly entertaining.
As far as scientists lying, sure they do. So do religious folk. It's a human tendency, and religious folk have more motivation to lie. Why? Because scientists' careers live and die by repeatability. Anything they publish can and often will be rigorously tested. They live in fear of publishing something that others cannot repeat. Religious folks have much less of a rigorous standard to meet. It's much easier to convert the average person to Mormonism or Islam than to convince thousands of other scientists that their whole worldview is wrong. Way easier.
It's a much, much higher hurdle to cross. To convert the average Hatracker to Mormonism is one thing. That has spontaneously happened through people reading OSC's works, and then investigating the LDS faith further. To convert the thousands of experts in any given scientific field to a whole new viewpoint is a whole other endeavor, and does not happen spontaneously. It usually takes several years, and that's if the data is rock-solid and easily tested.
So who's the more reliable group? Scientists, or religious folk? Religious folk will literally sometimes kill you for believing what they don't. Scientists will definitely destroy your career. It happens. Killing someone isn't the same as destroying their career, though. If you think it is, you are confused, I believe.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: the fact still remains that many evolutionist apologists have become fearful of debating him in public because he is so good at debating the subject.
Good? No, he was terrible. That he returned time and time again to debating a subject that he couldn't ever get the facts straight on (Massimo Pigliucci destroyed him in a debate where Hovind actually claimed biologists think people came from bananas) and that he refused to retract statements he used no matter how bogus they turned out to be did not make him 'good' at debating the subject.
He just was possessed of the same shortcomings you are: conspiratorial dogmatism paired with an utter inability to self-recognize argumentative failure.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I know that when I have presented evidence and arguments in support of Intelligent Design and Creationism, and which contradict Evolutionism and Geologic Gradualism, the number one argument I have gotten is something to this effect: "Oh no, scientists are too honest and honorable, they would never cook the data or suppress it. Stories about them sabotaging the careers of other scientists who question Evolution must be exaggerations or misrepresentations. Scientists would never behave that way."
I would request that those who have felt this was a valid argument should take a long and close look at the CRU Climategate revelations, and think again.
This is a fair comparison. People, perhaps even scientsts, who are very dedicated to a cause have a tendency to be willing to accept some degree of irrationality when it makes their cause look good. That's why people quote Kent Hovind and call him a doctor even though any neutral person would probably judge him to lack the expertise he claims to have. It's also why a scientist might justify presenting their data in a way that makes it appear more persuasive than it actually is. It's why some conservatives often are reluctant to admit that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin make a lot of irrational arguments, and why some liberals often are reluctant to admit that Michael Moore's exaggerations undermine his arguments. This is human nature; there seems to be people who approach any given hot topic issue with the attitude that having the right conclusion is more important than having correct premises or valid logic.
But since this applies to everything, one can't assume that a given idea is flawed just because some extreme advocates act irrationally about it. For instance, just looking at Hovind's dissertation would not be enough to prove creationism as a whole is a bankrupt idea; all it shows is that Hovind's supporters are so committed to creationism that they overlook his rather clear flaws. And on those same grounds, one can't argue global warming is bunk just because a few scientists went just a bit too far in making their data look good; all that shows is that there exist some scientists who are passionate about making the threat of global warming clear. Ideas can't be judged by their advocates. Ideas need to be judged by the data and reasons supporting them.
And therefore... finding a scientist who is dishonest about global warming would not prove evolution is a flawed theory. If the data supports it, it doesn't matter how its advocates act.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Yeah, I think claiming evolution is fiction based on some emails taken from some climatologists is along the line of saying Christianity is a lie based on the fact that a few priests liked to seduce young boys.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Worse than that. It's like saying that Islam is a lie based on the fact that a few Catholic priests liked to seduce young boys.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Samprimary, I have watched pretty much the entire video series of Hovind's debates. I do not recall him being destroyed by anyone. And he did not say biologists teach humans descended from bananas. I remember the debate where that came up (actually I believe there was more than one where he used the same illustration), and he was jokingly describing an episode in his childhood when his older brothers discouraged him from eating the last banana by telling him that spiders became embedded in bananas, and as proof pointing out the five apparent "legs" seen in cross-sections. He said that illustrated how silly evolutionists' arguments were. He did not say that was an actual argument used by evolutionists. This illustrates how readily some people are willing to seize upon something he said out of context, and twist it unfairly. And then people like you hear them give their false summary of what Hovind said, and you accept it at face value, not realizing you have been lied to, which in itself should disqualify everything those people say.
Hovind is considered by all objective viewers as a "good" debater. That means effective at persuading audiences to his side, and putting his opponents obviously on the defensive. Even some evolutionist debaters have described him as "the Hulk Hogan" of Creationist debaters. He is good at thinking on his feet, and has a lot of arguments and citeable evidences instantly ready at his command. He also puts together very effective video aids.
Not all his arguments that I heard were sound. But many of them were sound, and effective, and scored points with most listeners. It is not hard at all to score truly valid points against evolution simply by pointing out the immense complexity of the DNA molecule, and the utter irrationality of supposing that any natural processes acting on the basis of random selection by any means, could produce the vastly increased complexity needed to transform one basic species into another totally different basic species. There is nothing wrong with this argument whatsoever, however futilely evolutionists try to counter it, and Hovind has made this argument many times.
As for whether he should be called "doctor"--he apparently has a legally valid doctorate, but he got it via a correspondence course. So the question is not whether he is entitled to call himself "Dr. Hovind," but what is the relative quality of his doctorate? Obviously a degree from Harvard is more prestigious than one from Plodnick U., or one from a correspondence school. Since the degree was supposed to be in education, anyway, he is not a biologist in formal training, so I prefer not to refer to him as "Dr. Hovind," at least in the context of Creation Vs. Evolution discussions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:he apparently has a legally valid doctorate
Does he have an accredited doctorate?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As for whether he should be called "doctor"--he apparently has a legally valid doctorate, but he got it via a correspondence course. So the question is not whether he is entitled to call himself "Dr. Hovind," but what is the relative quality of his doctorate? Obviously a degree from Harvard is more prestigious than one from Plodnick U., or one from a correspondence school. Since the degree was supposed to be in education, anyway, he is not a biologist in formal training, so I prefer not to refer to him as "Dr. Hovind," at least in the context of Creation Vs. Evolution discussions.
I will never refer to him as "Doctor," based on that dissertation. I find it distasteful and even offensive that I could share a title with someone who thinks that... garbage... counts as a doctoral dissertation. He did not earn that title. Someone may have given it to him, but they had no right, ethically, and no right, legally (see: accreditation). Calling him "doctor" insults the men and women who have actually earned the title, who have poured countless hours of rigourous study into it and endured the terror of a panel of accredited supervisors judging it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Hovind is considered by all objective viewers as a "good" debater. That means effective at persuading audiences to his side, and putting his opponents obviously on the defensive.
Other issues aside, I'd take issue of this criteria for being a "good" debater: I think the purpose of debate is not to persuade audiences to your side, but rather to jointly persuade audiences (and you and your opponent) to the truthful side. Sometimes that isn't your side - and if it isn't, the only way to determine is by using sound, logical reasons in debate rather than rhetorical devices aimed at persuading without substance.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Is this the same Hovind who claims that dinosaurs were dragons, breathed fire, rode on Noah's Ark and may still be alive in remote places?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
They breathed fire AND rode on Noah's ark? That's just asking for trouble.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, I have watched pretty much the entire video series of Hovind's debates. I do not recall him being destroyed by anyone.
Then you only watched a very specific set of the "entire video series" of Hovind's debates. Probably the ones offered by creationist sources.
quote:And he did not say biologists teach humans descended from bananas. I remember the debate where that came up (actually I believe there was more than one where he used the same illustration), and he was jokingly describing an episode in his childhood when his older brothers discouraged him from eating the last banana by telling him that spiders became embedded in bananas, and as proof pointing out the five apparent "legs" seen in cross-sections. He said that illustrated how silly evolutionists' arguments were. He did not say that was an actual argument used by evolutionists.
Yes he did. It is even cited in his Wikipedia page.
quote:Hovind is considered by all objective viewers as a "good" debater. That means effective at persuading audiences to his side, and putting his opponents obviously on the defensive.
I am as "objective" a viewer of debates as you will find, and I do not consider him a good debater. Not only was he not effective at persuading audiences to his side (only really from his side, and the distinction is likely more important than you can realize), but he actually actively helped drive people away from the creationist movement by being such a readily discredited and silly man whose paranoid conspiracy-mongering did his other pursuits little credit.
Not all his arguments that I heard were sound. But many of them were sound, and effective, and scored points with most listeners. It is not hard at all to score truly valid points against evolution simply by pointing out the immense complexity of the DNA molecule, and the utter irrationality of supposing that any natural processes acting on the basis of random selection by any means, could produce the vastly increased complexity needed to transform one basic species into another totally different basic species. There is nothing wrong with this argument whatsoever, however futilely evolutionists try to counter it, and Hovind has made this argument many times.[/qb][/quote]
Nothing wrong with this argument whatsoever? Well, you're wrong again. The black box/mousetrap/irreducible complexity/"macroevolution" argument has way, way too many holes in it.
I can demonstrate.
Make any argument you choose. Establish an argument which debunks evolution, in your mind. I'll grind it to dust.
quote:As for whether he should be called "doctor"--he apparently has a legally valid doctorate, but he got it via a correspondence course.
He got it from a blatant diploma mill.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I would request that those who have felt this was a valid argument should take a long and close look at the CRU Climategate revelations, and think again. And look again at Ben Stein's fairly recent documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. See if it is still possible to explain it away as just "exaggerations or misrepresentations."
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was a movie by con artists. They used deceptive practices in producing it. It is full of outright falsehoods. Is this supposed to help us decide that evolution does not have merit? because it only speaks to the meritlessness of many who try to contest it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, yes. Hovind has contended that some dinosaurs (such as T-Rex) may have been able to cast forth binary compounds (like the Bombardier Beetle does in fact today) that when mixed generate boiling hot temperatures, and perhaps in the case of some dinosaurs even burst into flame. Chambers have been found near T-Rex's nostrils that did not seem to be sinuses. Some scientists have speculated they might have been echo chambers to enhance their roar, or whatever. The many, many medieval accounts of fire-breathing dragons (some of which include detailed drawings) may have a basis in fact.
As for their transport on the Ark--perhaps it was only smaller juveniles that were taken aboard the Ark.
Samprimary, Wickipedia is not a true encyclopedia. You can't take it as being necessarily authoritative. I'll have to take a look at that site, and see if I should raise a question about factuality in the article to Wickipedia.
Parkour, you are mistaken about the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Your unsubstantiated claims do not discredit it at all. The movie gives names, shows faces, quotes and shows written documents, etc.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The many, many medieval accounts of fire-breathing dragons (some of which include detailed drawings) may have a basis in fact.
Medieval drawings also include such gems as monkeys blowing trumpets with their butts, asses with legs, asses with noses, noses with legs, ambulatory pilgrim genitalia, elephants with armies riding them, foxes making time with your wife, and many more absurd things. Medieval art is not exactly proof of actual existence.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is full of blatant lies and ridiculous amounts of editing to twist the words of scientists who were taken advantage of and whose entire premise is basically a singular dedication and triumpth of Godwin's Law. Evolution does not lead to Social Darwinism or Genocide.
The many accounts of Medieval dragons is because at best they found dinosaur fossils which they called dragons or because they had an active imagination at worse, dragons do not exist, not a single species has been scientifically determined to be able to breath fire, and they most certainly did not exist at the same time as humans, you cannot use bad science to back up your claims if you subscribe to YEC as well. They are mutually exclusive.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
hmmm...I don't know if saying that "bad science" and "YEC" are mutually exclusive is in fact correct. Seems just the opposite.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, you said: "Evolution does not lead to Social Darwinism or Genocide."
That is what you wish were true. You obviously wish the theory of evolution did not lead to racism. But in fact, the logic is inescapable that evolution does lead to racism. The original title of the first edition of Darwin's seminal book was: On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. It is completely reasonable for anyone to take from this the conclusion that some human races are favored, and others not; or even that some human races are more evolved, and some human races are more primitive.
If you accept all the premises of evolution, racism is a logically consistent conclusion. Only Biblical Creationism allows you to say that all men of all races are brothers, with logical consistency.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It is completely reasonable for anyone to take from this the conclusion that some human races are favored, and others not...
If indeed they do not understand the theory of natural selection, or what "race" actually means when it comes to human genetics.
Forgive me, Ron, but you know very little about either, and can't speak with any authority on the subject.
quote:Only Biblical Creationism allows you to say that all men of all races are brothers...
Pull the other one, "gentile." Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, in all probability, I know far, far more than you do about these subjects which you say I know little about. That is a very lazy way for you to debate anyone, to charge them with ignorance, and then leave off any substantive argument.
How are you defining "race" in terms of humans? Do you affirm that there is only one race of humans? Well and good if you do, but even a slight familiarity with history would inform you that only a century ago, let alone two or three centuries ago, the vast majority of people regarded African blacks as being a separate race from European whites. Most people in Darwin's time--including scientists--believed there were many distinct races of man. So when Darwin talked about the "preservation of favoured races," the conclusion this led to was that some human "races" (note the quote marks) must necessarily be more advanced, and others more primitive. Even Adolph Hitler less than a century ago believed that the "science" of "evolution" justified committing genocide against the Jews. He said that was his rationale.
Evolutionists have frequently claimed that relatively minor changes in the form of a species, like a change in color of certain kinds of moths, or changes in sizes and skeletel shape of certain animals, constituted a new species. These minor changes were pointed to as being "evolutionary" changes, and the morphing from one kind of finch to another constituted evolution and speciation. Anyone who thinks this way cannot also claim that there are not also different race of man, because of the many outward differences between African blacks and European whites, which are no less profound than those between the various species of finches with different shapes of beaks, or moths with white wings or black wings, or whatever evolutionists are fond of citing as examples of evolution.
Another historical point. The Abolitionist Movement, which called for the freeing of the slaves in the Old South, began as a religious movement among Christians, and always was centered upon the Protestant Churches in America. While the slave-owners were wresting Scripture to try to justify their subjugation of people of African descent, it required religious people who could use the Bible more knowledgeaby and honestly to counter them, and show that God is not in favor of slavery. They won the national debate, and the multitude (at least in the North) was persuaded that the slaves ought to be freed, because they are our brothers and sisters, as fellow sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.
[ December 12, 2009, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, in all probability, I know far, far more than you do about these subjects which you say I know little about.
Ron, I was a biotechnology major for two years, and am married to a biologist. What would be your reason for knowing anything about genetics?
quote:Well and good if you do, but even a slight familiarity with history would inform you that only a century ago, let alone two or three centuries ago, the vast majority of people regarded African blacks as being a separate race from European whites. Most people in Darwin's time--including scientists--believed there were many distinct races of man.
Absolutely. They were wrong. That's actually one of the superior things about scientific epistemology; once a scientific claim is demonstrated to be wrong, it not only can change but is expected to change. (Whereas, for example, many cultures still believe themselves to be the One True Favored People of God, despite ample evidence to the contrary.)
quote:So when Darwin talked about the "preservation of favoured races," the conclusion this led to was that some human "races" (note the quote marks) must necessarily be more advanced, and others more primitive.
This was not, however, some inevitable scientific conclusion. Rather, a veneer of pseudo-science was applied here -- ex post facto -- to justify existing prejudices. Surely, as someone familiar with the abuses of religion, you recognize this tendency? People will grasp at whatever they can find to justify their own biases to themselves; that a poor understanding of natural selection seemed to justify racism was not the fault of the theory itself.
quote:The Abolitionist Movement, which called for the freeing of the slaves in the Old South, began as a religious movement among Christians...
Sure. And Lincoln was a Republican. Neither of those facts are remotely relevant, however, in the modern era.
quote:They won the national debate...
Such as it was. It's a poor debate indeed that relies on Scripture for both sides of the argument.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The claim was that someone with an actual understanding of genetics would not use the argument to advance racist arguments. You need to prove that those people who bought into the argument actually understood genetics. I would argue that very few people in Darwin's time understood genetics. Same with Hitler.
Regarding species, in general, species are defined by their ability to mate with each other. So, if you never see a red and blue bird mating, even if that is the only difference, those birds would still be considered different species. However, humans quite clearly were mating amongst races and producing fertile progeny. So, anyone arguing that the differences between two different species of birds was less then the difference between two races of humans clearly did not understand the definition of species.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's worth noting that the whole idea of speciation is really just an issue of human nomenclature; it's a way to identify a type of life without having to say "the thing with the DNA sequence...." As such, the definition of "species" is itself rather fluid, and has been since the very concept was conceived. Back when I was in high school, "species" were determined by their ability to interbreed; this definition had already started to change by the time I was in college, and continues to evolve (heh) today. The real truth might be that the concept of "species" has actually outlived its usefulness in many ways, especially among the weirder edge cases.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Evolutionists have frequently claimed that relatively minor changes in the form of a species, like a change in color of certain kinds of moths, or changes in sizes and skeletel shape of certain animals, constituted a new species. These minor changes were pointed to as being "evolutionary" changes, and the morphing from one kind of finch to another constituted evolution and speciation. Anyone who thinks this way cannot also claim that there are not also different race of man, because of the many outward differences between African blacks and European whites, which are no less profound than those between the various species of finches with different shapes of beaks, or moths with white wings or black wings, or whatever evolutionists are fond of citing as examples of evolution.
(Bolding mine.)
You are here only applying "species" to animals, and "race" to humans. Are you using these terms interchangeably?
I am no expert, merely an interested layman, but my understanding is that the biological dividing line for "species" has nothing to do with outward differences of appearance, but whether or not two organisms can mate and produce fertile offspring. (The differing species of finch and moth you mention are different not because of beak size or wing color, but because they cannot mate and produce fertile offspring.) Under this definition, one can deny that there are different "races" of human (if you are using "race" and "species" interchangeably).
ETA: Or, you know... what scholarette and Tom said.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Samprimary, Wickipedia is not a true encyclopedia. You can't take it as being necessarily authoritative. I'll have to take a look at that site, and see if I should raise a question about factuality in the article to Wickipedia.
And creationists like Hovind aren't usually really biologists, but you sure like to take them as being necessarily authoritative. Besides, if you want to up the ante and move towards 'necessarily authoritative' claims, I will note that you have cited exactly jack squat, and are yourself lagging in terms of factuality.
But my challenge stands, whether you avoid it or not. Make an argument showing how the complexity of DNA disproves evolution. I know you're wrong, and I will grind it into dust once you present it. If you don't present it, well, then I'll just take from this that you are avoiding presenting actual arguments to back up your claims.
quote:So when Darwin talked about the "preservation of favoured races," the conclusion this led to was that some human "races" (note the quote marks) must necessarily be more advanced, and others more primitive.
This is about as wrong as you can get. Evolutionary Theory makes no claim as to the 'advanced' nature of certain races over other 'primitive' races — evolutionary theory doesn't even make distinctions above which species are more genetically complicated, phenotype wise. And the human races don't demonstrate more complexity vis a vis each other.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Actually, I think the moth example is what's confused Ron, since they can interbreed. He's thinking here of a classic anecdote used to provide a simple (even oversimplified) example of natural selection in high school classrooms: a situation in which moths that used to shelter against white surfaces were so deprived of white surfaces during the Industrial Revolution that a mutant variant of the moth (which was black) became the predominant variant within a generation. Shortly after the pollution began to recede, white moths (which were genetically more likely, as I understand it; it's been a while since I studied thie example) rapidly regained the majority.
What made this example interesting and somewhat nuanced, and what gave it its staying power (beyond its obvious photogenic qualities) was that it would not have happened had an expressed gene for black moths not already existed in the population. (The odds of such a gene appearing at random within the few generations during which it would have been advantageous are miniscule.)
For years, people inclined to oversimplification would point to these moths and say, "See? Proof of natural selection at work!" And, indeed, this was a perfect example of natural selection; a recessive trait that was advantageous in a specific environment became the majority expression fairly quickly. But what it was not was an example of speciation.
For people like Ron, who believe in the mechanisms of "microevolution" but do not think that natural selection is sufficient to cause the development of separate species, that makes this particular example galling. After all, the moths didn't suddenly turn into lizards; there was no evolution to a different sort of creature. And since that's what they're challenging, they don't regard the moth example as much of a "proof" at all.
Ron, then, is arguing that evolutionary scientists think the mainstream moth example is an example of speciation, and thus that the many "races" of humans are themselves different species. In truth, neither situation is an example of speciation.
[ December 12, 2009, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Kenneth Miller crushes Intelligent Design and the idea of Irreducible Complexity.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's worth noting that the whole idea of speciation is really just an issue of human nomenclature; it's a way to identify a type of life without having to say "the thing with the DNA sequence...." As such, the definition of "species" is itself rather fluid, and has been since the very concept was conceived. Back when I was in high school, "species" were determined by their ability to interbreed; this definition had already started to change by the time I was in college, and continues to evolve (heh) today. The real truth might be that the concept of "species" has actually outlived its usefulness in many ways, especially among the weirder edge cases.
My master's thesis involved bacteria and viruses. Defining species in these cases was always fun.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Of course who wants to bet Ron will not check my link and if he does will probably stop watching after 5 minutes and brush it off over some veneer of an excuse.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Ron, the very same geneticists who believe in evolution also are the ones who discovered that the MRCA for all humans was very recent, within the last few thousand years.
Care to find some racism there, Mr. Misguided?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Samprimary, you always try to issue challenges to me, which generally seem rather sophomoric. I have already presented the argument about the complexity of the DNA molecule proving that evolution is impossible. Do you have some method by which random natural processes can write meaningful code involving billions of DNA proteins, no matter how much time is allowed? Especially when many of the characteristics have to be fully coded for before they can work at all (Behe's irreducible complexity)? Every attempt I have heard of by mathematicians to model the probability of the most simple bacteria giving rise to a significantly different simple organism have always led to the conclusion that it is not remotely within the bounds of possibility, even from the supposed "Big Bang" to the supposed "Heat Death" of the universe.
You may try to find ways around the second law of thermodynamics (which implies that the natural tendency of everything in the universe is towards disorder, not towards increasing order), but when you are talking about billions of protein codes in DNA molecules, you are departing the realms of science into philosophy and speculation about the nature of reality. Thus I can only view in anyone any willingness to give credence to evolution as sheer gullibility.
Since you are so fond of challenges, Samprimary, I will give you one. Prove that evolution can happen.
Scholarette, as Tom pointed out, the ability to mate is no longer generally regarded as the primary definitive means of differentiating species, because of what he referred to as "edge cases." I don't know if he was thinking of donkeys and horses as being edge cases, but in fact they can cross breed. The offspring, mules, are usually sterile--although there are a few cases where the mule was not sterile, just to complicate things further. So do we call donkeys a different species from horses?
Tom, I dislike the term "microevolution," though some Creationists have used it (including Kent Hovind). I prefer not to make any concession to evolution whatsoever, because it is such a stupid and impossible theory. Variation indeed works exactly the way you said it does--the gene that becomes expressed throughout a population is one that was already present in the population, and environmental conditions favored the more frequent expression of that gene (or gene complex).
I have taken this principle further, as some here may recall. I presented my testable means by which the Creation view of speciation can be falsified or proven: Study the complete gene map of similar animals, like lions compared to jaguars, or like wolves compared to collies, and see if all the genes in the specialized offshoot (jaguar or collie) were present in the parent animal (lion or wolf). If Creationists are right in saying that all forms of animals were created originally by God during Creation Week, each of them including a library of alternate characteristics that could potentially become expressed if needed to enable the animals to adapt to changing environments, then this is what must be the explanation for all variations within the same basic species. Conversely, if it can be proven that any genetic characteristics that have arisen were truly new, and never before existed in the parent form, then evolution will be proven, or at least strongly implied. And by new genetic characteristics, I do not mean some gene that has had one atom dislodged by a cosmic ray, or some mitotic mishap that could not be corrected. Such changes are almost always harmful, resulting in impairment of function. Thus I am not impressed by evolutionists' attempts to use mutation as the driving force in evolution. I have not seen any that really seem to go counter to the second law of thermodynamics.
Steven, I believe the human race is no more than six to ten thousand years old.
Studies of mitochondrial DNA and changes or variations in them are interesting, and can help to confirm the matriarchal line. But mitochondria do not have all the elaborate mechanisms for correcting genetic defects that chromosomes in cell nuclei do, so any variation that does not seriously impair function may persist--and the function of mitochondria is supplemental to the cell metabolism, so some variation need not cause prohibitive impairment to the cell. It might be interesting to see if it could be determined whether the latter generations of mitochondrial variations are more or less effective in function that the earliest generations, when the least variations are observed. Again, this looks to me like order proceeding toward disorder. I would expect the earlier generations to be better in terms of biological effectiveness and metabolic efficiency, because they are closer to the original way God made them. Here is something also which is testable.
Blayne, how much of Kent Hovind have you listened to? Or better (since he is not a scientist), how much have you read from the Creationist scientists at Creation Research Society in their peer-reviewed quarterly?--For which I keep giving you the link: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I have already presented the argument about the complexity of the DNA molecule proving that evolution is impossible.
Not quite. For one thing, scientists are already discovering that RNA plays a much more important role than they earlier thought, making the role of DNA somewhat less pivotal. (Of course, RNA is arguably even more complicated, but whatchu gonna do?)
For another -- and more importantly -- the word is not "impossible." The word is "improbable." You are suggesting that evolution is more improbable than the existence of a Creator, based on the fact that DNA is complex enough to make evolution very improbable. To which I say: your Creator is considerably more complex than DNA, and thus considerably more improbable.
quote:You may try to find ways around the second law of thermodynamics (which implies that the natural tendency of everything in the universe is towards disorder, not towards increasing order)...
Let me also point out that here you are betraying a misunderstanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Not only does it only apply to closed thermodynamic systems (and thus not, just as an example, to DNA molecules), but you're using "disorder" as if it were perfectly synonymous with "entropy." Entropy is, indeed, disordered energy. But that's as far as you can go with that. Consider, for example, the perfectly geometric patterns occasionally left by tides and/or erosion; these are certainly ordered, insofar as we look at them and perceive order in them, but they do not disprove the Second Law. That's because they actually have nothing to do with the Second Law.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I presented my testable means by which the Creation view of speciation can be falsified or proven: Study the complete gene map of similar animals, like lions compared to jaguars, or like wolves compared to collies, and see if all the genes in the specialized offshoot (jaguar or collie) were present in the parent animal (lion or wolf).
Yes. And people have repeatedly pointed out to you why this is absurd.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I prefer not to make any concession to evolution whatsoever, because it is such a stupid and impossible theory.
This is called the argument from incredulity. Unless you are actually willing to look at evolution as a viable theory (i.e. not an impossible one), there is really not point in anyone in this thread explaining to you over and over why and how evolution works.
Also, my irony metre has exploded again.
quote:...when the least variations are observed.
What do you mean, "the least"? Are you implying that at one point everyone had less diverse mitochondrial DNA? If so, you are mistaken.
I can see where you might be confused. All this talk of a Mitochondrial Eve suggests that at one point everyone had this single expression of Mitochondrial DNA (or indeed, that there was only one person). This is of course not the case. There was just as much diversity relative to the size of the human population back when Mitochondrial Eve lived. Nor was she the only woman around at the time.
Say you, Ron, have a mutation in your mitochondrial DNA that you received from your mother. It's a new mutation! Unless you have sisters, that mutation will be lost forever when you die.
On the other hand, if you have at least two sisters, who therefore go on to have daughters of their own and so on down the line of the entire human race, your mother could, in the distant future, be the Mitochondrial Eve-- although it would be unlikely that anyone would have the same DNA by the time that occurred. We would all have mutated varieties of her DNA, each of which had mutated from your mothers at various times along the thousands of years it took for your sister's descendants to have daughters with everyone.
Your mother, however, was not created as the first of a long line. When your mother gave birth to your hypothetical sisters, she was not the only woman in the world.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I presented my testable means by which the Creation view of speciation can be falsified or proven: Study the complete gene map of similar animals, like lions compared to jaguars, or like wolves compared to collies, and see if all the genes in the specialized offshoot (jaguar or collie) were present in the parent animal (lion or wolf).
Yes. And people have repeatedly pointed out to you why this is absurd.
I don't think it is, actually. I do not believe that Ron would actually accept any such proof, because no matter how many genes are shown to be changed he will cling to his "only one atom" excuse, but as an experimental test it is not inherently absurd.
Do we have full maps of any of the species Ron is talking about? Can we do a wolf-chihuahua comparison, for example? If these things are publicly accessible - I seem to recall some such things have been published? - we could even do it right here on Hatrack.
Edit: In particular, Ron, are mouse and rat of the same kind? In other words, if I find a rat gene that mice do not have, is that sufficient under your test above?
[ December 13, 2009, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Blayne, how much of Kent Hovind have you listened to? Or better (since he is not a scientist), how much have you read from the Creationist scientists at Creation Research Society in their peer-reviewed quarterly?--For which I keep giving you the link: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html
You have pretty much summarized every single creationist argument and every single one of them is blatantly false and nearly every single point you've raised has been answered in Miller's lecture on the Collapse of Intelligent Design as a Scientific Theory.
Did you know the speed of light is a constant Ron? Did you also know that it takes billions of years for light to reach us from distant galaxies? Hey, did you know that also disproves creationism?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Blayne, how much of Kent Hovind have you listened to? Or better (since he is not a scientist), how much have you read from the Creationist scientists at Creation Research Society in their peer-reviewed quarterly?--For which I keep giving you the link: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html
You have pretty much summarized every single creationist argument and every single one of them is blatantly false and nearly every single point you've raised has been answered in Miller's lecture on the Collapse of Intelligent Design as a Scientific Theory.
Did you know the speed of light is a constant Ron? Did you also know that it takes billions of years for light to reach us from distant galaxies? Hey, did you know that also disproves creationism?
And now Ron will tell you he thinks that the speed of light has changed. Entertaining, is he not? Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I have already presented the argument about the complexity of the DNA molecule proving that evolution is impossible.
You didn't. You just made a statement pertaining to such. You didn't actually provide any means or evidence, or any sort of coherent argument, why this is actually true.
quote:Do you have some method by which random natural processes can write meaningful code involving billions of DNA proteins, no matter how much time is allowed? Especially when many of the characteristics have to be fully coded for before they can work at all (Behe's irreducible complexity)?
I'm afraid that those articles appear to be written at an introductory-university level.
Compare this truly peer reviewed article about a theory concerning the evolution of mammalian hair with this article from the CRS Quarterly. Several things set the two articles apart:
1. Language. Compare the use of scientific, specific, detailed language in the first with the unscientific, speculative, generalized language used in the second.
2. Unsubstantiated claims. Although some of the claims made in this paper are referenced, just as many are not. From the second article, these claims are unreferenced:
quote:The many functions of hair include the retention of heat, sexual dimorphism, attraction of mates, protection of skin, reflection (or absorption) of sunlight and, in the case of pets, the elicitation of a protective response from humans.
The last of these claims, especially, I would expect to be referenced, as it is not common knowledge. In contrast, the background information section of the PNAS article sources almost every sentence, sometimes with two references.
3. Aged references. This CRS Quarterly article was written in the 21st century, and yet references quoted are twenty years old. In science, this is a big deal.
quote:Hair is widely believed by Darwinists to have evolved from scales, yet "no structures are known which can be considered in any sense transitional between hair and any other vertebrate dermal structure" (Denton, 1986, p. 106).
Please note that it is not clear if the first part of this sentence is part of the reference at the end or if it is a seperate, unreferenced claim.
4. Shady references. Look at this, even older, quote:
quote:Darwinists also admit they have no idea why humans did not lose all their body hair, including that on the head, pubic, and auxiliary hair (Cooper, 1971).
33 years before this article was written, Wendy Cooper, author of the book "Hair: Sex, Society and Symbolism", made this claim. Cooper, the internet tells me, was not a scientist. She is/was a historian. I found this on the internet here:
quote:And, notes historian Wendy Cooper in Hair: Sex, Society, Symbolism, “Once the human race discovered that hair was good-tempered, pliable, and regenerative, and could be cut, shaved, shaped, dyed, braided, crimped, curled, waved, puffed, padded, and frizzled, it proceeded to use hair in a vast variety of permutations of length, style, and color, in the long continuous search for novelty, beauty, and status sometimes called fashion.”
A highly authoritative text on Evolution, this book 'Hair.'
In contrast, the earliest reference in the scientific article that I linked to was from 1985. Was it a popular history text? No:
quote:20. Tyner AL, Eichman MJ, Fuchs E. The sequence of a type II keratin gene expressed in human skin: Conservation of structure among all intermediate filament genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1985;82:4683–4687. [PubMed]
The vast majority of the references for this PNAS article are from the 21st century. All are from articles as technical, detailed and focused as the one that is referencing them.
5. Lack of actual research. Most scientific articles explain the results of independent scientific research that builds on the research of previous scientists. The PNAS article is no exception: the investigation is described, the results published and discussed. No such research has been undertaken by the author of the CRS Quarterly article. At best, the CRS Quarterly is at the level of a first-year University writer, who has had poor high-school preparation for writing a research paper. And if I were a professor, I'm not sure I would give it passing grade.
Which leads me to the last of my points:
6. Unfocused conclusions. Even if this article is not intended to be religious, but merely a summary of ideas, it does a poor job. It draws no detailed conclusions except that "we don't know anything," which is unsurprising considering its highly generalized sources and the fact that no actual research has been undertaken.
The PNAS article may not actually make devastatingly conclusive assertions about the evolution of hair in general, but that's not what science is about most of the time. Scientists narrow their questions to a slender piece of knowledge that they feel they can test-- and then they follow that line of investigation. The weight of research builds up and up and up. Nothing about this PNAS article blew away evolution or solved it forever, it merely added another bit of information to what is by now a colossal pile of knowledge.
Ultimately, the idea that this CRS Quarterly article is supposed to be held at the same level as the PNAS article is laughable. Peer-reviewed is a joke. As I have already said, most first year University students would find all these problem is this article (and more*), and would likely be insulted.
I did not pick this article because it was the worst example from CRS Quarterly. I was curious, and it was the first and only article I clicked on from the the journal's list of featured articles.
*For example, the conclusion introduces new ideas, without discussion. That is a mistake that should have been corrected by a high school teacher.
The man who wrote this article is one of Answers in Genesis's scientists, Jerry Bergman.Here are his credentials; scroll down for a list.
He works at Northwest State College, it says. This is a Community College, a word that is omitted from Answers in Genesis's biography, despite being part of the name of the College.
His PhD from Columbia Pacific University is a little suspect. That institution is a now defunct by court order, non-accredited "Distance Learning" university. Please read.
Bergman also has an M.P.H., which stands for Master of Public Health. This is the degree he got from the Medical College of Ohio-- it is not a medical degree in the sense he necessarily had to study much biology or medicine to gain it.
quote:B.S., Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1970. Major area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology.
Hmm, that's a pretty broad area of study there. Sociology, of course, being the biggest.
Bergman has a PhD in Measurement and Evaluation from Wayne State. Measurement and Evaluation, as far as I can tell, is a degree in Education, although Answers in Genesis is coy about this and the degree itself is a little difficult to track down. How he got a minor while doing his PhD, I am not sure. Can you do that?
Needless to say, Bergman does not have a PhD in any kind of science. His highest level of science education is a B.S., which was focused on sociology, which has a shaky base in scientific methodology, and very little to do with biology. All in all, this man is not and should not be considered to be a scientist or a voice with anything even remotely authoritative to say about evolution or biology in general.
[ December 13, 2009, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How he got a minor while doing his PhD, I am not sure. Can you do that?
You can, actually, but I don't know why you would.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Generally speaking, these articles are not scientific articles in any sense of the word. They are poorly written editorials written by a scattered and various group of people who have at best dabbled in science.
It is frankly insulting to scholars of all fields that most of these men (they are overwhelmingly or entirely men) consider themselves scholars. Anyone with a Bachelor's Degree should be able to recognize the childishness of the writing and arguments presented by the majority of writers on this website.
There are, I should add, a few that buck this trend, at least superficially. There is one by Daniel Criswell, for example, that claims that Mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthals was decayed and/or contaminated. It targets the techniques used by scientists to amplify tiny DNA samples drawn from the teeth (for example) of Neanderthal and ancient human specimens.
However, it seems to contain very little actual research, and is poorly referenced. It mostly looks at the research of others. The conclusions drawn about contamination basically comes down to using "adequate experimental protocols." As if these DNA tests were being carried out in the field by some dude with a test-tube. Possibly in the rain.
You can get lost in the gobbledegook of this article, but basically what it says is, "we need to be careful in doing this research to make sure we're actually getting the results we think we're getting."
Yes. Arguments happen. That's why there's peer-review. That's why more than one person tends to do some research to back up (or, yes, refute) an important discovery.
Stand back! I'm going to try science!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Tom: How does it work, usually? Do you write a mini-thesis?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
In the US, PhD minors are typically by coursework. They're mostly a way to entice PhD students to take more courses in other departments (by the other departments, who want the tuition $), though they're also a way of signaling that a PhD holder has a secondary specialty.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nah. You show up for some extra coursework. It's called an "add-on minor." We've had a few people take 'em, but I have no idea why anyone would. Maybe it's a Pokemon-like impulse to collect 'em all.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, Bergman certainly seems to have had that impulse. Not sure how he pulled it off, though. Perhaps he had a very good editor.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:And now Ron will tell you he thinks that the speed of light has changed. Entertaining, is he not?
Actually, if I recall correctly, Ron believes that the photons from distant galaxies were created en route at the same time as the earth and those galaxies were also created.
It's sort of the same idea as the old "you were created 5 minutes ago with a lifetime of memories so that it appears to you that you've existed much longer" thing, except that it's the whole universe and 10,000 years.
[ December 14, 2009, 04:39 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Nah. You show up for some extra coursework. It's called an "add-on minor." We've had a few people take 'em, but I have no idea why anyone would. Maybe it's a Pokemon-like impulse to collect 'em all.
Aren't PhD's supposed to be interested in learning purely for learning's sake? Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:And now Ron will tell you he thinks that the speed of light has changed. Entertaining, is he not?
Actually, if I recall correctly, Ron believes that the photons from distant galaxies were created en route at the same time as the earth and those galaxies were also created.
It's sort of the same idea as the old "you were created 5 minutes ago with a lifetime of memories so that it appears to you that you've existed much longer" thing, except that it's the whole universe and 10,000 years.
Which is why his god is evil and not worth worshiping for it is a lying god whose only purpose is to deceive.
Posted by paigereader (Member # 2274) on :
Sorry but I am still giggling about the term, "creation week." I am picturing God on faternity and sorority row making banners and recruting pledges. Now back to the serious posters!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Which is why his god is evil and not worth worshiping for it is a lying god whose only purpose is to deceive.
I can't tell if you're serious or not, Blayne.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, it is not evil for God to create the kind of universe He wants to have--one filled with light, not darkness, all throughout, without having to wait billions of years for light from distant stars to reach every point. How He did this is open to speculation. There are some indications that supposed physical "constants" can change in certain circumstances even today, and there is no reason God could not have set up different physical constants after the initial creation of the universe. After all, Who ordains these physical constants and enforces them so that they remain constant? It says in Psalms 33:6, 9:
quote:By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.... For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
One of the most glaring deficiencies of the mechanistic materialist (atheist) viewpoint, is that it has no rational explanation for why physical constants are constants--why they don't change abruptly from moment to moment. We observe that the physical universe seems to operate according to laws. But how did those laws come into being? And why do they remain the same now?
We who believe in the Biblical account of God's Creation assume that God created the trees in the Garden of Eden as mature trees to begin with. Whether or not they had annual rings, then, is open to question. He also apparently created the first man as an adult, not as a newborn infant that wouldn't be able to survive on its own.
For anyone to protest that it is evil for God to make His Creation mature from the beginning, the way He sees is the best way, is absurdly arrogant, and judges the protester, not God. You seem to want God to create the universe in such a way that its creation can be divined (pardon the pun) using only the material universe itself as a criterion for determining how it came into being. This is as unscientific in the true sense--and as silly--as closed-minded researchers resolutely insisting that they are going to investigate the Golden Gate Bridge, and determine how it came into being on its own, without any recourse to architect or builder.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Which is why any discussion with you is pointless because every argument to you boils down to "A Wizard Did It" and no amount of evidence or science will convince you otherwise, why do you even bother trying worthless "Judo Arguments" especially the ones Isaac Asimov disproved decades ago astounds me. Why DO YOU try to use science to convince us when your own words prove that you don't believe in science at all?
Why are you trying to use science when even if science managed to show you 100% that evolution is valid when you can just say "the evidence is planted there by God to test us" up to and including believing that the speed of light is not a constant and presuming that the universe was created 10,000 years ago as is with light and photons already in route?
Its absurd.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:it has no rational explanation for why physical constants are constants
Does everything need a "why?" And does it really count as an "answer" to say "God did it, but we don't know why He did it?"
I mean, what's the real difference between "light moves X miles per second for no real reason" and "light moves X miles per second because God wanted it that way for some reason?" I fail to see why the second should satisfy.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
La la la.
quote:You seem to want God to create the universe in such a way that its creation can be divined (pardon the pun) using only the material universe itself as a criterion for determining how it came into being.
Hee. No, we want to use only the material universe itself as a criterion for determining how it came into being. That is scientific in the true sense.
quote:...is that it has no explanation for why physical constants are constants yet.
Fixed that for you.
Or you could go with this one:
quote:...the trouble with theism is it has no rational explanation for why the physical constants are constants.
I'm afraid "God done it" isn't a rational explanation. Your Psalms quote doesn't say, "And God set the universal constants at such and such a value for this reason." That would be quite astonishing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Nah. You show up for some extra coursework. It's called an "add-on minor." We've had a few people take 'em, but I have no idea why anyone would. Maybe it's a Pokemon-like impulse to collect 'em all.
What, you never heard of taking a course just because you're interested in the subject matter? And subjects do intersect; I've often wished I knew more computer science, and could easily see a physics PhD taking a minor in that, or in math for the more theory-inclined. In fact, math would probably be a good minor for practically any science subject.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Which is why his god is evil and not worth worshiping for it is a lying god whose only purpose is to deceive.
Is an author lying to his characters if his characters believe they have a backstory that wasn't actually ever written?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hey, Ron, how about them mice and rats?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Which is why his god is evil and not worth worshiping for it is a lying god whose only purpose is to deceive.
Is an author lying to his characters if his characters believe they have a backstory that wasn't actually ever written?
Absolutely! Indeed, an author is lying to his characters no matter what the status of the backstory; they believe that their world exists and is as fully-realised as ours, which is plainly untrue. I mean, seriously, you're going to hold up fiction as an example of truthfulness? The mind reels.
But even aside from that, your analogy breaks down; the correct question is this: When a character believes he has backstory X, and the in-story evidence shows that in fact Y happened, now is the author lying? At any rate it seems clear that someone, either within or without the story universe, is lying or mistaken. Consider Charlie, who believes that Alice and Bob are his parents, on the very reasonable grounds that they have told him so. In fact, David and Elizabeth are his actual parents, and Alice and Bob are lying through their teeth. But Alice and Bob are fictional characters; I just now made them up. Is it not more reasonable to say, then, that I am the liar, through the medium of Alice and Bob? Worse, when Charlie eventually discovers the in-story truth, he will have reason to be annoyed at Alice and Bob; not at the true author (hah) of his misfortune, to wit, me. (Unless I break the fourth wall, in which case Charlie will have all sorts of other issues; how would you like to be told that you're a figment of someone's imagination?)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Well, if you are right that the author is lying, here's the follow up... Are authors being evil when they lie to their characters in this way? Would authors be evil if their characters actually lived after being created and were lied to in this way? And is, to use Blayne's words, the author's only purpose to deceive?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Would authors be evil if their characters actually lived after being created and were lied to in this way?
It depends. Is there a horrible negative consequence of believing in the evidence of one's own senses?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
But this presupposes that the author exists and that the novel didn't just write itself.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Well, if you are right that the author is lying, here's the follow up... Are authors being evil when they lie to their characters in this way?
No, because - I realise this will be a hard concet for you - fictional characters are not real. In fiction I can describe the most horrible tortures, quite unconstrained by mere physical reality; this is not evil, because it is not actually happening.
quote: Would authors be evil if their characters actually lived after being created and were lied to in this way?
Yes. To whatever extent lying is evil, lying to real thinking creatures is evil. I mean, duh!
quote:And is, to use Blayne's words, the author's only purpose to deceive? [/QB]
No, but what of it? Lying is lying.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I propose a new way of looking at this issue.
I call it BIG God vs Little God.
Ron is a firm believer in God, but his God is, well, kind of limited.
He's kind of small, because while the God he believes in is Universally Large and For ALL TIME, the size of his universe is--not that large, and the time that God has spent on the universe, for all its timeliness, is not very much.
Oh, 10,000 years is a long time for me. If I were to face the God that Ron believes in, then WOW, I am an insignificant mote compared to the supreme power and might of God.
Yet, the God I believe in is so much more. He has existed for Billions of years, not 10,000. More accurately, since God is beyond time, both before time and after, he's allowed the Universe he created to exist far longer than 10,000 years. Longer than 10,000 times 10,000 y years.
The Big God's might and his power expand over distances that my simple mind can not begin to really comprehend. He is not God of one small planet, and not the God of one small tribe on one small planet.
He is the God of HOSTS of Planets, truly souls beyond counting.
Face it, which is more impressive of the power of God--a God who created the light of a star that shown over Bethlehem, or the God who created a star thousands or millions of years ago, so that it would shine brightly upon the town of Bethlehem on a day that God had known would be important.
There are those who have faith in the Little God. Those who believe that God's wisdom and power could ever be summed up in one book readable by mere man. They believe that they have awe and faith and fear of the lord.
But they are looking too small.
I stare upon the stars at night, imagining the distances, the magnitude, the true canvas that God used, that we call the Universe, and I find my Awe, my Fear, my Faith.
Sorry KoM, I can't deny God's existence, but I cannot find him in a small book that the Gideon's put in every cheap hotel room. I am a believer in what I can the Big God.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, yes, your god is bigger than Ron's god; I congratulate you on writing such an accurate summation of religion. What is your evidence for this assertion?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There is none only his faith which makes his faith more powerful then the summation that everything the universe tells us is a lie.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Darth Mauve, I have been trying to explain that here for years.
Here is something to consider. Oftentimes, people use faith as an excuse to get them off the hook for believing things that suck. They pretend/think that they have no choice when it comes to what they choose to believe about God.
"I have no choice. I must kill the infidel." (whoever that happens to be.)
I disagree with this. We are responsible for what we believe and the fact that people do choose to believe something different means that people can choose to believe something different. It is often not an easy choice or even one that people recognize, but it is a choice and people are responsible for their choices.
If I believe that God wants me to kill infidels, I am responsible for that belief.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
My problem with Big God is that even though the assertion that he or it exists is less ludicrous than the Young Earth God, the evidence for such a being is still 0.
And also, all the books are wrong. And if the Genesis bit of the book is wrong, who's to say that the Bethlehem bit is right? If there was no flood and no ark, how do we know that there was a birth in a stable and a man who walked on water?
Given the evidence for these things, and the plausibility of these things is approximately equal.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I must say this is fascinating. Theists are literally saying "my god is bigger than your god". In almost exactly those words! What is this, kindergarten? And they're the 'modern', 'progressive' theists at that, who don't believe in burning the heretic nor that heretics will burn! It seems it doesn't take much of a scratch in the surface of such to bring the old ways to the fore.
Edit: Let's have some quotes for future truth, just in case. Personally I would be rather embarrassed by this sort of posting, unless of course my dad genuinely was a boxer and could beat up your dad.
quote:I call it BIG God vs Little God.
Ron is a firm believer in God, but his God is, well, kind of limited.
He's kind of small (...)
Yet, the God I believe in is so much more. (...)
He is not God of one small planet, and not the God of one small tribe on one small planet.
He is the God of HOSTS of Planets, truly souls beyond counting.
Woo-hoo! And he has the same amount of evidence as any other god, to wit, zero!
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Oftentimes, people use faith as an excuse to get them off the hook for believing things that suck.
In modern society, the opposite happens just as often. A 4000 year old holy book demands a belief which modern society deems sucky, and believers, rather than be tasteless and vulgar enough to trust the word of God, decide that the offending bits just don't have to be taken seriously. Which works out well for those of us who would have been at the receiving end of the sucky behavior, but leads to exactly the thinking you are advocating "Believe whatever you like, and if something is unpleasant, you don't have to believe it".
quote:They pretend/think that they have no choice when it comes to what they choose to believe about God.
How much choice do you have about what to beleive about gravity? To many religious people, God and the Bible are just as concrete as gravity. Gravity doesn't stop because its consequences are unpleasant. God's word doesn't change just because it demands difficult things.
quote:We are responsible for what we believe and the fact that people do choose to believe something different means that people can choose to believe something different.
Well, sure I can choose to believe that if I throw you off a building, you won't get hurt. Don't you think that encouraging me to choose to believe this is going to result in someone getting hurt?
Maybe, rather than believing whatever the hell I choose (which practically, is going to amount to me believing things I like and want to be true), I hold myself to believing things only to the extent that they are evidenced regardless of whether or not I like the consequences of those thing?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Gravity doesn't stop because its consequences are unpleasant. God's word doesn't change just because it demands difficult things.
Gravity doesn't have a purpose. It knows not when it is killing people.
God knows, can stop it, and continues anyway and/or deliberately takes action that results in death and/or deliberately kills.
They can hardly be compared.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
God has a kill score of several million people and an inferred holocaust of dozens of millions more.
Satan only directly killed 3 people or so.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, in accusing my Creationist view of reality as being "unscientific," you are missing the basic point that I am disputing your basic definition of what is true science. I maintain that the slavish submission of some people to the atheistic view of reality which demands a mechanistic, materialistic explanation for everything or it isn't science, is a huge fraud and is intellectually bankrupt, because the complex reality of the universe can only be explained by recognizing that there must be an Intelligent Designer. Once you are intellectually honest enough, and fair-minded enough, to allow that component into your thinking, then anything that does not take into account the actions of Creator is not truly scientific. It is a form of denial on the order of fanatical mental blindness, and is completely irrational, no matter how much it may pretend to be "rigorous" in its examination of data.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'm not really an atheist, Ron. I find skeptics to be nearly as silly as believers.
I still think the preponderance of the evidence is with the "Earth is about 4 billion years old" crowd, though.
For THAT matter, you can probably find DOZENS of believers on Hatrack who think the same as me about Creationism.
For that matter, I'd bet MOST believers on Hatrack agree with me, not you.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:Gravity doesn't stop because its consequences are unpleasant. God's word doesn't change just because it demands difficult things.
Gravity doesn't have a purpose. It knows not when it is killing people.
The question is whether you believe in their existence, not their moral status. There's no 'choice' on whether or not to believe in gravity; when there is the appearance of choice, that merely indicates an absence of evidence.
Ron, are mouse and rat the same kind?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, you really should quit being so ridiculously obnoxious. You are trying to invest God with the attributes of Satan, and that is foolish, not clever. Satan only killed three people, you say? Beg to differ. Death itself came into the universe because of Satan. Everyone who has ever died, is on his head. It is God who is Creator, it is God who is the Source of Life, it is God who will resurrect everyone in the appropriate resurrection.
quote:"Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation."--John 5:28, 29; NKJV
Let me let you in on a secret, Blayne--known to those who understand the Bible with sound scholarship. No one has yet died permanently. When any living being dies, the spirit with the essential identity returns to God, the source of Life. There is no consciousness in death (see Psa. 146:4; Psa. 115:7; John 11:11; 1 Cor. 15:6, 20, 51), but no one has ceased to exist as long as God remembers them. At the time He chooses, God can re-create the physical body, and reunite with it the original spirit, so the actual person that lived before--not just a copy--lives again.
The Bible also teaches that ultimately when the sin problem is fully dealt with, and every human who has ever lived has been confronted with the truth of his own choices in life, those who have hardened themselves in total rejection of God will be finally separated from God. Since He is the Source of Life, all who have fully willed to be separated from Him cease to exist. Utter and eternal annihilation is the ultimate end of those who chose to be separated from their Creator. This includes Satan himself, and all his fellow fallen angels (devils). This final and eternal death of the rejectors of God is called "the Second Death." (cf. Rev. 20:14)
As a point of theological interest, this is the death that Jesus died on the Cross--the second death, separated from God the Father. No other human has ever yet died this death. He did not die just the ordinary "first death" humans normally die. It was only because Jesus is Himself fully God, and has self-existent life, that He could continue to exist separated from His Father, and raise Himself back up to conscious life when called forth by the angel sent from His Father. Jesus said: "Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father." (John 10:17, 18; NKJV)
Jesus ran a real risk when He laid down His life for us. If His Sacrifice had not been of sufficient merit, if the value of His life were compromised in any way, so that the Father could not accept it, Jesus risked remaining unconscious in "soul-sleep" forever. On Calvary, He could not be sure He would be accepted, and called to life, so that He could raise Himself back up. He went ahead with His Sacrifice because of His love for His creatures, and by faith in the righteousness of God to which He was submitted.
quote:But the Lord was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.--Isaiah 53:10, 11; NASB
[ December 15, 2009, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
King of Men, I do not know if a mouse and a rat are the same kind. I do not know for sure if a wolf and a collie are the same kind. I do not know if a lion and a jaguar are the same kind. I think it is likely that they are. But the final determination would require a complete mapping of their respective genes. Even the old test of whether or not they can reproduce together is not necessarily the final determinant, since as has been noted there are "edge" cases.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How are you defining "kind," though, even through genetic mapping? Does one need to be a direct ancestor of the other? And why would you accept a geneticist's claim that a given species is an ancestor, since you don't actually believe in evolution in the first place?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
if I were a troll I'ld be orgasming right now from just how so completely I managed to tick you off to finally deserve being ATTACKED BY THE HOLY BIBLE QUOTES BY THOU! FEAR THE QUOTES! RAAAAAR!
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: if I were a troll I'ld be orgasming right now from just how so completely I managed to tick you off to finally deserve being ATTACKED BY THE HOLY BIBLE QUOTES BY THOU! FEAR THE QUOTES! RAAAAAR!
How is what you're doing different from what you'd be doing if you were a troll?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Self depreciation? Lampshade hanging? I'm doing the equivalent of the Bugs Bunny hugging.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
No, I'm sorry, I don't see it. Posting in the vein of "if I was a troll this is what I'd do next" is the same thing as being the troll and doing it next.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Hes already admitted in everything but name to agreeing that he'ld never be convinced by any rational scientific argument because it conflicts with a book written 2000 years ago.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think Ron is wrong, and badly so. I just would rather see you hold back from that sort of thing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Lampshade hanging?
Pointing out what you're doing doesn't make it ok.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Whats really left but ridicule?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I'll move it to another thread.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Whats really left but ridicule?
It actually IS possible to say nothing. Or to state your objections, calmly and without being deliberately offensive.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
This forum is messed up.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
CAN someone explain to me why the argument of irreducible complexity is absolutely false and illogical? I'm not going to pretend to be particularly scientifically knowledgeable in this area, so feel free to break your explanation down and keep it simple. All the posturing aside, I really would like to understand this better. Thank you in advance!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: CAN someone explain to me why the argument of irreducible complexity is absolutely false and illogical? I'm not going to pretend to be particularly scientifically knowledgeable in this area, so feel free to break your explanation down and keep it simple. All the posturing aside, I really would like to understand this better. Thank you in advance!
Its in a link I showed in the previous page about halfway through the lecture by reknown professor of biochemistry and other subjects Kenneth Miller, basically the idea is that certain biological functions are so irreducibly complex that if you remove any single part they are by definition non function and such a system could not have evolved on its own.
This is immediately disproven with the primary creationist/ID poster child of the ID movement is the bacterial flegellem which by example of removing up to 40 of its 50 parts becomes the type-3 secretory system which exsists in the worlds fiercest dieseases and he provides a quick chart of how it evolved and gained purpose.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sinflower, if the 2-hour lecture from Miller is too long (although it really is a great lecture, and you should listen to it if you can), here's just 6 minutes on irreducible complexity from it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srGYxZz9588 Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: CAN someone explain to me why the argument of irreducible complexity is absolutely false and illogical? I'm not going to pretend to be particularly scientifically knowledgeable in this area, so feel free to break your explanation down and keep it simple. All the posturing aside, I really would like to understand this better. Thank you in advance!
Here. Watch this. NOVA explains Irreducible Complexity very well as part of detailing how it played out in the Dover event.
Honestly, this documentary is about 90% of modern evolution controversy wrapped up into a single event.
quote:Hes already admitted in everything but name to agreeing that he'ld never be convinced by any rational scientific argument because it conflicts with a book written 2000 years ago.
This may actually be true. But if Ron has a sufficient reason to believe the 2000-year-old book is definitely true, then it would be rational to reject any scientific arguments that contradict it directly. My suspicion is that Ron believes he has such a sufficient reason, and thus is going to deduce things accordingly.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
There was an awesome paper that went through and traced mutation by mutation how a sodium channel became a potassium channel (I think that was it, but it has been a few years since I read the paper). It traced back to common ancestors and showed why it worked. Where they didn't have a common ancestor, they were able to say, this sequence must have existed at some point. And then they showed why the individual mutation had a benefit, or at worst was neutral (neutral mutations randomly happen and if there is no negative effect, they will stick around).
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
As I have stated--I thought pretty clearly--the complexity of the universe argues overwhelmingly for the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Therefore--and this is a LOGICAL conclusion--any science that deliberately refuses to consider the existence of a Creator, cannot be real science, for there is no rational reason to exclude God.
And sorry, to those who object they are not atheists but still accept the mechanistic materialist mantra that science can only consist of considering the physical data without recourse to a Creator, you are inconsistent in allowing yourselves to be brainwashed by a way of thinking about what is science that is utterly and entirely atheistic by very definition.
And Blayne, I was not "ticked," as you suggested. I chose to give you an answer that seemed quite clear and relevant to me, and I added to it relevant statements from God's Word. Perhaps I was casting "pearls before swine," something Jesus warned us not to do; but I am enthusiastic about these truths, and want as many people as possible to know about them. And anyway, it is your choice whether you want to be a swine or not.
Samprimary, just because some creative, imaginative, clever scientist comes up with some painfully contrived explanation for a highly unlikely means by which one or two specially selected examples of irreducible complexity (in very simple organisms) might have happened step-by-step, let's not lose sight of the many other examples of organs that absolutely could not have evolved step-by-step, such as the eye. That is one of the prime examples that Behe referred to. Until everything is there, the eye cannot work at all, thus has no value to the organism, and in fact is a detriment to the survival of the organism. None of the intermediate steps would have survived.
[ December 15, 2009, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As I have stated--I thought pretty clearly--the complexity of the universe argues overwhelmingly for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
Except, of course, for the obvious and confounding fact that any Intelligent Designer must by its very nature be more complex than the universe.
quote:Samprimary, just because some creative, imaginative, clever scientist comes up with some painfully contrived explanation for a highly unlikely means by which one or two specially selected examples of irreducible complexity (in very simple organisms) might have happened step-by-step...
It must be fascinating to be able to rationalize away any evidence that contradicts your worldview. What does that feel like?
quote: let's not lose sight of the many other examples of organs that absolutely could not have evolved step-by-step, such as the eye. That is one of the prime examples that Behe referred to.
Except that Behe was stunningly wrong. The evolution of the eye is actually one of the more clear-cut examples of evolution out there. The wing is more complex; the eye is pretty darn simple to explain. As an example, this claim -- "Until everything is there, the eye cannot work at all" -- is completely and totally false. Have you ever actually studied flatworms?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I do not know for sure if a wolf and a collie are the same kind. I do not know if a lion and a jaguar are the same kind. I think it is likely that they are. But the final determination would require a complete mapping of their respective genes.
You've suggested before that finding the absence of "dog genes" in the wolf genome would be evidence that dogs evolved novel genes and that if these genes were found in wolves then it would prove that evolution had not occurred.
You seem to now be saying that if the genes are there then it's proof that they are the same kind and that if they are absent then they must be different kinds. Are you now saying that you don't see evidence for evolution in either outcome?
quote:organs that absolutely could not have evolved step-by-step, such as the eye
The fact that every likely "intermediate form" of a modern human eye can be found in one or more extant species argues against this conclusion.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: King of Men, I do not know if a mouse and a rat are the same kind. I do not know for sure if a wolf and a collie are the same kind. I do not know if a lion and a jaguar are the same kind. I think it is likely that they are. But the final determination would require a complete mapping of their respective genes.
Great! We have very good genomes for mice and rats. And humans and chimps.
See, you saying "I think mice and rats are the same kind" is not making an argument. That's just making an unsubstantiated claim, not at all the same thing.
Making an argument would consist of linking to hard data that supports your claims.
So go on and 'make your arguement' about rats and mice, if you are capable. All the info you need is right there.
Or, if Creationism is an honest legitiamte scientific enterprise, someone as knowledgeable as yourself should be able to point to a real live working Creationist biologist who has been working on this for the last 8 or so years, and you can cite his data, which in turn will rely on the genomic information found either above in Ensembl, or on NCBI.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I doubt there are many creationist geneticists. One might suggest that this is because the more familiar one becomes with genetics the less one is likely to find support for creationism, particularly of the young earth, all "kinds" on the ark, variety.
It's notable that the only biologist referenced by Ron in this thread, Michael Behe, believes common descent is the best explanation for the current diversity of species.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: King of Men, I do not know if a mouse and a rat are the same kind. I do not know for sure if a wolf and a collie are the same kind. I do not know if a lion and a jaguar are the same kind. I think it is likely that they are. But the final determination would require a complete mapping of their respective genes. Even the old test of whether or not they can reproduce together is not necessarily the final determinant, since as has been noted there are "edge" cases.
I am asking the question in the context of the challenge you posted a couple of pages back. You claimed that your theory is falsifiable; please either stick to your claim or retract it. Is there any pair of species, such that finding a gene in the one species which does not exist in the other, is strong evidence against creationism? Are mouse and rat an example of such a pair? If not, could you please name another?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
King of Men, I do not need to be that specific. The principle I set forth is valid. If Creationists are right, then it should be demonstrable that variations within the same kind arise from genes that were already present in the original parent. Identifying what animals are of the same kind, and which one is the original parent of the kind, would require gene mapping to be certain. But this could be done. If evolutionists, with all their resources, all their government grants, really want to falsify the Creationist explanation for variation within a species, then here is how to do it. I suspect they are afraid to try. They might prove that the Creationists are right.
Or here is an alternative: If, as seems reasonable, the wolf came first, as the parent of its kind, then it should be possible to breed down from a wolf, by selective breeding alone, and get a collie, maybe in ten or twenty generations. Or we might choose some animal that has shorter generations. It should work for plants too, or insects--though with plants and insects we may have more difficulty guessing which organism is the original parent of its kind. I do know you can take regular potatoes and by selective breeding (using the seeds, not cuttings) you can get a wide variation very quickly, anything from yellow potatoes to blue potatoes. For some reason, potatoes undergo wide variation readily, when grown from seed. But clearly, the blue potato was in the white potato, at least as a genetic potential. There you have it--the blue potato proves Creation.
[ December 15, 2009, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You seem to now be saying that if the genes are there then it's proof that they are the same kind and that if they are absent then they must be different kinds.
This is in fact what Ron has said in the past, and what I was referencing when I'd said that people had already explained to him why his "challenge" was absurd.
quote:it should be possible to breed down from a wolf, by selective breeding alone
Bear in mind that although you discount the role of mutation in natural selection, most geneticists don't. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Anyone who concluded that my challenge was absurd came to a wrong conclusion, and is not willing to be fair-minded or even honest about what is being said. This is why I frankly have so little regard for the intellectual integrity of evolutionists. All they want to do is win debates (or just pretend to maintain an appearance of it) and defend their noxious worldview. They don't really have any zeal to know the truth about the reality of the universe we all live in.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: King of Men, I do not need to be that specific. The principle I set forth is valid. If Creationists are right, then it should be demonstrable that variations within the same kind arise from genes that were already present in the original parent. Identifying what animals are of the same kind, and which one is the original parent of the kind, would require gene mapping to be certain. But this could be done.
You can get to genes, transcripts, and proteins from those links.
Obviously one wouldn't want to draw a conclusion from a single gene, but why don't you just do it as an exercise, and show us exactly what kind of analysis you have in mind.
quote:If evolutionists, with all their resources, all their government grants, really want to falsify the Creationist explanation for variation within a species, then here is how to do it.
But what concrete prediction does the Creationist predict?
Make a prediction about rodent transferrin receptor, and we can all check it. No government grant needed. Or we can pick some other gene. You've got thousands to choose from.
quote:I suspect they are afraid to try.
Umm, I'm most certainly not afraid of looking at genomic data. Make a concrete prediction and everyone can look at the ensembl data for themselves. A little searching, a little BLASTing, it's not hard at all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ron, you can't tell me what a "kind" is.
It is a concept that you and you alone are defining. None of the biologists who might actually answer your question believe in "kinds."
Humans are descended from primates; does that mean that chimpanzees and humans are the same "kind," even though they're different branches of the same tree? What does it take for a trout to be the same "kind" as a shark?
Would you accept a geneticist's claim that one animal is directly descended from another animal (or a common ancestor) for the purposes of your challenge?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
There's a sort of circular nature to your challenge, Ron, which makes it useless. First you have to identify the kinds. How is this done? By making sure they have common genetic material. Then you use that alignment to prove that descendants of the parents within kinds don't have novel genes.
I'm not being intellectually dishonest to point out that this is circular reasoning on your part.
I also ask you to consider whether you really believe that you'd accept a negative result of this kind of test, even if it could be designed in a way that wasn't meaningless. Honestly - in your view - wouldn't that just show that the Creator made it possible for genetic changes to take place?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Or here is an alternative: If, as seems reasonable, the wolf came first, as the parent of its kind, then it should be possible to breed down from a wolf, by selective breeding alone, and get a collie, maybe in ten or twenty generations.
In only twenty generations? Too fast. And there's no reason why you couldn't do the reverse; make a wolf from a collie given a whole lot of generations. And the last common ancetor of wolves and collies would not be the same animals as modern wolves.
You are esentially saying that it would be possible to breed your family to look like your cousins. That wouldn't prove anything.
quote:Or we might choose some animal that has shorter generations.
Arguing about how easy it all is makes your case look worse, not better, becuase you have to explain why all your working Creationist biologists haven't gotten around to working on it. "What is a kind" is a pretty fundamental question of Creationist biology. If it were easy to do, you would have done it already.
quote:It should work for plants too, or insects--though with plants and insects we may have more difficulty guessing which organism is the original parent of its kind.
Why guess? We have genomes, remember? Why not deduce the ancestry from the genomics?
quote:But clearly, the blue potato was in the white potato, at least as a genetic potential.
No, it's not clear to me.
But you can make it clear enough. There are dozens of genomes in Ensembl. Show me a link to some "genetic potential" in some organism or another.
Or, be useful for once, and open up the tuberculosis genome, and find the "genetic potential" for antibiotic resistance.
Really, are you seriously going to argue that it is impossible for a Creationist wanting learn how to treat people dying of TB to get a government grant to study the "gentic potential" of a potentially lethal bacterium?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If Creationists are right, then it should be demonstrable that variations within the same kind arise from genes that were already present in the original parent. Identifying what animals are of the same kind, and which one is the original parent of the kind, would require gene mapping to be certain. But this could be done. If evolutionists, with all their resources, all their government grants, really want to falsify the Creationist explanation for variation within a species, then here is how to do it.
I still don't think that would falsify it - since it would leave the "God created animals with genes that make it appear that they evolved, when they didn't" explanation. Just like the light that was theoretically created mid-trip on its way to earth.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Falsify scientifically. Or if you prefer, falsify for Ron, since he said it would.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:King of Men, I do not need to be that specific. The principle I set forth is valid. If Creationists are right, then it should be demonstrable that variations within the same kind arise from genes that were already present in the original parent. Identifying what animals are of the same kind, and which one is the original parent of the kind, would require gene mapping to be certain. But this could be done. If evolutionists, with all their resources, all their government grants, really want to falsify the Creationist explanation for variation within a species, then here is how to do it. I suspect they are afraid to try. They might prove that the Creationists are right.
Perhaps you misunderstood me? I am offering to attempt precisely this test, using the publicly available gene maps. (Notice that I do not have a government grant for biological research; I would do it entirely on my own time.) But to do so, I need a pair of species which Creationism predicts will have a parent/derived relationship.
Let me phrase it another way: Your prediction is "variations within the same kind arise from genes that were already present in the original parent". Very well; but you must have some idea what is a 'kind', otherwise it's a self-fulfilling prophecy! Suppose I demonstrate that mice have genes which rats don't, and you merely shrug and say "Then they are of different kinds"; how then is your hypothesis falsifiable? Is it necessary to prove that every species in the world has at least one gene unique to it? Or can we set some numerical limit? If it is shown that there are, say, a thousand 'kinds' which are unique in this sense, does that falsify creationism? Or is the required number ten thousand? Falsifiability requires specifics!
However, I'm prepared to grant you some continuum-ness; it is not necessary to falsify a theory in one fell swoop, one can accumulate evidence against it gradually. It seems to me that most creationists would intuitively classify rats and mice as being of the same kind - 'rodent'. Do you agree that this is reasonable? If so, do you further agree that finding a mouse gene which no rat has, and a rat gene which no mouse has, would be evidence against your theory? I do not say 'a falsification', but 'evidence against'; that is, it's not conclusive, but it should reduce your confidence. Can we agree on this point?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Here is another idea. Who is to say God himself is not a scientist. I mean, he is all knowing, right?
To me this makes more sense then God snapping his fingers and having man just poof into existence.
I mean, he made Adam go to sleep, took a rib, and made Eve. Sounds a whole lot like a science experiment if you ask me.
I understand the reason evolutionists believe that creationists are incorrect, and vice versa. I believe in both of them. I believe evolution does occur, but who is to say God didn't have a hand in it? Perhaps that is how He rolls?
The one argument that I think is hilarious is the Big Bang theory. A really long time ago, there was this huge explosion, and all of the sudden there were suns, nebulae, planets, and all sorts of mass in the universe. I am pretty sure that nothing just explodes into existence. Mass is eternal. You can mold it, change it, but it is still there in some form, be that energy, solid, gaseous, etc.
And this is where I see a similarity between science and God. Both believe the world was created out of matter unorganized, and that some sort of force organized it.
While I disagree with the Kent Hovind's thesis to an extent, I can say that I think he really believes in what he is writing. You can tell he has conviction.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:In only twenty generations? Too fast. And there's no reason why you couldn't do the reverse; make a wolf from a collie given a whole lot of generations. And the last common ancetor of wolves and collies would not be the same animals as modern wolves.
I think you're misunderstanding Ron here; his premise was, if creationism is true, then it should be possible to get collie from wolf in twenty generations, because the potential exists. And ok, fair enough, this seems to be a point where creationism makes a prediction which differs from that of science. Creationism requires very rapid species differentiation, because otherwise there isn't time to get the current diversity from the few kinds which could have been put on the Ark.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The one argument that I think is hilarious is the Big Bang theory. A really long time ago, there was this huge explosion, and all of the sudden there were suns, nebulae, planets, and all sorts of mass in the universe. I am pretty sure that nothing just explodes into existence. Mass is eternal. You can mold it, change it, but it is still there in some form, be that energy, solid, gaseous, etc.
I would suggest that you educate yourself on what modern cosmology states as fact, and what it conjectures as possibilities, before opining further on this.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Anyone who concluded that my challenge was absurd came to a wrong conclusion, and is not willing to be fair-minded or even honest about what is being said. This is why I frankly have so little regard for the intellectual integrity of evolutionists.
But you've stated two separate sets of conclusions which can be derived from the same test.
Conclusion set one: Wolves contain dog genes - Evolution didn't happen Wolves do not contain dog genes - Evolution did happen
Conclusion set two: Wolves contain dog genes - Wolves are the same "kind" as dogs (evolution didn't happen) Wolves do not contain dog genes - Wolves are no the same "kind" as dogs. (evolution didn't happen)
Going with conclusion set two, you don't have to accept evolution as an explanation, while previously you'd said that the absence of dog genes in wolves would falsify the creation hypothesis.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:The one argument that I think is hilarious is the Big Bang theory. A really long time ago, there was this huge explosion, and all of the sudden there were suns, nebulae, planets, and all sorts of mass in the universe. I am pretty sure that nothing just explodes into existence. Mass is eternal. You can mold it, change it, but it is still there in some form, be that energy, solid, gaseous, etc.
I would suggest that you educate yourself on what modern cosmology states as fact, and what it conjectures as possibilities, before opining further on this.
You mean this?
"As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (best available measurements in 2009 suggest that the initial conditions occurred around 13.3 to 13.9 billion years ago[3][4]), and continues to expand to this day."
Ok, and where did this hot primordial matter come from? Did it just appear? Was it leftovers from a different universe?
As far as I know (and I could be wrong, it happens often) science doesn't really have a concept of eternity. Everything has an age, a timeline, and a progression path. So if anyone knows where this primordial mass of energy came from, I'm curious to know more about it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: And also, all the books are wrong. And if the Genesis bit of the book is wrong, who's to say that the Bethlehem bit is right? If there was no flood and no ark, how do we know that there was a birth in a stable and a man who walked on water?
This is a more complicated question than it seems and one that I won't go into here as the conversation has moved on. One thing, though. It is a mistake to think of the Bible as one book. Think of it as a collection of historical writing and oral tradition by many different people over centuries. You may as well go to my library and ask, "this book of narrative poems is not true so why should I trust this law book?"
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:As far as I know (and I could be wrong, it happens often) science doesn't really have a concept of eternity.
It's a lot more complicated than that. Time may be an attribute of the universe itself. Using terms like "eternity" to try to discuss universal origins may be nonsense. What does "eternity" mean when time doesn't exist?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Just along those same lines, the Bible wasn't even consolidated into one book until hundreds of years after the book of Revelations was written.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Geraine: there's nothing in science that prevents everything from having existed forever. Indeed, that's a pretty typical view among scientists, as far as I understand it (typically in the idea that there's a recurring cycle of big bangs and big crunches).
It just isn't testable on either side of the big bang/big crunch.
edit: and, as MattP alluded to, another possibility is that time doesn't exist outside of the big-bang, big-crunch boundaries. That the question of "what was before the big bang" doesn't make any sense. As I mentioned before, it just isn't something we can get at scientifically at the moment, so scientists don't worry about it much.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Ok, and where did this hot primordial matter come from? Did it just appear? Was it leftovers from a different universe?
As far as I know (and I could be wrong, it happens often) science doesn't really have a concept of eternity. Everything has an age, a timeline, and a progression path. So if anyone knows where this primordial mass of energy came from, I'm curious to know more about it.
Just the point: We do not know where the mass came from. We have very strong evidence that the universe was once much smaller and denser; this evidence goes back to a certain point. The name 'Big Bang' is actually a derisive coinage, not a description of what scientists think genuinely happened. If you extrapolate back the development for which we've got actual evidence, eventually you get to a point, which then explodes. Well and good, but there's no evidence that this extrapolation is what happened; the guy who called it 'the Big Bang' was sneering at the theory, not describing it.
Now, if you wish, you can of course insert your god into this gap, and say "Ah-hah; science does not have an explanation for this point, therefore goddidit!" I suggest you consider that course carefully, however. For what will you do, if science finds a good evidence-backed explanation tomorrow? Forbid the new theory to be taught in classrooms? Demand equal time for your god of the gaps?
The part about science that is hardest for theists to understand is that "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. For three centuries, every time a scientist said "I don't know", some theist would leap to the attack and triumphantly claim "Therefore God!" (Lest you think I exaggerate, I remind you of the famous episode of Euler and the atheist at the Czarina's court. Not Euler's finest moment.) Now, so many gaps have been filled that you are reduced to grasping at the few nanoseconds between what we have evidence for, and the end product of extrapolating from evidence. Is this really what you want for your god? Would it not be better to simply say, "I was wrong", and give up this old theory? Even if you do insert a god here, what is the connection between some deistic spirit which gives a momentary impulse to the universe, and a personal god who cares about your eternal life? What is the purpose of such a god; merely to say "I believe?" Why bother? This is belief for its own sake, without justification other than being the done thing. Is it not simpler to just... stop? To just accept that there is no god, and get on with living? Why would you even want such a god, growing tinier every year as science inexorably crushes the gaps in which you insist on putting him?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:As far as I know (and I could be wrong, it happens often) science doesn't really have a concept of eternity.
It's a lot more complicated than that. Time may be an attribute of the universe itself. Using terms like "eternity" to try to discuss universal origins may be nonsense. What does "eternity" mean when time doesn't exist?
Right, however the same could be said that using a measurement of time to discuss universal origins may be nonsense as well. Time is essentially mankind's perception or measurement of certain events.
On a side note, does anyone know anything about noetic science? Was it created by religious people attempting to bridge the gap between science or religion or the other way around?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Bah. By the time the term "God of the Gaps" was coined, it was already a strawman argument.
quote: There are reverent minds who ceaselessly scan the fields of Nature and the books of Science in search of gaps--gaps which they will fill up with God. As if God lived in gaps? What view of Nature or of Truth is theirs whose interest in Science is not in what it can explain but in what it cannot, whose quest is ignorance not knowledge, whose daily dread is that the cloud may lift, and who, as darkness melts from this field or from that, begin to tremble for the place of His abode? What needs altering in such finely-jealous souls is at once their view of Nature and of God. Nature is God's writing, and can only tell the truth; God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.
If by the accumulation of irresistible evidence we are driven--may not one say permitted--to accept Evolution as God's method in creation, it is a mistaken policy to glory in what it cannot account for. The reason why men grudge to Evolution each of its fresh claims to show how things have been made is the groundless fear that if we discover how they are made we minimize their divinity. When things are known, that is to say, we conceive them as natural, on Man's level; when they are unknown, we call them divine--as if our ignorance of a thing were the stamp of its divinity. If God is only to be left to the gaps in our knowledge, where shall we be when these gaps are filled up? And if they are never to be filled up, is God only to be found in the dis-orders of the world? Those who yield to the temptation to reserve a point here and there for special divine interposition are apt to forget that this virtually excludes God from the rest of the process. If God appears periodically, He disappears periodically. If He comes upon the scene at special crises, He is absent from the scene in the intervals. Whether is all-God or occasional-God the nobler theory? Positively, the idea of an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology. Negatively, the older view is not only the less worthy, but it is discredited by science. And as to facts, the daily miracle of a flower, the courses of the stars, the upholding and sustaining day by day of this great palpitating world, need a living Will as much as the creation of atoms at the first. We know growth as the method by which things are made in Nature, and we know no other method. We do not know that there are not other methods; but if there are, we do not know them. Those cases which we do not know to be growths, we do not know to be anything else, and we may at least suspect them to be growths. Nor are they any the less miraculous because they appear to us as growths. A miracle is not something quick. The doings of these things may seem to us no miracle, nevertheless it is a miracle that they have been done.
quote:Bah. By the time the term "God of the Gaps" was coined, it was already a strawman argument.
I suggest you re-read your quote. Your writer agrees that there are people who believe in such a god; he is not trying to show that they don't exist, he is trying to make them stop! A method actually practiced is no strawman, and indeed I need look no further than Gerraine's post to which I responded for a fine example.
As for his assertion that a flower needs a driving will, pff. Sez you, comrade. Show us yer evidence. And the assertion that an immanent god is grander than a non-immanent one is all very well, and my father can beat up yours, but these are not arguments in the sense that an adult thinks of them. These are playground taunts, and if that's the level of discourse you think appropriate, it can only end as playground spats do: Someone throws a punch, and the loser runs home to his parents in tears. But when adults are reduced to this level, there is no parent to give comfort.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
King,
The difference is that anything science proves as fact can be attributed to God by those that believe, but more difficult if switched around.
For example, say scientists say "We figured out the Big Bang, this is how it happened, and this is how our Universe came to be. There is no God. Game, set, and match."
That would be a complete sophistry. That would not in ANY way, shape, or form disprove that God exists. It would, however be a great discovery.
I see your argument of "Isn't it easier just to not believe in god?" to be a complete irrational one. Yes it would be easier, but being religious or believing in God isn't about taking the easy way out. And on that same note, the quotes you included were laughable because they were so one sided. How many scientists have said the same thing in reverse? They say "We have discovered <x> so God must not exist."
My point is : Religion meshes better with science than science meshes with religion. (In my mind that statement makes sense, but I am not always the most eloquent with words)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I see your argument of "Isn't it easier just to not believe in god?" to be a complete irrational one. Yes it would be easier, but being religious or believing in God isn't about taking the easy way out.
I thing KoM is talking more of an Occams Razor sort of thing. God complicates any explanation, the way that adding an elaborate expression to both sides of an equation complicates the equation without actually changing its solution. It is easier and more correct to not add the unnecessary expression.
quote:How many scientists have said the same thing in reverse? They say "We have discovered <x> so God must not exist."
Depending on the definition of God that may be a valid statement. To the extent that God may have once been believed to have been an old man with a beard who throws lightning bolts when he's angry, science has fairly well shown that he doesn't exist.
But that's beside the point that scientists expressing their personal opinion are not doing science. Whereas priests that express their personal opinions are quite often doing religion.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As I have stated--I thought pretty clearly--the complexity of the universe argues overwhelmingly for the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Therefore--and this is a LOGICAL conclusion--any science that deliberately refuses to consider the existence of a Creator, cannot be real science, for there is no rational reason to exclude God.
I think this is the crux of the problem. You are using the first sentence here as an axiom upon which you are building your arguments. Your detractors in this thread do not accept this statement as an axiom; you must demonstrate to them that it is true, if you wish them to accept your arguments. Your second statement would be a logical conclusion from the first, but that doesn't mean the first is true.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I see your argument of "Isn't it easier just to not believe in god?" to be a complete irrational one. Yes it would be easier, but being religious or believing in God isn't about taking the easy way out.
I think you misunderstand me. You seem determined to believe in a god. Why? You go to great lengths to find some sort of way to match your religion to what science shows. Again, why? What is the purpose of this activity? Is it not better to believe in what you have evidence for, and leave it at that? From your posts, you seem rather to desire to have evidence for what you believe. A third time, why? What would be so terrible about not being a theist anymore? You can just stop, you know. There's no need for all this frenetic, exhausting activity to justify your assertion, "I believe in god". You post as though such belief is a good thing in itself, not to be questioned, and therefore "It's not about taking the easy path" is a defense. But this misses the more fundamental point, that it's the truth of the belief that must be defended, not its virtue. It is easy to believe in gravity; ought one on that account not to do so? "Gravitism or gravity-belief isn't about taking the easy path out". You would not accept this argument, so why apply it to gods?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: King,
The difference is that anything science proves as fact can be attributed to God by those that believe, but more difficult if switched around.
For example, say scientists say "We figured out the Big Bang, this is how it happened, and this is how our Universe came to be. There is no God. Game, set, and match."
That would be a complete sophistry. That would not in ANY way, shape, or form disprove that God exists. It would, however be a great discovery.
Certainly true.
quote: I see your argument of "Isn't it easier just to not believe in god?" to be a complete irrational one. Yes it would be easier, but being religious or believing in God isn't about taking the easy way out. And on that same note, the quotes you included were laughable because they were so one sided. How many scientists have said the same thing in reverse? They say "We have discovered <x> so God must not exist."
This, on the other hand, is a strawman. Find me one scientific paper that makes this statement (or anything remotely similar). Personal statements by people who happen to be scientists don't count, by the way - there are lots of theist scientists, just like there are lots of atheist and agnostic scientists. I can guarantee you that none of them mention God (or religion in general) anywhere in their research publications.
Seriously, go to Pubmed and find me a paper that claims to have disproved the existence of God. It's free, it's easy to search. It's basically Google for the scientific literature. Put your money where your rhetoric is.
[ December 15, 2009, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Tarrsk ]
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Tarrsk, can you honestly tell me that you believe a scientist has never said anything like that? Whether written or not, do you believe that no scientist has ever tried to disprove the existence of God?
This is what I was referring to. It goes both ways. Someone says "Scientists can't explain <x> hence God!". Ok fine. What I was illustrating was that a scientist could also turn this around and say "Religion can't explain <y> so hence no god!"
I appreciate you turning me on to Pubmed, but I already read papers on there often. You really should broaden your search though. I'll help you out. One quick search of "Scientific Case Against God" and I found a nice little paper from a Victor S. Stenger, titled the same. Dr. Stenger is a Professor of Physics at the University of Hawaii. Here is a link to his article. I will say that it is an interesting read.
I had professors in high school and college that said things similar to the above. I have also had teachers at church feed me the other side.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Geraine? So what if some scientists have tried to disprove the existence of God?
Are scientists not allowed to be individuals with flaws as well?
I mean, after all, why would anyone go about trying to disprove the existence of something there's no positive evidence for anyway? After all, I'm not going out trying to disprove the existence of humans currently living on Venus.
---
anyway, let's be clear: I doubt Ron coudl do what everyone here asks. I say this because I, personally, cannot do what you ask either, I don't know how. I can't figure out heads or tails of Ensembl.
You can't expect Ron to do it if I can't. I don[t think that's really fair...
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Tarrsk, can you honestly tell me that you believe a scientist has never said anything like that? Whether written or not, do you believe that no scientist has ever tried to disprove the existence of God?
Absolutely, I can. I am a scientist, so you can imagine that I talk to scientists on a regular basis, and never once has someone ever said anything like "I'm in it to disprove the existence of God."
You know why?
Because science isn't in the business of caring about God one way or the other. Seriously. It's irrelevant. We take the universe as is, and try to figure out what's going on and how things happen. The business of science is the natural, and we just take it as a given that the supernatural is out of our purview.
Are there vehemently atheistic scientists? Yes. Richard Dawkins is one. But even the most militantly atheist scientist leaves his or her opinions about religion at the door when they walk into the lab. Even Dawkins.
quote:This is what I was referring to. It goes both ways. Someone says "Scientists can't explain <x> hence God!". Ok fine. What I was illustrating was that a scientist could also turn this around and say "Religion can't explain <y> so hence no god!"
Such a person would be no scientist. Science works via logic and inductive reasoning. "X can't explain Y" does not necessarily mean that "Z *does* explain Y." Short of God announcing his own existence by lasering a message proclaiming "I AM REAL" onto a mountain, there really isn't any way to scientifically assay the question of a deity's existence. And any scientist worth his or her salt acknowledges that and leaves the whole bloody business to the philosophers and theologians.
quote:I appreciate you turning me on to Pubmed, but I already read papers on there often. You really should broaden your search though. I'll help you out. One quick search of "Scientific Case Against God" and I found a nice little paper from a Victor S. Stenger, titled the same. Dr. Stenger is a Professor of Physics at the University of Hawaii. Here is a link to his article. I will say that it is an interesting read.
Uh huh. I notice that, despite my request for something published in the scientific literature (i.e. a research paper), your "cite" is the personal website of a professor.
Let me quote my previous post, since you apparently didn't bother to read it:
"Personal statements by people who happen to be scientists don't count, by the way - there are lots of theist scientists, just like there are lots of atheist and agnostic scientists."
In other words, I asked for the journalistic equivalent of a fact-checked news article and you gave me a link to an editorial.
Try again.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
You know what is harder to take than being hated by someone?
Being ignored and considered unimportant.
Why do so many people of Faith attack Science instead of fighting other faiths or devil worshipers? Because even devil worshipers need God to exist.
Its not that Science hates or is out to destroy God or the Church.
Its that it ignores it completely. That really gets their goat.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Tarrsk, can you honestly tell me that you believe a scientist has never said anything like that? Whether written or not, do you believe that no scientist has ever tried to disprove the existence of God?
Um, I'm surrounded by scientists. Biologists, geologists, all of that. I don't ever see that done, and the number of scientists who do that are doing it on their own time without any scholarly review, in practically all of their cases.
The reason why there's going to be virtually no scholarly review (in effect, actual science) and research done on "ergo, there is no god" is because it is a negative argument. God is typically an untestable claim.
Hate to rail on you but you're tripping up bad here. You're judging science on a strawman, and it doesn't serve any point except to reinforce your extant biases.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Ok, and where did this hot primordial matter come from? Did it just appear? Was it leftovers from a different universe?
It's very hard to test for where matter or time or anything came from 'originally.' science does not claim to know the starting point for anything. It doesn't even claim that there is a starting point. It tests detectable data and falsifies claims. Since looking through space is also looking through time, we have a lens — detectable data — into the expansion of the universe from an earlier, homogenous, superheated and incredibly dense state that is represented by the cosmic background radiation at the edge of visible time. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: There you have it--the blue potato proves Creation.
And some medieval art proves dragons.
This is fascinating, insofar as you provide a case study for extreme cognitive mechanisms of denial.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:I see your argument of "Isn't it easier just to not believe in god?" to be a complete irrational one. Yes it would be easier, but being religious or believing in God isn't about taking the easy way out.
I think you misunderstand me. You seem determined to believe in a god. Why? You go to great lengths to find some sort of way to match your religion to what science shows. Again, why? What is the purpose of this activity? Is it not better to believe in what you have evidence for, and leave it at that? From your posts, you seem rather to desire to have evidence for what you believe. A third time, why? What would be so terrible about not being a theist anymore? You can just stop, you know. There's no need for all this frenetic, exhausting activity to justify your assertion, "I believe in god". You post as though such belief is a good thing in itself, not to be questioned, and therefore "It's not about taking the easy path" is a defense. But this misses the more fundamental point, that it's the truth of the belief that must be defended, not its virtue. It is easy to believe in gravity; ought one on that account not to do so? "Gravitism or gravity-belief isn't about taking the easy path out". You would not accept this argument, so why apply it to gods?
I actually think you are misunderstanding what Geraine means. When he's saying its "easier" to not believe, he's not using "easier" as a synonym for "fits better with the evidence". Rather, it is "easier" in the sense that it requires less faith in uncertainties. A thing can be "easier" in this emotional sense of requiring less faith, while simultaneously being less rational and less consistent with all the evidence. I can give a few examples to illustrate this:
One example would be when a friend betrays you. In such a situation, it might be "easier" to believe he or she know longer is your friend. But the harder AND more rational conclusion is to remember all the past times he or she was your friend, and have faith that this one betrayal doesn't prove the friendship is over.
Another example is working hard towards a goal you can't seem to accomplish. In such a situation, it might be "easier" to assume the goal is simply impossible. That's because it is very difficult to keep working and believing in something when it has failed repeatedly so far. But often the harder and more rational conclusion is that persistence will eventually achieve your goal - given the evidence of many other people who've failed repeatedly and then went on to succeed.
Another example is ethics. It can be easier to believe there is no such thing as right and wrong. This allows you to avoid having to make tricky uncertain judgement calls. However, I think most people accept that the easier way is also the less rational way; there is a right and wrong.
In general, an "easy" view of the world is one where all things are simply mechanical and serve whatever function they happen to naturally have, where we have no free will and no responsibilities, where we simply go through life in the way we are programmed to, and that contains no inherently meaning and nothing of inherent value (since meaning and value are such "hard" things to pin down in any belief system.) This type of world view is simple, straightforward, consistent with science, and would avoid almost all the tough, ambiguous questions in life. It is also false, and misses most of what is good about life. Therein lies the problem with taking the "easy" belief system.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In general, an "easy" view of the world is one where all things are simply mechanical and serve whatever function they happen to naturally have...
Wow. So you're saying that it's hard but rewarding to make up functions for things through, say, mechanisms like superstition? Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
No, I didn't say anything about making up anything or superstition.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: This type of world view is simple, straightforward, consistent with science, and would avoid almost all the tough, ambiguous questions in life. It is also false, and misses most of what is good about life. Therein lies the problem with taking the "easy" belief system.
Aw, you were doing so well until you got to "it is also false" and it was all downhill from there.
Believe it or not, being an atheist (which I believe is what you were getting at) is not miserable. Many people are happier being atheists because they don't have to believe things that are at odds with their experience, e.g. "God is torturing me by having made me gay and then saying it's a sin."
On top of that, as has been said many times by non-believers to believers, atheists can be optimists and pessimists and full of joy or not full of joy just like other human beings. Atheists do not miss most of what is good in life and can recognize meaning just as well as anyone else-- they just don't necessarily regard things as inherently meaningful.
In addition, I'm not how being an atheist avoids ambiguity in terms of morals. I would have thought that, because there are no rules as to what you have to believe, ambiguity is increased. However, perhaps merely the conflict moves from being perceived as internal-external (e.g. God and you) to internal-internal (e.g. you and yourself).
But I make no claim that a theist life is easier that an atheist life, or the reverse. I think "easy" is the wrong word, because in this American Protestant society, things that are easy are considered to be negative and weak, which is why we have this strange type of argument:
"No, YOUR theory is easier! It is MINE that requires thought and difficulty!"
Madness.
*
What is more straightforward about atheism is the connection of reality to science. If you are an atheist, you do not have to change science
This isn't to say that your experience will always line up with science, at least intuitively. However, I have always found that once I am aware of the scientific explanation for something (e.g. colour-- that coloured objects are merely reflecting a certain set of wavelengths) that it may not be intuitive to think of colour this way but it is rational.
But there are irrationalities about living in a scientific universe, and one of these is the beginning of the universe: What was all that energy doing in the first place? What is outside the universe/where is the universe? Why do things exist at all?
However, I do not think the introduction of God solves these irrationalities. If you have God solve your "beginning" problems, you merely are putting another Turtle in your pile of Turtles. You know the story, right? An old Lady gets up and claims the world is seated on the back of an elephant on the back of a turtle, and then, when questioned as to what to turtle is sitting on, she says it's "Turtles all the way down."
God, although he may not look like a turtle, is simply another turtle. The same questions take a step backwards: Where did God come from in the first place? What is outside God/where is God? Why does God exist at all? God's superhuman nature doesn't mean that these questions can be discounted.
These are mindboggling questions. We have no way of knowing, at least at the moment, what is outside the universe (or where the universe "is"). But they are mindboggling to atheists and theists alike. However, unless God actually appears and starts answering these questions, it is only science that has a chance of answering these questions in an empirical, scientifically-consistent way.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
That's awesome
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I didn't say anything about making up anything or superstition.
Sure you did. Because if they existed, you could just use science.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Believe it or not, being an atheist (which I believe is what you were getting at) is not miserable. Many people are happier being atheists because they don't have to believe things that are at odds with their experience, e.g. "God is torturing me by having made me gay and then saying it's a sin."
On top of that, as has been said many times by non-believers to believers, atheists can be optimists and pessimists and full of joy or not full of joy just like other human beings. Atheists do not miss most of what is good in life and can recognize meaning just as well as anyone else-- they just don't necessarily regard things as inherently meaningful.
My point wasn't that being an atheist requires being miserable. My point was that if you accept the "easiest" belief system to believe, you'll end up with a belief system that is less rational (since it ignores ambiguous evidence which is nevertheless important) and that cannot explain most of what is valuable in life.
Having said that, it should be noted that being an atheist does not require being a materialist, or not believing in morals, or not believing things have no inherent value, or anything like that. Athiesm simply requires not believing in God. It is even possible to be a religious atheist, like you might find within Buddhism, as long as you don't believe in God.
Some people do claim that, in addition to being atheist, they also believe in strict materialism, in moral relativism of the strongest sort, and in a worldview that truly does not include anything that goes beyond what science can directly study. These folks are not miserable, but in real life I think they typically act in ways that are not explained by the worldview they claim is true. Someone who claims there is no such thing as morality will typically still not steal candy from a baby, for instance. So, it's not that taking the "easiest" belief system is going to inherently prevent you from living a good life. It's more that taking the "easiest" belief system will end up requiring you to act in ways that your belief system can't explain and can't help you with. (It's sort of like folks who say modern genetics and evolution are fundamentally wrong, and that scientists are untrustworthy, but then go on to trust medicines based on that same scientific model in order to stay healthy. They can stay healthy while holding their belief system, but in doing so end up acting in ways that defy explanation under their belief system.)
quote:Sure you did. Because if they existed, you could just use science.
This is not true. As was just discussed in this thread, science is limited in what it can study. If God exists, science could still not study God.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: anyway, let's be clear: I doubt Ron coudl do what everyone here asks. I say this because I, personally, cannot do what you ask either, I don't know how. I can't figure out heads or tails of Ensembl.
You can't expect Ron to do it if I can't. I don[t think that's really fair...
If pressed, you could pick a gene name, find entries for a few species on Ensembl, BLAST them against each other, and just write down the percentage similarities and identities. That would be at least a crude way of comparing species to each other.
You aren't claiming to know more about the facts of evolution than the world's professional biologists, and Ron is. That sets the bar far, far higher for him than it is for either of us. Undergrads can copy and paste into BLAST. Ron should be able to do at least that much.
Ron has set himself up particularly well here, and I think such opportunities should be taken advantage of. To twice lament "If only we had the complete genomes", and then to be given the complete genomes, and be utterly unable to do a thing with them, that's illuminating, and a handy example to point to when Ron makes any kind of claim.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As was just discussed in this thread, science is limited in what it can study. If God exists, science could still not study God.
If God exists in any way that is meaningful, science can study God. It is only the non-meaningful things that science cannot study.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Define meaningful.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Has a perceptible effect.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
first.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:As was just discussed in this thread, science is limited in what it can study. If God exists, science could still not study God.
If God exists in any way that is meaningful, science can study God. It is only the non-meaningful things that science cannot study.
Ah, but this raises the question: "If God is meaningful, would science know how to study God?"
As for the statement earlier, about not having any scientists specifically working to disprove the existence of God, I agree with that. I don't think they do.
I also do not think that the majority of religious people go out of their way to prove God's existence. Religion and belief in God is based on faith, not proof that He exists. I disagree with any religous group or person that tries to prove God's existence.
In fact, I would go so far as to say it is contrary to any religious faith that believes that God has given us free will to try and prove God's existence.
Now I will put another spin on the argument. Science is based on human knowledge. There are things Science has not discovered yet. Much of the technology we enjoy has been around for less than 200 years. We have mapped a vast majority of the human genome, cloning has been possible with animals, etc. In another 200 years, where will we be?
Let us think about where our level of technology and understanding will be another 200 years from now. Perhaps it would be possible to create a human "in our own image." Let us also say for example, we found a planet on which life could be supported, and placed these artificial humans on that planet.
Would the people on this planet not consider their creator a deity?
I am someone that believes God is not some formless being or cloud like presence. I believe we were literally created in His image. How He performed this we simply do not know, but would it be so far fetched to think that God actually used technology and a knowledge of the many scientific disciplines to create a planet, animals, and man?
Who is to say man on earth is the most technologically advanced race in the universe?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Let us think about where our level of technology and understanding will be another 200 years from now. Perhaps it would be possible to create a human "in our own image." Let us also say for example, we found a planet on which life could be supported, and placed these artificial humans on that planet.
Would the people on this planet not consider their creator a deity?
whether they would or would not consider us, their creators, a deity says nothing about whether this deity can be studied by science. And in your particular example "god" would most certainly be able to be studied by science.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There are plenty of things that have perceptible effects that science can't study.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I do not agree with that definition.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:There are plenty of things that have perceptible effects that science can't study.
Like what? Love?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Science can only study things that are repeatable and transferrable and it cannot study most aspects of non-deterministic systems.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Would you like to give an example of a non-deterministic system?
quote:I also do not think that the majority of religious people go out of their way to prove God's existence. Religion and belief in God is based on faith, not proof that He exists.
Why this double standard? Why should religion get this escape clause, "I don't have to show evidence, I have faith"? This is not the behaviour of adults; children can believe in Santa Claus because it's convenient for them to do so - and most of them have rather better evidence than adult theists do, at that. But when an adult asserts that he believes because he believes, he makes himself much less than human. If we are anything more than squalid animals breeding in the muck, it's because we can think. When you refuse to do so, you denigrate the whole human race, and you dishonour your ancestors who brought you to the state where you can spew your filth across the internets. Grow up.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
As I understand it, quantum mechanics has yields several instances of non-deterministic systems, such as the position of electrons the nucleus of an atom.
Any free willed entity, such as God or human beings, would also be a non-deterministic system.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:As I understand it, quantum mechanics yields several instances of non-deterministic systems, such as the position of electrons the nucleus of an atom.
You are mistaken; the wave function is perfectly deterministic. But even if you were correct, would you like to say in what sense science is unable to study this?
quote:Any free willed entity, such as God or human beings, would also be a non-deterministic system.
That does not follow. What you probably mean is that a free-willed soul which steers the body does so by rules other than those of known physics. Apart from this, I don't believe humans have free will and I don't believe gods exist, so they're rather bad examples for purposes of convincing me. But even granting humans free will, their actions are not random; you would not consider a robot whose actions were determined by cosmic-ray impacts to be free-willed, and the same applies if the source of randomness is outside ordinary physics. Any system that makes decisions, as opposed to flipping coins, does so by some set of rules; just because the rules aren't the ones governing electrons doesn't mean they don't exist. Show a free-willed soul the same inputs, and it performs the same actions, or it is nothing more than a random number generator. And even if it were a random number generator, you could study the distribution of the numbers.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No. I mean that a free willed soul would be a non-deterministic system.
I also don't think you understand quantum mechanics very well.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: No. I mean that a free willed soul would be a non-deterministic system.
I also don't think you understand quantum mechanics very well.
Squicky, I think it's a huge leap from the fact that the positions of electrons can be non-deterministic to the conclusion that human beings are non-deterministic. I would think that the burden of proof would be on you to explain how this quantum indeterminacy could affect large scale actions by organisms such as ourselves.
It's also my understanding that science is actually quite capable of studying quantum mechanics.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:No. I mean that a free willed soul would be a non-deterministic system.
I just gave an argument for why this is not true. Merely re-asserting what you originally said is not a very effective argument; would you like to show how my reasoning fails?
As for my understanding of quantum mechanics, I hate to argue from authority, but you do remember what subject I have two degrees in, no? Hint: It's the same one I'm working towards a PhD in. I do not say that this makes my understanding superior to yours; quantum mechanics is tricky business and an ability to do the math is not everything there is to it. But I do feel that it entitles me not to have my view quite so cavalierly dismissed. Again: I assert that the wave function's development is deterministic. Starting with the Schrödinger equation - we'll stick to the nonrelativistic version for now - can you show that this assertion is mistaken? And if you do so, will you further go on to answer my other question, and demonstrate how science was unable to study electrons?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I didn't say anything about quantum indeterminacy explaining free willed humans. They were just two examples of non-deterministic systems.
I'm also not asserting that humans are in any way provably free willed. My points are about the (pretty well known) epistemological limitations of science. There are a lot of questions it can't answer and phenomena that it can't study. This is not a controversial statement and yet it seems largely to not affect the rather grandiose claims of some of the materialists here.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, and since the thread is about doctoral theses (thesises? thesii?), would you like to read mine? It's not quite finished yet, the final numbers are yet to go in, but the first five chapters or so are pretty well done. I urge you to pay particular attention to the second chapter, which lays out the formal math - quantum mechanics - of what I'm doing. Go on, have a go. I welcome feedback on both the actual math, and grammar or spelling errors, it's hard to catch them all.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Your second sentence of chapter one seems off, unless that's a scientific term I don't get:
quote:Since only the mass eigenstates only the mass eigenstates appear in the equations of motion, a meson that initially has an unambiguous flavour will at later times be in a superposition of that flavour and its anti-flavour.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Would you like to give an example of a non-deterministic system?
quote:I also do not think that the majority of religious people go out of their way to prove God's existence. Religion and belief in God is based on faith, not proof that He exists.
Why this double standard? Why should religion get this escape clause, "I don't have to show evidence, I have faith"? This is not the behaviour of adults; children can believe in Santa Claus because it's convenient for them to do so - and most of them have rather better evidence than adult theists do, at that. But when an adult asserts that he believes because he believes, he makes himself much less than human. If we are anything more than squalid animals breeding in the muck, it's because we can think. When you refuse to do so, you denigrate the whole human race, and you dishonour your ancestors who brought you to the state where you can spew your filth across the internets. Grow up.
Great job KoM. Insult someone, then go ahead and tell THEM to grow up. I am trying to have a discussion, and you resort to insults.
Believing in something you cannot see does not make you less human. For example, I have never seen your brain, but I believe it exists. You may be able to show it to me if you chose to, but YOU hold that power. If an entity such as God existed, and does not choose to appear to me, it does not mean he is non-existant. He would hold the power to make himself known or not.
Science also has a belief system. It is called a Hypothesis or theory. If a scientist has a theory, he tests that theory and researches the data to determine if it is true or not.
Likewise a religious person may have a theory of God. The person tests that theory and researches the data to determine if it is true or not.
Whether is the theory is scientific or religious, there is faith involved.
The argument that man evolved from apes is a theory based on faith. Many believe humans evolved from the ape, however science has yet to produce definitive evidence. They still have not found the "Missing Link" connecting the two species.
Does that mean that man did NOT evolve from apes? Not necessarily. They very well could have! But right now, without sufficient and definitive evidence, it is only a theory that some have FAITH is true.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um. Apart from the repetition of the phrase 'only the mass eigenstates', which apparently has passed the glazed eyes of three successive reviewers, what is the offness?
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
That was what I was referring to. You mentioned grammar errors.
My knowledge of quantum mechanics is only casual, though I do try to study it from time to time, with varying degrees of success. (I am missing many maths.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The argument that man evolved from apes is a theory based on faith.
No, it isn't. It is based on evidence from genetics, fossils, geology, animal breeding, bacterial experiments, and likely a dozen or so other subjects I've momentarily forgotten.
quote:They still have not found the "Missing Link" connecting the two species.
Your understanding of the science is roughly 75 years out of date. The 'Missing Link' is a Victorian coinage which is not needed; and anyway, what do you call the likes of Lucy? You are now in classic creationist denial-mode; there are large numbers of 'intermediate' fossils, but every time a fossil B bridges a gap between A and C, creationists scream "But now there are gaps AB and BC! Where are the missing links?!"
quote:Believing in something you cannot see does not make you less human.
No, but then that's not what I said. I said that believing without evidence makes you less human.
quote:Likewise a religious person may have a theory of God. The person tests that theory and researches the data to determine if it is true or not.
Well then, now we're getting somewhere. This directly contradicts what you said earlier, about god-beliefs being based in faith. Could you please clarify which it is? Faith, or experiment? I would request that you please not jump from one to the other; it's very confusing to argue with someone who doesn't know what he believes, he just knows that he believes it.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Oh, and since the thread is about doctoral theses (thesises? thesii?), would you like to read mine? It's not quite finished yet, the final numbers are yet to go in, but the first five chapters or so are pretty well done. I urge you to pay particular attention to the second chapter, which lays out the formal math - quantum mechanics - of what I'm doing. Go on, have a go. I welcome feedback on both the actual math, and grammar or spelling errors, it's hard to catch them all.
I don't understand 3/4 of it, but I will tell you that it looks very nice.
I wish you luck with it!
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
Science also has a belief system. It is called a Hypothesis or theory. If a scientist has a theory, he tests that theory and researches the data to determine if it is true or not.
Likewise a religious person may have a theory of God. The person tests that theory and researches the data to determine if it is true or not.
Can you give examples of specific beliefs (e.g. do you believe Him omnipotent?) you have about God, and observations that you would regard as falsifying these beliefs? For example, if I believed that God had a long, white beard and then I saw him and he was clean-shaven this would falsify my belief.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:believing without evidence
Again, evidence that is not transferable is not equivalent to no evidence.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by IanO: That was what I was referring to. You mentioned grammar errors.
Ah yes. Thanks. Corrected in what's up now. It's kind of weird how that managed to slip pass me, two advisors, a postdoc, a wife, a father-in-law, and two parents!
[ December 16, 2009, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:believing without evidence
Again, evidence that is not transferable is not equivalent to no evidence.
Geraine, however, explicitly appealed to faith, which is not evidence of any kind, transferable or not; it's just a fancy word for stamping your foot on the ground and saying "Well, I believe anyway, so there!" The argument against the particular kinds of non-transferable evidence that theists sometimes appeal to is a separate topic.
I notice that you suddenly went very quiet about quantum mechanics.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Likewise a religious person may have a theory of God. The person tests that theory and researches the data to determine if it is true or not.
Hee. Before I "hee" again, please clarify: are you suggesting that the existence of God is a reliably testable hypothesis?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:The argument that man evolved from apes is a theory based on faith.
No, it isn't. It is based on evidence from genetics, fossils, geology, animal breeding, bacterial experiments, and likely a dozen or so other subjects I've momentarily forgotten.
Except when you look at the fossils as well as the time lines of evolution, humans simply do not fit in. Hell, Thomas Huxley even stated:
"Large changes [in species] occur over tens of millions of years, while really major ones (macro changes) take a hundred million years or so."
Yet man would have had to benefit from several macro-mutations in the course of only six million yaers. As far as Lucy is concerned, she apparently lived 3.6-3.2 million years ago, her skeleton was only 40 percent complete, and now it is unsure if she was even a biped.
If this were also true, why have humans evolved but apes have remained in a state of stagnation?
quote:Believing in something you cannot see does not make you less human.
No, but then that's not what I said. I said that believing without evidence makes you less human.
And yet scientists believe in things as well that have no concrete evidence for.
quote:Likewise a religious person may have a theory of God. The person tests that theory and researches the data to determine if it is true or not.
Well then, now we're getting somewhere. This directly contradicts what you said earlier, about god-beliefs being based in faith. Could you please clarify which it is? Faith, or experiment? I would request that you please not jump from one to the other; it's very confusing to argue with someone who doesn't know what he believes, he just knows that he believes it.
I would contend that faith IS an experiment. Just as a scientist attempts to prove a theory, so to does the religious individual. They read, learn, and ponder the data. They come to their own conclusion whether it is true or not. It does not mean that another person will come to the same conclusion, but for that person it is true.
KoM, I am interested in your field of work. You are studying quantum physics, am I correct?
Edit: I really suck at quoting, just read the quote because I responded Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:but for that person it is true
There is absolutely no such thing as a personal truth.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
KOM, I don't respect you or your intelligence enough to waste time getting you to admit that you are wrong about quantum indeterminacy. It's enough for me to know that people who know what they're talking about will know.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:but for that person it is true
There is absolutely no such thing as a personal truth.
How could you possibly know that?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:but for that person it is true
There is absolutely no such thing as a personal truth.
Are you absolutely sure of that?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Because it's inherent in the definition of "true." I submit to you that anything which is a "personal truth" is, at best, a misworded proposition.
------------
quote:I don't respect you or your intelligence enough to waste time getting you to admit that you are wrong about quantum indeterminacy...
Says the psych major to the physicist who just linked to his dissertation on eigenstates. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Except when you look at the fossils as well as the time lines of evolution, humans simply do not fit in. Hell, Thomas Huxley even stated:
"Large changes [in species] occur over tens of millions of years, while really major ones (macro changes) take a hundred million years or so."
And Thomas Huxley died in 1895!Eighteen-ninety-bloody-five! You might as well quote Newton on quantum optics!
quote:If this were also true, why have humans evolved but apes have remained in a state of stagnation?
They haven't. They just evolved in a different direction; the apes of today are as different from the apes of Lucy's time as humans are, it's just that the differences are less obvious to the naked eye.
quote:And yet scientists believe in things as well that have no concrete evidence.
Sez you.
quote:I would contend that faith IS an experiment. (...) for that person it is true.
There is exactly one truth; no more, and no less. There is no "truth for me" that's different from the "truth for you"; there is a single fact of the matter, and if we disagree on it then at least one of us is wrong. Either your god exists or it doesn't; to assert otherwise is madness. When you die, you will find out which is true, although you'll only know it very briefly.
Faith is not an experiment; it is a belief held without evidence. Beliefs are not experiments, beliefs are beliefs. Words have meanings; please stick to them.
quote:You are studying quantum physics, am I correct?
Particle physics; quantum physics is a tool I use. Your interest would benefit very strongly from some actual education; you have shamefully neglected your brain and filled it up with nonsense. You may have been "reading and pondering", but you're doing it wrong; from the arguments you make, you have been looking only at creationist literature, and those people lie. You have been lied to. Thomas Huxley! Absent gods, you quote people a hundred years dead and think you've made a serious contribution to the discussion! You cannot form an opionion that people are obliged to take seriously until you've read something not written as explicit propaganda. Get thee to TalkOrigins and flush the poisonous lies out of your brain; it may not yet be too late.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: KOM, I don't respect you or your intelligence enough to waste time getting you to admit that you are wrong about quantum indeterminacy. It's enough for me to know that people who know what they're talking about will know.
That certainly ends this discussion very effectively, yes. You are a coward, afraid of being shown wrong and unable to argue your point of view. Good day to you.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Because it's inherent in the definition of "true." I submit to you that anything which is a "personal truth" is, at best, a misworded proposition.
Ahh...begging the question.
Subjective perception is objectively true. That I perceive something is true. And thus, personal truth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Or, to put it somewhat less pompously: Geraine, you are using arguments that lead to what I call a "mushy God," which is quite possibly the most comforting but intellectually laziest sort of God out there. (Mushy Gods infuriate KoM more than almost anything else on Earth, so that's why he's being so insulting to you -- which is not an attempt to excuse his behavior, mind.)
The reason "mushy Gods" don't work is the same reason that there isn't "personal truth." The contextual reality in which a "personal truth" might be said to be "true" is exclusively internal; it is a product of one's own internal context, and while it might have some value within that context, it has no truth value -- and, in fact, cannot have any -- outside of that context. I can say "it is true that the Beatles are a good band," and that would be a "personal truth" -- but in order to move that to a communal context as a true statement (without establishing some universal criteria for "goodness" as might be applied to bands) it is necessary to frame that proposition as "it is true that Tom believes the Beatles to be a good band." In the same way, saying "God exists" as a personal truth makes no sense in any other context; it's like asserting "a tree exists over there, but just for me." What it really means is "I believe that God exists," which is pretty much tautological for the purposes of this conversation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, I figured I'd check my assertion on indeterminacy because it has been a bit. Here's what I pulled from wikipedia as the first google result for "non deterministic phenomena in physics":
quote:However, in the natural world the electrons normally remain in an uncertain, non-deterministic "smeared" (wave-particle wave function) orbital path around or "through" the nucleus, defying classical electromagnetism.[7]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Geraine,
"If humans evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?" (a form of your "why have apes stagnated?" question) is so ridiculous that it's become a bit of a running joke amongst those familiar with evolutionary theory.
It is a great example of the sort of dishonest/ignorant argument produced by creationist propagandists. They take a simple, informal factual statement, like "humans are descended from apes" and then point at a modern ape and say "See? We still have apes. If we evolved, why didn't they?" while ignoring (willfully?) the fact that the apes we evolved from were not the same species that we colloquially refer to as apes now. Heck, technically speaking humans are apes. It's a classification that refers to all hominoids.
Do you see why this argument isn't just wrong, it's meaningless?
A valid argument against the statement that humans are descended from apes would start by noting that the use of "apes" in this context is ambiguous. It would then follow this by noting that evolutionary theory actually says - that all modern hominoids share a common ancestor. Finally, it would show how available evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion of common ancestry. To do this, of course, one would have to be familiar with the rather broad evidence that is currently cited in support of that conclusion. This is obviously a bit more work than just repeating a talking point from a creationist web site, but as I recall your way isn't the easy way.
[ December 16, 2009, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Does that mean that man did NOT evolve from apes? Not necessarily. They very well could have! But right now, without sufficient and definitive evidence, it is only a theory that some have FAITH is true.
1. We didn't evolve from apes. Apes and humans share a close common ancestor.
2. In terms of what constitutes 'sufficient and definitive evidence,' evolution is right up there with, say, germ theory and plate tectonics and heliocentrism. We actually have more direct evidence of evolutionary theory than we have of most astronomical science, which infers most of its data and findings and makes its discoveries (like 'what is a neutron star?' or 'what is a magnetaur?') successfully through correlation.
Saying that evolution lacks definitive evidence is kind of an argumentative dead-end. I mean that as advice, really. The amount of evidence that exists is staggering. To claim that evidence is paltry enough to make it a matter of faith is an argumentative mistake that can, at best, lead to a drubbing in counterpoint.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:it's like asserting "a tree exists over there, but just for me."
But that can be true.
Certainly, subjective perception of the environment leads to unique conceptions, some of which even have objectively observable effects. Learned helplessness is probably the most classic example of this.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: So, I figured I'd check my assertion on indeterminacy because it has been a bit. Here's what I pulled from wikipedia as the first google result for "non deterministic phenomena in physics":
quote:However, in the natural world the electrons normally remain in an uncertain, non-deterministic "smeared" (wave-particle wave function) orbital path around or "through" the nucleus, defying classical electromagnetism.[7]
Urk. That's what happens when people try to explain physics without using math. Sorry, this is just wrong. There is no orbit, deterministic or otherwise. There is a wave function specifying the electron density at each point; the wave function develops according to the deterministic Schrödinger (or Dirac if you want relativistic effects) equation, which is a nice ordinary differential equation, no randomness. (Well, not necessarily nice in the sense of 'easily soluble', of course.)
You are now using Wiki hand-waving popular explanations to argue with math. I suggest that you're in a bit of a hole and the correct action is to stop digging.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But that can be true.
No, it can't. A tree exists or it does not. You may, in your own internal context, not be aware of the actual state of this hypothetical tree, but that does not affect the actual state of the tree in communal reality.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The adjective 'communal' is superfluous when attached to 'reality'.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You'd think so, but sometimes I need to use it to distinguish what's really "real" from what people insist is personally "real."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Either your god exists or it doesn't; to assert otherwise is madness.
For personal perceptual contexts this is obviously the case.
It is also entirely possible that it is ultimately the truth.
It's not madness. It's just not logical. That doesn't mean it isn't so. There are mature, meaningful philosophical systems that support A and !A both being true.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Nu, but aren't you then allowing them to frame the discussion by apparently admitting the existence of two separate realities? When your argument is that there is only one, you ought not to undermine it by your language.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Gerraine,
quote:I would contend that faith IS an experiment. Just as a scientist attempts to prove a theory, so to does the religious individual. They read, learn, and ponder the data. They come to their own conclusion whether it is true or not. It does not mean that another person will come to the same conclusion, but for that person it is true.
There's different types of experiments. What you are talking about can be said to be an experiment for some definitions of the world, but it is qualitatively different from proper scientific experiments.
There's a big word, epistemology, which pretty much means, what we can know we know. I think one of the big problems that people get into with pushing their philosophy, whether it be religious or strict materialism, is that they don't understand and very often far overstep the bounds of the relevant epistemologies. It sounds like you would likely benefit from learning more about science not as a series of statements that people in lab coats say, but as a system of thought, as a way of knowing what we can know.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Either your god exists or it doesn't; to assert otherwise is madness.
It's not madness. It's just not logical. That doesn't mean it isn't so. There are mature, meaningful philosophical systems that support A and !A both being true.
Ok, I can see your brain has rotted to the point where only Darwin can help. I challenge you to a duel. I'll give you an advantage: You can use a gun, while I'll use a sword. My sword, however, will be made using the axioms of physics; your gun should be made so that it both is and is not loaded.
This has the additional advantage of being an experimental life-after-death test for you; two experiments for the price of one, great in these times when the NSF is rather strapped. I'm sure we can get a grant.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:A tree exists or it does not.
I disagree that this is necessarily true. It's an axiom.
What you mean to say is that you believe that a tree exists or it does not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I disagree that this is necessarily true. It's an axiom.
Tell you what. You spend some time in the reality where it's not true, then come back and tell me what it was like. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I disagree that this is necessarily true. It's an axiom.
Tell you what. You spend some time in the reality where it's not true, then come back and tell me what it was like.
How could I tell? It is entirely possible that this is a reality where that is not true.
edit:
Like I said, whether religious or materialist, it is important to know what you actually can know and to not mistake you believing something with it actually being definitely true.
The irony for me being that in the areas that I'm most concerned with, I choose to structure such that believing something does make it true (with some really heavy qualifications on what believing something means).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I disagree that this is necessarily true. It's an axiom.
Tell you what. You spend some time in the reality where it's not true, then come back and tell me what it was like.
Dude, at this point, you've got two choices: Either assume they'll eventually get over it, or go for the duel. How old is comrade Squicky, anyway? Are we talking just out of college and still impressed by freshman philosophy classes, or is this an ingrained vice of an older man set in his ways?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Well, he could prove his epistemologically un-provable axioms, but even I, who can countenance a world where A being true does not necessarily mean that !A is false without going mad, am pretty sure that's impossible.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:A tree exists or it does not.
I disagree that this is necessarily true. It's an axiom.
You and epistemology have a strained relationship. I daresay it's even abusive.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Explain how?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The long and short of it is that I am amazed with the defensive mechanisms you rely on to desperately try not to have to back away from poorly postulated statements you have made regarding the nature of evidence.
The 'quantum trees' bit we seem to have wandered into as a result is just remarkable.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, you're saying that the statement a tree exists or does not (or rather the abstract formulation A is true means that !A is not true) is not an axiom?
Also, which poorly postulated statements would those be?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For my part, I'll freely concede that the statement "a statement cannot be simultaneously true and false in the same particulars" is axiomatic. You are welcome to demonstrate to me the failures of that axiom to properly model reality at your leisure, at which point I will gladly accept alternatives. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: So, you're saying that the statement a tree exists or does not (or rather the abstract formulation A is true means that !A is not true) is not an axiom?
No.
quote:Also, which poorly postulated statements would those be?
Here's a hint: they resulted in you essentially ragequitting a portion of this discussion.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
Here's how Webster's defines axiom:
quote:
1: a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit 2: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference 3: an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
So sure, the statement that a tree cannot exist for one person without simultaneously existing for everyone else is an axiom, and meets all 3 definitions. Why are you saying that like it's a bad thing... there's no way to prove is without having every individual in existence verify in the same instance that the tree exists, but pretty much *everyone* (prior to this thread I would have just said everyone) knows the tree doesn't blink off into neverneverland when you aren't there...
And if this statement wasn't generally accepted (thus axiomatic) one would never have to pay a tree trimmer or a landscaper etc... you'd just claim the tree doesn't exist in your "personal reality" and therefore they clearly haven't performed any service that require payment.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If God exists in any way that is meaningful, science can study God. It is only the non-meaningful things that science cannot study.
quote:Define meaningful.
quote:Has a perceptible effect.
If God resurrected Christ from the dead 2,000 years ago and if that event triggered the rise of Christianity, then it would be correct to say that event had a huge perceptible effect on the course of history and future events. However, it is also true that science cannot directly study the resurrection of Christ because it is not repeatable. Therefore, it is not true that science can study anything that has a perceptible effect.
The same could be said for countless one-time events. Hitler's 10th birthday party may have dramatically altered history in some way, but there's no way under the scientific method to go back and study what sort of perceptible effect it had. Repeatability is a requirement in science, and that requirement limits what it can study.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However, it is also true that science cannot directly study the resurrection of Christ because it is not repeatable.
It cannot directly study it, of course. But presumably there are indirect methods of study which can provide valuable information.
Unlike religious epistemology, mind you, which doesn't even have indirect methods available to it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have to admit, I was surprised when I opened this thread to see KoM, Tom, and Samprimary arguing against Mr. Squicky on something.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
An indirect study of the resurrection of Christ IS an indirect study of religious epistemology; if science has evidence that the resurrection happened, it has indirect evidence that God probably exists....
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:An indirect study of the resurrection of Christ IS an indirect study of religious epistemology...
Indeed. And what that study tells us is that religious epistemology is pretty much worthless.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, if science finds evidence of a resurrection, then science has found evidence that resurrection exists for some unknown reason.
As you have always done over the years, you are thinking as someone who clearly believes that everyone in the world is dying to believe in God, only if they can be given a good enough excuse. But faith in God is not a default mode of thinking, and if it is a default mode of thinking for some, that in itself is not good evidence of its efficacy.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:An indirect study of the resurrection of Christ IS an indirect study of religious epistemology...
Indeed. And what that study tells us is that religious epistemology is pretty much worthless.
Regardless of what the study tells us... If we are including "indirect study of X" as meaning that X is within the sphere of science, then religious epistemology, including God's existence, would be within the sphere of science. If we don't include "indirect study of X" as meaning that X is within the sphere of science, it is clear that there are many things (particularly in history) that have perceptible effects which are not within the sphere of science. Thus, it's our choice: Either science cannot study everything with a perceptible effect, or science can study religious epistemology.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:religious epistemology, including God's existence, would be within the sphere of science
Not quite. I see now we had a failure of communication; a scientific study of the historical data of the Ressurrection counts as an indirect assessment of religious epistemology -- but it is not, however, informed by religious epistemology.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Or, more concretely: That the scientific method can be used to judge the effectiveness of revelation and prophecy does not mean that revelation or prophecy produce data in accordance with the scientific method. However, that could follow from a thorough and favorable scientific assessment of revelation and prophecy.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If God resurrected Christ from the dead 2,000 years ago and if that event triggered the rise of Christianity, then it would be correct to say that event had a huge perceptible effect on the course of history and future events.
So you would argue thusly:
"If a woman committed witchcraft on a baby, and that event cause the woman to be executed, then it would be correct to say that her witchcraft had a perceptible effect on the world."
Do you see the problem here? The argument assumes that witchcraft is real, but it's not. People may wrongly believe it's real, and do perceptible harm based on it, but witchcraft is still make-believe. Imaginary things don't actually do anything in the world. It's only people's belief in them, and the actions that flow from those totally wrong beliefs that have effects.
quote:However, it is also true that science cannot directly study the resurrection of Christ because it is not repeatable. Therefore, it is not true that science can study anything that has a perceptible effect.
Again, are you arguing that witchcraft has a perceptible effect? Why can't science study witchcraft?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Not quite. I see now we had a failure of communication; a scientific study of the historical data of the Ressurrection counts as an indirect assessment of religious epistemology -- but it is not, however, informed by religious epistemology.
That's what I meant as well. You're saying that science could potentially offer an assessment of questions like "does God exist?"
quote:Again, are you arguing that witchcraft has a perceptible effect? Why can't science study witchcraft?
No, I'm not arguing anything about witchcraft. Although IF witchcraft had a perceptible effect, it seems like science could study it in the way Tom is suggesting.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You're saying that science could potentially offer an assessment of questions like "does God exist?"
I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking whether science can evaluate the question, or offer an answer to it?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:No, I'm not arguing anything about witchcraft. Although IF witchcraft had a perceptible effect, it seems like science could study it in the way Tom is suggesting.
Well then, what is the difference between witchcraft and the resurrection of Jesus?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: Well for one thing Jesus didn't use eye of newt.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Again, are you arguing that witchcraft has a perceptible effect? Why can't science study witchcraft?
No, I'm not arguing anything about witchcraft.
You do this all the time. You make a general argument, I point out a specific negative consequence of that argument, and then you say "Oh, I wasn't talking about that specific thing". Well, my examples are pertinant, and you can't ever explain why they are not. They are unpleasant to you, I know. But honesty demands that you accept them, refute them, or concede that the underlying reasoning you presented is flawed.
I took your argument, nearly word for word, and made a small number of substitutions, leaving your essential reasoning intact. So, do you accept your own argument, or not? I'll do it again, keeping closer to your exact wording:
"If a woman made a baby sick with witchcraft, and if that event caused the woman to be executed, then it would be correct to say that event (her use of witchcraft to make a baby sick) had a perceptible effect the course of history and future events."
What do you think of the soundness and usefullness of this argument? Remember, the whole point of the discussion is how to figure out whether a particular thing exists or not. What does this argument tell you about the reality of the event in question (the use of witchcraft to make a baby ill)?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking whether science can evaluate the question, or offer an answer to it?
(1) You said science can study the Resurrection (indirectly) (2) I think it's fairly safe to assume (unless you disagree) that learning the Resurrection happened (and whether it happened like the Bible says it did) would be considered a significant material piece of evidence regarding God's existence or at least the afterlife. Given these two things, I'm thinking it sounds like it follows that science could, in such a case, offer material evidence that would to some degree imply an answer to the question of whether God exists. I just want to clarify if you agree or not.
quote:Well then, what is the difference between witchcraft and the resurrection of Jesus?
For the purpose of this example, they'd both work just as well, so I'm not really asserting a difference here.
quote:You do this all the time. You make a general argument, I point out a specific negative consequence of that argument, and then you say "Oh, I wasn't talking about that specific thing".
That's because the specific consequence you propose almost never follows from any argument I'm actually making. Usually it follows from some argument you've put in my mouth that I don't agree with.
In this case, I'm not arguing about what does or does not in fact have perceptible effects. So I am not taking a position on whether witchcraft does or does not have a perceptible effect.
What I am discussing is: Does Tom believe that IF something has a perceptible effect THEN can science always study it? I asked him specifically about an example of the Resurrection to test if this is true. My best guess he'd give the same answers about witchcraft, but he'd need to be the one to answer whether that example is any different in his view.
In regards to the part you modified word for word from me: "If a woman made a baby sick with witchcraft, and if that event caused the woman to be executed, then it would be correct to say that event (her use of witchcraft to make a baby sick) had a perceptible effect the course of history and future events." Yes, I'd agree that IF this was true THEN it had a perceptible effect. Note that this does not imply that witchcraft in fact has perceptible effects, just as my original argument did not imply that the Resurrection definitely did happen.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well then: Yes, science can indeed study the existence of the Christian god in the manner you describe, by trying to figure out whether the Resurrection occurred or not.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
KoM,
You say that we should not take anything Thomas Huxley said seriously as he lived in 1895, yet you do not provide any examples of modern evolutionists stating he was wrong. Religion aside evolution does interest me, so if you know of any information that contradicts Thomas Huxley, I would appreciate it. I am one that believes in both God and evolution. I can try to explain why I think they can mesh if you wish.
One thing. As efficient as the brain is, not one of us uses it to its full capacity. What useful survival skills did music and mathematical ability give to our hunter ancestors? Some could argue they didn't evolve for those purposes and were adapted for other purposes. What would those purposes have been? Why did man not develope things such as enhanced smell, improved hearing or vision? What rival caused intellectual ability to be so essential for our species to survive?
Even Darwin's own partner Alfred Wallace debated that there was some "unknown spiritual element" that accounted for mans artistic and scientific abilities.
Again, discount what Wallace said, I know he was just some old guy that really didn't know what was going on. Let's just discount everything Richard Dawkins has said on the subject while we are at it. Afterall, the man is 68 years old. That is ancient.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
KOM: Well, only if you assume that the existence of the Resurrection is diagnostic of the existence of God.
Also, there seems to be some conflation of two different questions going on here.
(a) Can a scientific approach can be applied to historical study (i.e. "Did that specific supernova happen?")? (b) Can we use what we know about particular events to draw greater conclusions about the universe (i.e. "Do supernovas exist at all?")?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:You say that we should not take anything Thomas Huxley said seriously as he lived in 1895, yet you do not provide any examples of modern evolutionists stating he was wrong.
Geraine, you continue to conflate what scientists say with what science says. Any given scientist can spout off about anything, but informal quotes, while potentially informative, are not authoritative.
Just for fun, I Googled your Huxley quote. It only shows up a handful of times, always on creationist sites. Big surprise. Since none of those sites provide an attribution for the quote, other than saying that Huxley said it, I can't even tell if it's a real quote.
In any case, science isn't about who has better quotes. If you want us to take that quote seriously then cite research that supports it. It's so vague as to be virtually impossible to support or refute. How are "large" and "major" defined in that context? And even with rigid definitions, how seriously do we take the musing of a person who was only familiar with a fraction of the current evolutionary evidence and who didn't even know about the structure of DNA. Huxley was even a skeptic of natural selection, a cornerstone of modern evolutionary science.
If you want to argue against modern science you've got to have at least a passing familiarity with it. Reading 100-years-dead scientists on creationist websites is not the best way to go about that.
[ December 17, 2009, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
You say that we should not take anything Thomas Huxley said seriously as he lived in 1895, yet you do not provide any examples of modern evolutionists stating he was wrong.
We should straighten a few things out early, to save everyone some grief:
1) Compared to the the body of professional biologists who work with evolutionary theories routinely, how much biology knowledge do you possess?
2) How much agreement do you think there is between what you think the valid conclusions of the facts of biology are, and what professional biologists think the valid conclusions are?
Think carefully.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Geraine: if you feel unable to come up with search terms that would let you check what modern understanding of the rates Huxley was talking about is, I suggest you do searches for things like "rate of speciation".
For instance, on the first page of that search you can find this article:
It estimates that there's an entire genus around 10 million years old, with numerous species inside of it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You say that we should not take anything Thomas Huxley said seriously as he lived in 1895, yet you do not provide any examples of modern evolutionists stating he was wrong.
No, I relied on you understanding that science does tend to advance over a period of a century, and to look it up yourself. Further, you are trying to argue by cherry-picked authority, which in itself demonstrates that you do not understand how serious discussion works; and to then pick an authority of a hundred years ago piles thoughtlessness on top of ignorance.
Nonetheless, an experiment demonstrating rapid evolution. I particularly draw your attention to these paragraphs:
quote:Darwin thought that evolution proceeded only at a glacial pace, and thus that its workings would be evident only after thousands of years. This view persisted for more than a century, and led to the widespread notion that evolution could be studied only through the lens of a historian. Recent years, however, have revealed that Darwin got this one wrong: Given strong enough selection, evolution can occur extremely rapidly, not only over the course of a scientist's career but even over the course of a few years (Reznick et al. 1997,Grant and Grant 2002).
Note particularly how Darwin's view is held to be thousands of years, not Huxley's millions; and how even this is contradicted by modern results.
quote:Even Darwin's own partner Alfred Wallace debated that there was some "unknown spiritual element" that accounted for mans artistic and scientific abilities.
Again with the quote mining of eighteenth-century scientists! Look, these people were at the cutting edge in their time, but science has advanced. We now know things that would have shocked the pants off Darwin and Wallace. You cannot hold a serious discussion of evolution based only on the opinions of these gentlemen; even their actual facts have to be checked with some care. And even if their knowledge was up to date, what's with the appeal to authority? "X held opinion Y" is meaningless; either give his argument for Y, or don't mention it at all.
I notice that you did not respond to the point I made about ape evolution. Once more, this is classic creationist tactics: You simply ignore any point where you have been effectively refuted. You claim to be interested in learning; to demonstrate your honesty on the point - and yes, that is necessary, because the well has been so poisoned by dishonest scum that the good faith of a creationist cannot be assumed; rather the opposite - kindly acknowledge that you were laboring under a misconception, now corrected, and that you will adjust your beliefs accordingly.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
MattP,
You have just stated "how seriously do we take the musing of a person who was only familiar with a fraction of the current evolutionary evidence and who didn't even know about the structure of DNA."
So you admit that as science progresses, new things can be discovered. That is fine. In another 100 years, can you tell me what will be discovered? For all we know everything we know about certain scientific beliefs could be completely debunked by new research. As technology and scientific understanding increase, would it not be possible to prove things that are as of right now not possible to prove? The existence of a being greater than us perhaps?
Swbarnes, to answer your questions:
1) I have never professed to be a biologist nor be an expert on the subject.
2) I agree with their explanations to a certain extent. To say I agree with what is considered "fact" just because a most agree to it would be faulty. I believe they make the most educated decision based on their current understanding.
As far as the Resurrection is concerned, Huxley did try to explain that one, I wasn't able to find anyone else. By the way, my information didn't come off of a creationist website MattP. It came from his actual texts, most of which can be found very easily. Here is a link to his essay on the resurrection. Next time I suggest you not jump to conclusions.
He attempts to explain how Jesus' body could have been in a state of somatic death rather than molecular death. I found it pretty interesting.
KoM, do you profess that mankind knows everything there is to know in this universe, that we are the most intelligent life in this universe, and that no other life form exists that could possibly be more advanced than us?
Do I believe God exists? Yes, I do. Do I believe he is like the modern interpretation of what God is? Nope, not at all. God is what man may become one day. He has reached a point in His intellectuality that he knows all, sees all, and can create. I suppose you can call that evolution. So I will go ahead and do what you asked KoM. I hereby proclaim that I am a believer in evolution! Are you happy?
I am going to say here that I hope no one has been offended by anything I have typed. I enjoy debating, even though I will admit my arguments are not always the strongest. I really do appreciate your viewpoints and I do learn from them. There has been times in the past where I feel I have learned a great deal from posts some of you have typed, and I thank you for that.
So even though this Mormon conservative office worker may annoy the hell out of you sometimes, he appreciates you putting up with him and bringing him a little excitement when work gets dull.
[ December 17, 2009, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Geraine ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Could you link to (and quote) the piece from his actual texts talking about the rate of speciation?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I hope no one has been offended by anything I have typed.
Then your hope is vain; I find statements of the form "X is true for me" extremely offensive.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:So you admit that as science progresses, new things can be discovered. That is fine. In another 100 years, can you tell me what will be discovered?
I can tell you that even 100 years ago scientists recognized that evolution had taken place and had just started to hypothesize on the mechanisms by which it had occurred. We now have 100 more years of research that has continued to support common descent as the explanation for the diversity of species and we even understand many of the mechanism by which it happens. The question of evolution is solved as much as the question of gravity causing bodies to be attracted to one another is solved. New research is not going to show that, oops, the Earth is actually repelled from the Sun. Similarly, new research is not going to show that, oops, we don't share a common ancestor with other apes.
Yes, science can be wrong, but just because it has occasionally been wrong in specifics, it's not appropriate to jump to the conclusion that its likely to be wrong in the fundamentals, particularly with the current level of sophistication. Additionally, on the occasions when science got it wrong, it was other scientists that found and corrected the problems when the data didn't stand up to scrutiny, not theologians who had philosophical problems with the conclusions of science.
quote:By the way, my information didn't come off of a creationist website MattP. It came from his actual texts, most of which can be found very easily. Here is a link to his essay on the resurrection. Next time I suggest you not jump to conclusions.
Great. Show me the website containing your earlier quote then. The only Google hits are creationist web sites and a single Google book hit which would only be reachable if you were already searching for the phrase (or another on the same page). That book, BTW, says Huxley said it, but doesn't name the publication in which the quote appears. I'd love to be able to read the context in which the quote appears and would be grateful if you could provide the link to the Huxley text in which it appears.
quote:So even though this Mormon conservative office worker may annoy the hell out of you sometimes
I wish such things didn't matter, but you do realize, I hope, that the LDS Church does not take an official position against evolution and the biologists in the Church's employ at BYU have no quarrel with evolutionary theory.
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Swbarnes, to answer your questions:
1) I have never professed to be a biologist nor be an expert on the subject.
2) I agree with their explanations to a certain extent. To say I agree with what is considered "fact" just because a most agree to it would be faulty. I believe they make the most educated decision based on their current understanding.
You missed an important part of my question which is "How well do you think your understand the modern understanding of the theory of evolution?" Your question about ape evolution suggest that you don't know much at all, but it's important to know if you acknowledge this.
For instance, it's likely that some of the things you think modern scientists hold as facts" are in fact completely rejected by science.
And then there are the real conflicts, in which case you have to ask yourself, who is more likely to be right, someone who admits they are no expert, that they are not very familiar with the available data, or the large group of people who are experts, having spent most of their adult life learning the facts and how to analyze them?
If you insist that the answer should be the non-expert, because the non-expert is you...well, you can't expect that to be convincing, can you?
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)