Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,164 Year: 5,421/9,624 Month: 446/323 Week: 86/204 Day: 2/26 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   THE EVOLUTIONISTS' GUIDE TO PROPER CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR
nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 63 of 120 (30825)
01-31-2003 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Satcomm
01-30-2003 3:19 PM


Why do you disagree with the ToE?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Satcomm, posted 01-30-2003 3:19 PM Satcomm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Satcomm, posted 01-31-2003 11:45 AM nator has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5982 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 64 of 120 (30832)
01-31-2003 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Satcomm
01-30-2003 3:19 PM


Hi satcomm,
Although schraf beat me to it, I would also like to hear which parts of the ToE you don't like and why? (might be better in a different thread, but you'd could give a couple of "whyfores" and we could talk about 'em).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Satcomm, posted 01-30-2003 3:19 PM Satcomm has not replied

Satcomm
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 120 (30848)
01-31-2003 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by nator
01-31-2003 9:53 AM


quote:
Why do you disagree with the ToE?
We've briefly discussed this before in the Intelligent Design forum.
Also, I understand that we need to be careful about which definition of ToE we use, since there are many.
If we're talking about macro-evolution/origin of the species, I maintain a healthy skepticism on the matter. I do this to keep an open mind to alternate possibilities and conflicting evidence.
I'm no scientist, so I don't feel comfortable debating specific scientific observations and experiments out of ignorance. Instead I use things like this forum as a source of information.
------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by nator, posted 01-31-2003 9:53 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 01-31-2003 12:10 PM Satcomm has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22687
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 66 of 120 (30851)
01-31-2003 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Satcomm
01-31-2003 11:45 AM


Satcomm writes:
Also, I understand that we need to be careful about which definition of ToE we use, since there are many.
Someone else also said this in another thread, or maybe it was you, I don't remember. Anyway, I think it's been explained that there is only one definition of the ToE: descent with modification through natural selection.
Different people here will use different words to describe the ToE (the above words happen to be Darwin's), but they are all describing the same theory.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Satcomm, posted 01-31-2003 11:45 AM Satcomm has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Philip, posted 02-02-2003 1:48 AM Percy has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4833 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 67 of 120 (31017)
02-02-2003 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
01-31-2003 12:10 PM


Great definition (and scientific) until generalized beyond empirical cause-effect relationships. Problems arise with utterly falacious usage of the ToE when applying micro-evolution to mega-ToE's ... i.e., on stellar and biological levels ...
At this point I think we'd all agree our scientific definition ostensibly begs metaphysical assistance to explain: the gaps, missing links/chains, first cause(s), entropic effects barriers, kinds, immensities, harmonies, symetries, proportions, and other empirical excellencies we observe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 01-31-2003 12:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by nator, posted 02-02-2003 9:25 AM Philip has not replied
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 02-02-2003 10:15 AM Philip has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 68 of 120 (31027)
02-02-2003 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Philip
02-02-2003 1:48 AM


quote:
Great definition (and scientific) until generalized beyond empirical cause-effect relationships.
What other kinds of relationships can you observe other than emperical, Philip?
quote:
Problems arise with utterly falacious usage of the ToE when applying micro-evolution to mega-ToE's ... i.e., on stellar and biological levels ...
Examples from nature, please.
quote:
At this point I think we'd all agree our scientific definition ostensibly begs metaphysical assistance to explain: the gaps,
God of the Gaps? We don't have perfect knowledge, so Godidit?
Are you STILL hanging on to this fallacy?
quote:
missing links/chains,
Define "missing links/chains", please.
quote:
first cause(s),
Since the Theory of Evolution deals with how life changed after it first appeared, and not how the ftrst life got here, this is a strawman.
Philip, you keep embarrasing yourself by getting these basic facts wrong.
quote:
entropic effects barriers,
Please define "entropic effects barriers."
quote:
kinds,
Please define "kinds".
quote:
immensities,
Please define, "emmensities" as it relates to the ToE.
quote:
harmonies,
Please define "harmonies" as it relates to the ToE.
quote:
symetries,
Please define "symetries" as it relates to the ToE.
quote:
proportions,
Please define "proportions" as it relates to the ToE.
quote:
and other empirical excellencies we observe.
Once again, Philip, you use an awful lot of words to say something largely deviod of content.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Philip, posted 02-02-2003 1:48 AM Philip has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22687
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 69 of 120 (31038)
02-02-2003 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Philip
02-02-2003 1:48 AM


Phillip writes:
Great definition (and scientific) until generalized beyond empirical cause-effect relationships. Problems arise with utterly falacious usage of the ToE when applying micro-evolution to mega-ToE's ... i.e., on stellar and biological levels ...
I'd just be guessing what this means. If you want to be clearer or more specific I'd be glad to respond.
In the meantime, I think you may be going beyond the scope of what I was saying. Satcomm said there are many definitions of the ToE, and I was only pointing out that no matter what words are used to describe the ToE, there is only one ToE.
At this point I think we'd all agree our scientific definition ostensibly begs metaphysical assistance to explain: the gaps, missing links/chains, first cause(s), entropic effects barriers, kinds, immensities, harmonies, symetries, proportions, and other empirical excellencies we observe.
As Shraf has already observed, this is the God of the Gaps fallacy. The fallacy is obvious if you reflect a bit on the history of science. You can pick any point in the development of scientific knowledge, point to knowledge gaps that existed at that time, and declaim, "Here be God!"
A good example of the God of the Gaps fallacy is the motion of the planets around the sun. At one time science had no explanation for this, and it was believed the planets were propelled by the wind from the beating of angel's wings. Today we know that the planets are merely following the laws of physics.
Given the large number of phenomena once attributed to God that now have natural scientific explanations, what gives you any confidence that those things you attribute to God today won't be explained by science tomorrow?
YECs take an interesting approach to this problem. They take phenomena that science explained yesterday and attribute them to God anyway.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Philip, posted 02-02-2003 1:48 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Philip, posted 02-02-2003 10:12 PM Percy has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4833 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 70 of 120 (31088)
02-02-2003 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Percy
02-02-2003 10:15 AM


...(To Schraf, too) (...I know I jumped in like a true lurker so please don't sidetrack your original discourse(s))
...We've been on this topic before (many times), trying to distinguish micro from macro/mega evolution which Evo's unconvincingly slew together as one.
From my meager bias and logic: Existential empiricism (the viewpoint I percieve you are coming from (correct me if I'm wrong)) utterly fails to explain the aforementioned "gaps", gaps of which science itself admits are existent ... hence the black box we study.
Some of the gaps admittingly have incredible evolutionary hypotheses to explain their mega ToE(s). But, alas these hypotheses are a gross violation of probability statistics for the most part that I have percieved.
Consider:
1) The atheist (i.e., you and Schraf) becomes forced, in a humble yet dogmatic manner, to hypothesize existential science in his or her all-too-limited understanding of science. As such, he or she quickly cites the fallacies you cited.
2) The agnostic (if there be such a thing) and/or the theistic-Evo is completely wishy-washy, existential one minute and/or godditit the next. His/her motives (scientific?!#) do not seem worth elaborating on this forum (to me).
3) The redemptionist (if you will) is completely godditit, usually in a YEC mannner. He cannot except that universal decay spontaneously yields harmony, symmetry, and/or proportion ... let alone life forms.
Many Christians (little-Christs) in their behavior, are redemptionists (#3). They view science gaps as surreal black-holes, sucking-up all existential light, lofty-reason, proud paradigms, filthy imaginations of human nature, so-called empirical veracities, and so forth.
You know what your gaps are Schraf and Percy. Science admits them and you do in your consciences. I've got gaps in my YEC faith and science just like you do in your Evo schemes. Albeit, my own gap dissonances are narrowed to the first 2 chapters of Genesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 02-02-2003 10:15 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by nator, posted 02-03-2003 11:19 AM Philip has not replied
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 02-03-2003 12:09 PM Philip has replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 120 (31107)
02-03-2003 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by nator
01-30-2003 10:25 AM


I feel it is the safe thing to respond using your own words, and simply insert your name in place of the person you responded to.......["Once again, Schraf, you use an awful lot of words to say something largely devoid of content"].......and I must ask you, again, using your own words, if you admit that ["We don't have perfect knowledge"], then why is it that God could not have done it but evolution could have?
Please do not use the "evidence" argument. One need not be a scientist to see the wonderous design inherent in all living things. Even given the time frame that evolutionists favor, evolution is a poor excuse for an explanation as to the enormous complexity of even the most simple of life forms, let alone the existance of mankind.
So I ask you the same question you asked Phillip.......["Are you STILL hanging on to this (evolution did it) fallacy?"]
Finally, these last two quotes of yours, which dovetail together quite nicely considering your following statement, ["your accusation that I had spammed your Creationist research "institute" with snail mail"] to which I can only respond, again using your own words, ["why Schraf, do you keep embarrasing yourself by getting these basic facts wrong."] Please be kind enough to reference the exact post where I accused you of this.
Aside from your and Percivals' obvious disdain for me, not to mention your disdain for those who, unlike you, have not abandoned their Bible based Christian faith to follow what they must surely perceive as being akin to an unbelievers fairy tale, perhaps you could help lead this forum back into its' intended parameters which should be quite obvious, given the forums' title.
Shalom
Jet
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nator, posted 01-30-2003 10:25 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by nator, posted 02-03-2003 11:12 AM Jet has replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 120 (31108)
02-03-2003 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by nator
01-30-2003 9:30 AM


You can't believe it? I am considering having Percival or some other moderator conduct an investigation to find the culprit who is using Schrafs' identity.
As to your wind analogy, if you were discussing weather patterns, then you may have better ground to stand on. However, wind is not a prerequisite for the operation of an aerodynamically designed vehicle. The absense of winds blowing across the tarmac at the airport does not dictate the ability of the laws of aerodynamics to function, or not function, properly. When discussing aerodynamics, wind and air flow are two entirely different subjects. One, air flow, is a neccessity to the proper function of the laws of aerodynamics. The other, wind, can be either beneficial or a detriment, but is not a neccessity to aerodynamic function. I am not a scientist nor am I a pilot, but I do understand that a plane can still take-off, fly, and land on a windless day.
Shalom
Jet
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by nator, posted 01-30-2003 9:30 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 02-03-2003 10:35 AM Jet has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22687
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 73 of 120 (31124)
02-03-2003 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Jet
02-03-2003 3:18 AM


Jet writes:
As to your wind analogy, if you were discussing weather patterns, then you may have better ground to stand on. However, wind is not a prerequisite for the operation of an aerodynamically designed vehicle.
Schraf was using an analogy to explain why requiring evolution to explain abiogenesis makes no sense, saying:
schraf writes:
Do you likewise criticize the study of aerodynamics because it does not explain where wind comes from?
Perhaps her point becomes more clear if you replace the word "wind" with "air". A similar analogy would be to ask, "Do you likewise criticize chemistry because it does not explain where elements came from?"
Evolution is a theory of how species change over time into new species. It is not a theory of where the first species came from.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Jet, posted 02-03-2003 3:18 AM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by nator, posted 02-03-2003 11:21 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 105 by Jet, posted 02-06-2003 11:24 PM Percy has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 74 of 120 (31128)
02-03-2003 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Jet
02-03-2003 2:49 AM


quote:
One need not be a scientist to see the wonderous design inherent in all living things. Even given the time frame that evolutionists favor, evolution is a poor excuse for an explanation as to the enormous complexity of even the most simple of life forms, let alone the existance of mankind.
Just aren't in the mood to answer direct question, are you?
I'll try again.
How can we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we don't understand yet, or do not have the ability to understand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Jet, posted 02-03-2003 2:49 AM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Jet, posted 02-06-2003 11:11 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 75 of 120 (31129)
02-03-2003 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Philip
02-02-2003 10:12 PM


So how do we tell the difference between a God-made gap and a gap in our knowledge that is there because we simply don't understand yet, or maybe don't have the capacity to understand?
BTW, you listed a whole bunch of undefined and unexplained terms as "evidence" for why the ToE doesn't work. I asked for examples and clarification, yet you offer none at all.
If you don't know, or are not willing to share, what any of those terms you used mean, then why use them in the first place? They are meaningless if you are unable to explain how they actually throw doubt on the ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Philip, posted 02-02-2003 10:12 PM Philip has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 76 of 120 (31130)
02-03-2003 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
02-03-2003 10:35 AM


I have no doubts whatsoever that Jet understands my analogy perfectly.
He is trying to wriggle out from under it so he won't have to admit that the was wrong about something; namely, that the ToE doesn't cover how life got here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 02-03-2003 10:35 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Jet, posted 02-06-2003 10:53 PM nator has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22687
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 77 of 120 (31139)
02-03-2003 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Philip
02-02-2003 10:12 PM


Phillip writes:
...We've been on this topic before (many times), trying to distinguish micro from macro/mega evolution which Evo's unconvincingly slew together as one.
Make your case, then, for how it is unconvincing. You can walk from New York to San Francisco one little step at a time. You can wear down a mountain to a plain a grain of sand at a time. Small changes gradually accumulate into large changes. Why do you think this isn't true for evolution?
From my meager bias and logic: Existential empiricism (the viewpoint I percieve you are coming from (correct me if I'm wrong)) utterly fails to explain the aforementioned "gaps", gaps of which science itself admits are existent ... hence the black box we study.
You're just restating your initial premise, and my reply is the same. Given the large number of phenomena once attributed to God that now have natural scientific explanations, what gives you any confidence that those things you attribute to God today won't be explained by science tomorrow?
1) The atheist (i.e., you and Schraf)...
I'm a theist.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Philip, posted 02-02-2003 10:12 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Satcomm, posted 02-03-2003 4:23 PM Percy has replied
 Message 79 by Philip, posted 02-03-2003 7:54 PM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024