Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,121 Year: 5,378/9,624 Month: 403/323 Week: 43/204 Day: 19/24 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   THE EVOLUTIONISTS' GUIDE TO PROPER CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR
wj
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 120 (31630)
02-07-2003 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Philip
02-07-2003 12:40 AM


Good, I'll ignore you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Philip, posted 02-07-2003 12:40 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Philip, posted 02-10-2003 12:35 AM wj has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5981 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 110 of 120 (31640)
02-07-2003 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Philip
02-06-2003 12:55 AM


Actually, looking back at my response to your utterly pointless cut-and-past from six months ago - which at the time you even stated you didn't agree with - I reiterate my challenge that you pick one or two to defend. Otherwise my refusal to discuss some idiocy that you didn't even write and weren't willing to defend is completely pointless rather than "handwaving".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Philip, posted 02-06-2003 12:55 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Philip, posted 02-10-2003 12:51 AM Quetzal has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5981 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 111 of 120 (31641)
02-07-2003 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Philip
02-07-2003 12:40 AM


quote:
WI, Quetzel is rhetorical and boasts a little knowledge, and for what? To ignore us handwavers (if there be such a thing)? To handwave out the handwaver with sinuous bias? You don't need to follow erroneous men, Quetzel and/or myself. Quetzel may still be repeatedly asserting all proteins are enzymes, and hence graft in subtle twists (fatal fallacies) against the IC/ID parameters. This is bad science, evilution.
Don't make Quetzel or me your hero. Please, think for yourself. I respect and cherish your words (and Quetzel's) and hope you expose my errors, bigotries, redemptive insights, or whatever, add a little bias to, fall short a little. I realize I picked a bad author but he (more crudely than you and less crudely than I) at least tried to give a detailed list of scientific gaps. (Ya gotta give him some kado)
Note Joe T's remarks are strong rebuttals; original and thoughtful rebuttals indeed; he is excellent at exposing my hypocracies, neuroses, psychoses, slanders, and/or errors, as Quetzel once was, till he went the way of John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind" (just kidding)
And with this final ad hominem insulting little mud-sling from the second-most-incomprehensible poster on this forum, my rebuttal reads: blow it out your cloaca.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Philip, posted 02-07-2003 12:40 AM Philip has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22680
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 112 of 120 (31789)
02-09-2003 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Philip
02-05-2003 11:06 PM


Philip writes:
I don't expect you to really debate any of these, just let you know gaps of scientific credulity exist as a problem for a mega-ToE model as based on your micro-ToE model (as you defined a couple days back).
Okay, it's up to you. I thought focusing on a single "gap" might make clear the fallacy under which you're operating. Since you don't want to choose one, I will. How about the one about the theoretical constants of our universe being just right for life? Change any one of them by the scantest amount and life couldn't exist.
How is this an argument against evolution? It isn't even biology, it's physics. And it applies equally to all sciences. Change any of these constants and physics and chemistry would no longer work, and our universe as we know couldn't even exist.
So why don't we focus on something closer to the Creation/Evolution discussion? It really isn't possible to argue against your general assertion of "the gaps invalidate the mega-ToE model". Pick a gap related to evolution so we can understand what you're getting at.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Philip, posted 02-05-2003 11:06 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Philip, posted 02-10-2003 1:35 AM Percy has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4831 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 113 of 120 (31821)
02-10-2003 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by wj
02-07-2003 1:14 AM


Go ahead and try to ignore me. Quetzel tried and look at him now. Are you sure you're not Quetzel?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by wj, posted 02-07-2003 1:14 AM wj has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4831 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 114 of 120 (31824)
02-10-2003 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Quetzal
02-07-2003 2:55 AM


Quetzel, Your response is incoherent (gargled) to me. (So is your next post.) If you're trying to get back at me for your "all proteins are enzymes" fallacy, please don't. None of us are perfect on this forum (least of all myself).
Else follow Percy's rebuttal. We can start from scratch, hopefully on a friendly less-self-righteous-intimidating note. I'll try to do the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Quetzal, posted 02-07-2003 2:55 AM Quetzal has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4831 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 115 of 120 (31830)
02-10-2003 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Percy
02-09-2003 2:03 PM


You stated:
"Okay, it's up to you. I thought focusing on a single "gap" might make clear the fallacy under which you're operating. Since you don't want to choose one, I will.
--Oh all right, I'll focus on just one, since you make it seem that perhaps by ONE all the others stand or fall ... but in the knowledge that this is beating around the bush(es) of gaps in our science(s) ... and doesn't really prove my point that: gaps are problems for empiricists.
"How about the one about the theoretical constants of our universe being just right for life? Change any one of them by the scantest amount and life couldn't exist."
--Seems like a fair one to choose.
"How is this an argument against evolution? It isn't even biology, it's physics. And it applies equally to all sciences. ... Change any of these constants and physics and chemistry would no longer work, and our universe as we know couldn't even exist."
--Why might you and everyone have to have biology in the equation of stellar evolution? But, yes, its science. And evolution by your definition is also science, agreed.
--(I may be missing the point here)
"So why don't we focus on something closer to the Creation/Evolution discussion? It really isn't possible to argue against your general assertion of "the gaps invalidate the mega-ToE model". Pick a gap related to evolution so we can understand what you're getting at."
--Great Percipient! Now you just through the ball back at me!
--Now what is the fallacy (by which I am operating) that you just made clear??:
Overgeneralization? God-of-the-gaps? Seeing the forest-SANS-the-trees? (Doubtless I'm guilty of all these to varying extents)
--I don't wish to get into too many science details and traps any more. These only beg the question of finiteness.
--Percy, My point again is simply: Both stellar and biological evolution have gaps that make a mega-ToE model difficult if not impossible to postulate, let alone theorize.
--On the biological end for example, it would be unscientific and unethical for me to tell my patient(s) he/she has a cavus (arched) foot due to an evolutionary advantage of running with higher arches in primate forefathers. Now a mega-ToE of this sort contains many stinky scientific gaps. A plaintiff lawyer might have a heyday if I surgically correct flat-feet while citing such ToE logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Percy, posted 02-09-2003 2:03 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Percy, posted 02-10-2003 8:23 AM Philip has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22680
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 116 of 120 (31849)
02-10-2003 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Philip
02-10-2003 1:35 AM


Philip writes:
Oh all right, I'll focus on just one, since you make it seem that perhaps by ONE all the others stand or fall...
Actually I've been getting the feeling that we have different conceptions of what constitutes a "gap", and I was hoping for clarification by way of example.
Philip writes:
Why might you and everyone have to have biology in the equation of stellar evolution?
I don't, so it sounds like we agree. I was just offering one item from the list you provided in Message 22 in the Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ? thread.
Philip writes:
On the biological end for example, it would be unscientific and unethical for me to tell my patient(s) he/she has a cavus (arched) foot due to an evolutionary advantage of running with higher arches in primate forefathers. Now a mega-ToE of this sort contains many stinky scientific gaps.
As I suspected, we're talking about different types of gaps. The type of gap you mention here is without significance relative to the validity of evolutionary theory. It's a scientific/historical issue whose answer is a function of availability of evidence, of which there is very little.
Questioning evolutionary theory because we're unable to piece together the evolutionary history of the arch of the foot would be like questioning the laws of physics because we can't figure out the origin of a newly discovered comet. Both of these questions are unanswerable due to lack of information about very specific situations, and not to any theoretical lack.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Philip, posted 02-10-2003 1:35 AM Philip has not replied

Joe T
Member (Idle past 2278 days)
Posts: 41
From: Virginia
Joined: 01-10-2002


Message 117 of 120 (31856)
02-10-2003 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Philip
02-07-2003 12:40 AM


Philip said:
quote:
Note Joe T's remarks are strong rebuttals; original and thoughtful rebuttals indeed; he is excellent at exposing my hypocracies, neuroses, psychoses, slanders, and/or errors, as Quetzel once was, till he went the way of John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind" (just kidding)
I hope that the "just kidding" part also applied to my "exposure" of your hypocrisies etc. I only addressed inaccuracies of the author your quoted. I said nothing about you personally. I do my best to avoid internet psychoanalysis.
Joe T.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Philip, posted 02-07-2003 12:40 AM Philip has not replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 120 (31917)
02-10-2003 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by nator
02-07-2003 12:14 AM


I'll take your response to mean that you do indeed consider "submission" to be a dirty word. Also, I know you do not speak for the bulk of humanity when you say, "I don't think anyone cares." History shows your assessment is wrong and shows that the bulk of humanity has in the past, and continues into this present day, looking for the answer to the "meaning of life" and the majority are not looking to evolution for the answer. As for the question you feel I won't answer.......I did answer it. You just didn't like the answer you were given. Next!
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 106 by nator, posted 02-07-2003 12:14 AM nator has not replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 120 (31920)
02-10-2003 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by nator
02-07-2003 12:18 AM


I understand that you miss the point of using proper analogies to make an understandable point of view come forth. Nothing falls flatter than the TOE when it faces true scientific study. The only reason the TOE even continues to be presented as a viable explanation of life is because it can't answer even the most basic questions concerning the existance of life. All it really attempts to do is give a modern day version of some very ancient religious beliefs. Even then, it has to pick up the story in the middle, having no concept, or at least no scientific explanation of lifes' actual beginning.
So forget about starting with abiogenesis. Take a trip back in time to the moment that life first existed according to the TOE, then please explain the scientific methods used within this scientific TOE that will keep the TOE solvent as you pass through time, ending at the present day.
Please give the most verifiable, testable, and scientifically falsifiable examples of how the TOE manages to stay coherent, let alone scientific, as we move from single celled life, (unless the TOE is incapable of going that far back), and how the ability to increase the neccessary informational data occurred, along with the scientific methods neccessary for showing the viability of this being a continuing process, then continue moving through the millions upon millions of years, again remembering to remain in the realm of science, until you arrive at the present day.
Do this and you may make a believer out of me yet.
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 107 by nator, posted 02-07-2003 12:18 AM nator has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 120 of 120 (31937)
02-11-2003 8:15 AM


This thread long ago morphed into an evolution discussion. I will close this thread and open a new thread in the Evolution forum that I'll call "How does evolution explain the gaps?"
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024