|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are creationist crticisms of ToE based upon the assumption that creation happened? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminTC Inactive Junior Member |
"I've said this before, but this is exactly where I think Darwin made his biggest mistake. He and Huxley would have had a much easier time of it if he'd claimed that we were descended from something really cool like a shark or a tiger. Subsequent generations of scientists could then have taken the heat when they figured out where we really came from..."
--lol..hmmm.. somehow I doubt that. But you don't mind if I quote you for a comic strip do you? --Edit - Consider this a TC post.. forgot to turn off admin mode. ------------------ Geoscience Department - http://www.oysi.promisoft.net [This message has been edited by AdminTC, 05-20-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Paul Inactive Member |
If one didn't hold a creationist belief, what about ToE would one object to? For me, it would be the innumerable chance changes and immeasurable amount of time needed to transform a single celled organism, which in itself has been proven to be mind boggling in its complexity, into the human species which is an utterly stunning display of compounded complex systems. My mind, as much as I've tried, will not allow me to believe that the machines of life, which are extreme and highly precise, could somehow be altered by chance to the degree the TOE implies. Some time ago a close friend suggested I take a look into the blood clotting system to get a better understanding of how amazingly complex we are, so I did so. I'll never think the same after this study. In my opinion, chance is not a word that can be used with this system I'm afraid, and of course there are many more as equally, if not more, complex systems like it, in all the species. To say that all that we are today is a result of a vast series of unpredicted, unobservable, impersonal, purposeless, unaccountable, incalculable events, is totally unacceptable to me. Respectfully, Paul.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I would object to the use of a simlple correlation (for instance between "genes for horns" and stratigraphic layers to base the confidence of claims to millions of years for biological change without builiding a PHYSICAL model that by integration could provide parameters of time involved but instead the former less significant (in my view of the horizon)position is the basis ONLY TO TEACH evolution.
I will answer the other questions later if anyone else understands the prior latter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NeilUnreal Inactive Member |
quote: Please, feel free! It's an example of the kind of thinking that tempts even an honest, scientific mind when you've spent 15 years working in new product design -Neil [This message has been edited by NeilUnreal, 05-21-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Paul writes: To say that all that we are today is a result of a vast series of unpredicted, unobservable, impersonal, purposeless, unaccountable, incalculable events, is totally unacceptable to me. This is the same old argument from personal incredulity. It's just more "I can't believe man will ever fly" type of stuff. Observation and experimentation tells us that species are not fixed. By the same means we also know that descent with modification combined with natural selection can develop extremely complex and exquisite solutions. To expect easily mutable organisms to remain fixed for billions of years across wildly changing environments is by far the most unreasonable position. Evolution might seem less impossible to you if you think of it more like biologists actually describe it, instead of insisting on the Creationist caricature of evolution as "amoeba to man". Yes, a simple single-celled organism was our ultimate ancestor, but the evolutionary path was by one little baby step of evolutionary change at a time, each one when considered by itself perfectly possible and reasonable. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Paul Inactive Member |
This is the same old argument from personal incredulity. Not so. I'm more than willing to accept anything that is truth or proven fact. Peter asked the question and that was my answer. Again, the chance of chance having the ability to direct us progressively and successfuly from a single cell to where we are today is, based on study, and in my mind, impossible. This is a personal view. Your allegiance to this theory appears to be quite strong, yet this allegiance and the fierce loyalty that is evident from labs around the world does not change the fact that the TOE is "still" a theory. I will never see how labratory induced, intelligence driven, genetic meddling will ever prove progressive NATURAL evolution as a fact of occurance. Based on what I have read, there are no clear cut and specific examples of evolutionary speciation, only examples of human discovery, genetic manipulation, or natural genitic recombination. Percy are you positive that your bold claim is fully supported and proven by empirical data? Being a faithful and willing disciple to this theory as you are, you will likely say yes and thats fine, thats your stance, yet for me, I believe that the data does not truly and fully support the TOE, and also that natural evolution has NOT been observed, and this is what keeps keeps me to my stance. If you think for one second that my spiritual beliefs cause my inability to accept the TOE, your sorely mistaken. My mind simply realizes that "chance has no ability". Respectfully, Paul.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
My mind simply realizes that "chance has no ability". Really? None whatsoever? Absolutely none at all? Zero, nada, nothing? Or just a really, really LOW ability? Cuz my mind says that chance has some ability. There's a big difference between zero and alomst zero. As big as the difference between nothing and something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Paul writes: Not so. I'm more than willing to accept anything that is truth or proven fact. I guess it's necessary to explain once again that nothing is ever proven in science, that science possesses the all-important quality of tentativity so that theory may change in light of new information or improved insight. A theory explains and makes coherent a body of information and evidence. I *accept* the theory of evolution because at present it explains the evidence better than any other theory. You reject evolution not because of falsifying data or because you have a better explanation, but because you just can't bring yourself to accept that things could ever have happened that way, and that's why it's an argument from personal incredulity.
Again, the chance of chance having the ability to direct us progressively and successfuly from a single cell to where we are today is, based on study, and in my mind, impossible. This is a personal view. Yes, it's obviously a personal view, especially since you do not support it with any evidence. You misstate evolutionary theory when you say chance couldn't direct evolution toward today's life forms, because the scientific view of evolution is that it is directionless. Human beings are not an inevitable outcome of evolution. Rewind the clock to the Mesozoic and start time forward again and the random nature of events will take things to an outcome that quite likely does not include us.
Percy are you positive that your bold claim is fully supported and proven by empirical data? Being a faithful and willing disciple to this theory as you are, you will likely say yes and thats fine, thats your stance... No evolutionist here would answer yes to this, because as explained above nothing is ever proven in science. Theories are supported by evidence, not proven by it. Probably most evolutionists would agree that they believe in following the evidence where it leads.
If you think for one second that my spiritual beliefs cause my inability to accept the TOE, your sorely mistaken. Then show me I'm mistaken by providing falsifying data against evolution or by providing a superior theory explaining life on our planet. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: The comments above are fundamental to the question that I raised. You mention 'purposeless' and 'impersonal', and this implies thatat a subconscious level you object to ToE because it topples man (sorry for the non-pc phrasing) from the pinnacle of creation. Most of the rest of your post, as Percy pointed out, is aboutyour own incredulity. It's hard to accept that as a criticism I know ... and many of us have trouble spotting when this criticism is valid within our own views. Biological systems have vast complexities, agreed ... but check outthe threads that talk about genetic algorithms for designing electronic circuits. These programs (analgous to the natural world around us) operate on admittedly existing components (analagous to the genetic stuff of life) to create circuits that perform a specific function (analagous to organisms). The system is set up to operate in the way that evolution issupposed to work, and the results are electronic circuits so novel and efficient that the companies that run the programs have patented some of these designs. Complexity and function from evolutionary process. The 'environmental' constraint applied forces the 'design' towardsomething that best suits that environment. With circuits this can be done in a short time in the lab. Consider what can be accomplished in nature over the last 3billionyears or so. You do realise how long 3 billion years is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Paul Inactive Member |
Peter I do see that the two are analogous, however the fact remains that these achievements are done in the lab with intelligent direction and purpose in mind. When something can force "best suited change" as you point out, that means there is purpose and intelligence at hand as far as I'm concerned, which, goes directly against what the TOE implies.
Your reference to 3 billion years is also in fact a Huge stumbling block for me and the TOE. Peter I honestly believe that, the odds of a single celled organism to, in a directionless process, without purpose, without power, modify through untold trillions of slight changes, into the human species, in the span of 3-5 billion years; are about the same odds as you choosing the correct numbers to win every drawing, of every lottery, in every country of the world, for every day, of the rest of your life....... go with mutuals!! We have seen in every day life that the processes required to build new, complex, and unique systems are always developed with great difficulty and many failures along the way, and most definately ONLY through intelligence, purpose, and power are these processes accomplished. I see no reason how the TOE could be exempt from any part of this reality, especially the latter part and this is why the TOE is invalid. To rely on chance changes only as the explanation to life on earth is an insult to the realities of intelligence, purpose and power, all of which we all possess and make use of. To think that all creationists refuse to adhere to the TOE based on Spiritual beliefs alone is rediculous, especially in my case. As a researchaholic I make no conclusions with out looking at and trying to fully understand the facts as they are, period. I certainly have not been able to read everything or for that matter been able to fully understand everything in science, but I am trying, and have a good understanding in this area. Based on what I've read and been able to understand of science, I still see no possibilty of the TOE as a paradigm of why we are what we are, and in fact, the more I read of molecular biology the more I'm convinced of this....Perhaps I'm too much of a realist and should stop reading? LOL. J/K! BTW: Percy..You may say that science proves nothing...But I believe it is the only mechanism by which anything natural can be proven and it has proven much. Thank God. Respectfully, Paul.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bulldog98 Inactive Member |
quote: quote: quote: Good post, Paul. However.... The problem with much of this way of thinking is that it assumes that man was the goal of this kind of process. I've seen the "odds" calculated to arrive at man from "nothing," or from a starting material of "primordial soup". Smaller number than I can contemplate. However, ToE does not suggest that man was ever the ultimate result. Rather, the odds should be modified just to arrive at something, not at man. Think of it this way--what are the odds that my parents were in the right place at the right time, fell in love, got married, and had me? What were the odds that the particular sperm and egg I resulted from met, and resulted in a fertilized egg? What were the odds that the pregnancy was carried to term, and I was born healthy? What were the odds that each of these things happened for each of my grandparents, and their parents, and their parents, etc.? Astronomical! Mathematically, I shouldn't be here! But that's only because we're calculating from a known point, backwards. What are the odds that someone would have gotten married, and had some child? Pretty good. Similarly, cards in a deck. What are the odds that I would draw a 2 of hearts, followed by a 3 of hearts, followed by a 4 of hearts, followed by a 5 of hearts, followed by a 6 of hearts? Pretty low. But what are the odds that I would draw any 5 cards from the deck? 100%. I understand your incredulity based on the "odds," but one has to keep in minds that in the engineering we do today (as described above), we have so many failures because we are looking for a particular, predetermined outcome. That was not the case with evolution--any outcome would suffice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Paul Inactive Member |
I uderstand your point Bull and it's valid.
I was not trying to indicate in my posts that Humans were the goal or ultimate end result of evolution, but simply using them as a reference to make my point.
but one has to keep in minds that in the engineering we do today (as described above), we have so many failures because we are looking for a particular, predetermined outcome. That was not the case with evolution--any outcome would suffice. This is exactly why I cannot believe the TOE. If we can have so many failures with predetermined goals and desired outcomes, driven by intelligence, purpose and power.....how then could it even be remotely possible, that the evolutionary proccess being completely directionless with no intelligence, purpose or power, even achieve anything! let alone the mind boggling complexities that we see in life today?. This isn't really about time frames or "any" outcomes ...We have an outcome! and It's about the fact that, is there any possible process that has the "power" to take life to where it is today from where evolution says it was 3 billion years ago? I think not. Chance is intangible and powerless, therefore whats left to drive this progressive, complexity increasing change if the TOE is true? Again, we see massive failure "with" goals and intelligence, power and purpose in the real world, therefore don't even think about mutation, with none of the above, as a possibility! Mutations have gotten a bum rap as to why life is the way it is. What then ?? Respectfully, Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: It seems you are still thinking in the wrong terms. Think about a man standing on a hill and imagine a point somewhere weveral miles off where he started walking. You, being curious and having followed him, calculate the probability of his taking the path he took. The figure wil be unimaginably small. Would you be amazed that he made it from where he was to where he is? Suppose then, that you ask the man what caused him to take that path and he replies, "I was just walking and thinking. I am standing on this hill trying to figure out where I am."He could have ended up in a hundred million different places. He jsut happened to end up at this one. But he would have ended up somewhere. Imagine a lab full of scientists. These scientists are performing experiments, but, oddly, they have no goal. They aren't looking for anything. These are mad scientists. They mix some chemicals, look at the results, and remove some 'uninteresting' chemicals on a whim. Then they do the same thing again. And again. Over time you will get some very complex molecules. Every step of the way chances are 100% that they will get something, and that is all that matters. Try it. Its fun, though terribly dangerous. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
This is exactly why I cannot believe the TOE. If we can have so many failures with predetermined goals and desired outcomes, driven by intelligence, purpose and power.....how then could it even be remotely possible, that the evolutionary proccess being completely directionless with no intelligence, purpose or power, even achieve anything! let alone the mind boggling complexities that we see in life today?. I think I see where you're going with this. Let me see if I can illustrate the error in your thinking via a quote from the movie "The Zero Effect."
quote: See, if you set out with a goal in mind, your odds of reaching it are very low. If you set out to accomplish anything at all, you're bound to do it. Intelligent problem solving - even engineering - isn't a process of creating correct solutions where none existed before. It's a process of filtering out all the impractical or otherwise unsuitable but still very valid solutions and leaving only the most correct solutions. In that sense intelligence is indistinguishable from natural selection. You mention the driving intelligence behind genetic programming - but what about situations where (for instance) the programmers wanted a basic occilator but wound up with a complex radio reciever? Where was the intelligence there? The simple fact is, random chance can, over sufficient time, cause any physically possible configuration of matter. Both natural selection and intelligence are simply ways of cutting that time down a bit by searching through the set of all possible configurations through some method. Honestly, I think the results of GP show something very interesting indeed - that natural selection is a better designer than intelligence. [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-23-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
The intelligence creates the 'environment' (analgous to
a god or gods creating an ordered universe), it's then left to run. The circuits are not the result of operator intervention,or in any sense pre-determined by the nature of the genetic algorithm. The genetic algorith just provides the rules (akin to the laws of physics etc.) that the process must adhere to. In genetic programming those rules are based upon the supposedmechanism of evolution ... and the results are startling. My reason for suggesting that people of certain religous beliefreject ToE for other than firm scientific grounds still appears valid to me ... even you appear to be looking for reasons to doubt ToE, rather than critiquing (sp?) the theory itself. Other people have pointed out the major error of the probablisticincredulity ... but there is another factor to account for even in that ... we are looking for ANY outcome on ANY planet in ANY galaxy in the universe ... the odds of not stumbling across become astronomical.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024