Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,227 Year: 3,484/9,624 Month: 355/974 Week: 244/130 Day: 38/43 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8519
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.0


(2)
Message 526 of 671 (915877)
02-19-2024 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 524 by Tanypteryx
02-19-2024 1:23 PM


I think he's talking about land mammals evolving into whales here ...
I’m not sure K knows the difference. There were sea creatures that evolved into furry land creatures. There were furry land creatures that evolved into sea creatures. There were furry land creatures that evolved into sea creatures that evolved into furry land creatures again. And vice versa. Evolution is just an absolute mess with all these uncontrolled natural processes doing whatever they want. We ought to get some religion to straighten things out for us. Make things easier.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-19-2024 1:23 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-19-2024 1:57 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4401
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 527 of 671 (915878)
02-19-2024 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 525 by Theodoric
02-19-2024 1:41 PM


And no understanding of anything scientific. Maybe English is not his first language.
Yep, he talks funny. And in fact, most of his understanding of science is incorrect, even the most basic concept, it's conclusions are tentative.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3

This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by Theodoric, posted 02-19-2024 1:41 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4401
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.4


(3)
Message 528 of 671 (915879)
02-19-2024 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 526 by AZPaul3
02-19-2024 1:46 PM


And vice versa. Evolution is just an absolute mess with all these uncontrolled natural processes doing whatever they want. We ought to get some religion to straighten things out for us. Make things easier.
Yep, we need some rules! And don't even get me started on mimicry or sexual selection!!!! Holy Fuck!

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3

This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by AZPaul3, posted 02-19-2024 1:46 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 529 of 671 (915888)
02-19-2024 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by Percy
02-19-2024 12:41 PM


Responses to the many topics, in no particular order. I have tried to hit everything, but at the same time I'm sure I overlooked something.
It's been a bit perplexing, on a website billed as E-vs.-C, trying to get concurrence among the members regarding the core difference between E and C. Take common ancestry/descent: I agree with this as long as there is a human at the bottom of my ancestral tree, but disagree if there is a pan troglodyte or some other non-human. We shouldn't need to knock these types of semantics around. Also, there seems to be a feeling that Creationism is anti-science, which is entirely false. Evolution is defined herein so broadly that disagreement with one part of it constitutes disagreement with all of it, present-day DNA observation and natural selection included. Creationists don't disagree with, among other things, observable microbiology, or the ubiquitous, everyday natural selection.
I have a problem with dating methods because they run contrary to my beliefs, and because they are measuring instruments that cannot possibly be validated. I cannot demonstrate that processes were different long ago, but neither can it be demonstrated that they were not. Scientists can base their activities on these dating methods, by all means, but they remain methods that can never be properly validated.
Deficient logic simply refers to incomplete logic that is in need of resolution, and, yes, it will lead to illegitimate conclusions if it is not recognized that it is in need of resolution. Circular reasoning is not necessarily wrong - The three items in the Circularity Summary are not "unacceptable", we simply need to be aware that they are in need of resolution.
The EvC debate will continue, but it's important to understand what is at the root of it.
Technical/scientific properties such as mass, force, material strength, acceleration, momentum, friction, math, chemical reactions, et al., have endless, everyday applications to bettering our standard of living (for lack of a better term). There is great utility in having children begin to understand these from an early age, for themselves and for society.
On the other hand, what does it matter if the copper ore is 1000 years old or 1,000,000,000 years old? Would that affect how we use it? Would we do things differently if our ancient common ancestor was a human rather than a pan troglodyte, would it change how we apply the natural laws we observe and utilize?
One glaring purpose for making evolution and ancient earth mandatory studies for schoolchildren is their utility in refuting religious teachings at a young age. These give children no practical knowledge to apply. This is why allowing evolution but prohibiting Bible study is a purely atheistic educational doctrine. Secularists who support this doctrine may claim they are not atheist, but that doesn't change the fact that doctrine itself is pure a-theism. Rather, we should offer elective courses on these subjects later in their educational career, by all means and along with Bible study offerings.
It's just strange how molecules-to-man evolution is forced on schoolchilldren, particularly when it is surrounded by so much controversy, and since it doesn't have the practical utility of mass, force... and other scientific studies.
You could make a much better argument for mandatory study of Biblical principles. Understanding and practicing the teachings of Jesus Christ would be immediately applicable and fantastic for kids. Ah, but this cannot be allowed, separation of church and state you know.
Your response to “…imagine that tomorrow we discover something that invalidates everything we have come to believe regarding molecules-to-man evolution..." is indicative. It would give you more data to dig into, but, in and of itself, it wouldn't change how we do anything today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by Percy, posted 02-19-2024 12:41 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 530 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2024 12:24 AM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 533 by Percy, posted 02-20-2024 11:20 AM K.Rose has replied
 Message 536 by Theodoric, posted 02-20-2024 11:39 AM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 537 by Taq, posted 02-20-2024 11:40 AM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 556 by Percy, posted 02-21-2024 9:37 AM K.Rose has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(4)
Message 530 of 671 (915892)
02-20-2024 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 529 by K.Rose
02-19-2024 7:54 PM


quote:
It's been a bit perplexing, on a website billed as E-vs.-C, trying to get concurrence among the members regarding the core difference between E and C
The key difference is that creationists suppose that some complex life forms were created by God - such that all complex life forms are descended from such creations. Evolution proposes that all complex life is descended from simpler life.
quote:
Also, there seems to be a feeling that Creationism is anti-science, which is entirely false.
No. It is definitely true. Common ancestry is a scientific conclusion reached by scientific means.
quote:
Evolution is defined herein so broadly that disagreement with one part of it constitutes disagreement with all of it…
I don’t see anyone saying that at all.
quote:
I have a problem with dating methods because they run contrary to my beliefs, and because they are measuring instruments that cannot possibly be validated.
But they can be validated and have been validated. Carbon dating was initially validated with objects of known age, and later by correlations with other methods, such as the annual varves in lake Suigetsu. Even that is sufficient to falsify your belief that the Earth is no more than 9000 years old. Other dating methods which allow for much older ages have also been validated by comparisons between them.
quote:
I cannot demonstrate that processes were different long ago, but neither can it be demonstrated that they were not. Scientists can base their activities on these dating methods, by all means, but they remain methods that can never be properly validate
Which means that you have to assume that the different dating methods give invalid results that nevertheless agree - even when there is no connection between them. That IS anti-scientific,
quote:
Deficient logic simply refers to incomplete logic that is in need of resolution, and, yes, it will lead to illegitimate conclusions if it is not recognized that it is in need of resolution. Circular reasoning is not necessarily wrong - The three items in the Circularity Summary are not "unacceptable", we simply need to be aware that they are in need of resolution.
Since there is no real circularity the only resolution needed is to acknowledge that fact.
quote:
The EvC debate will continue, but it's important to understand what is at the root of it.
The root of it is the desire for Theocratic tyranny. Creationists will not accept the conclusions of science, nor will they accept that those conclusions may be taught in public schools while their religious beliefs are kept to their own institutions. That’s it. That is all there is.
quote:
One glaring purpose for making evolution and ancient earth mandatory studies for schoolchildren is their utility in refuting religious teachings at a young age. These give children no practical knowledge to apply. This is why allowing evolution but prohibiting Bible study is a purely atheistic educational doctrine.
And that is an example of exactly what I mean. It’s not a matter of atheism, just a matter of teaching science - science accepted by many Christians. You want schools to indoctrinate children into your religious beliefs - which many Chistians do not share - and despite the US Constitution. And that is why you will often find Christians opposing your efforts. Not because they are “craven” as you would have it - but because they are prepared to stand up for their beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by K.Rose, posted 02-19-2024 7:54 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 531 of 671 (915896)
02-20-2024 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 499 by K.Rose
02-17-2024 12:31 PM


K.Rose writes:
The outward implication is that A eventually became N. I am trying to understand how this diagram shows us when one species/kind/lifeform evolved from one to the next, if its purpose is to demonstrate common ancestry.
Hmm, yes, I can see that this is the obvious take from it. That's unfortunate, because N did not evolve from A. Here A is a modern Chimpanzee skull, but humans did not evolve from Chimpanzees instead humans and Chimpanzees share a common ancestor from which they have both diverged for roughly the last 6 million years and modern Chimps have also diverged from that ancestor. We don't, unfortunately, have many skeletal remains that are clearly linked to chimpanzee evolution. But something like Sahelanthropus tchadensis would be closer to our common ancestor with chimps, with scientists still debating whether these species are related to the human line or not.
What the diagram is supposed to show is how the fossil record shows the existence of extinct intermediaries that link H. sapiens to other living great apes. We see, over time, the accumulation of the distinct differences that humans have compared to other apes - most of these, of course, are found below the neck in the structure of the hands, pelvis, legs, and feet. Although the skulls too, if you were able to examine them closely, show the telltale signs of bipedalism.
K.Rose writes:
Also, N is chosen as representative for modern, contrasting sharply with J,K,L,M. Everyday I can see live humans whose skull shape more closely resembles J,K,L,M than N, mine included.
While you might think that this from a glance as a small photo in a diagram such as this, were you able to more closely examine the skulls J, K, and L you would immediately recognise features that distinguish these from M and all modern humans. Most obviously the shape of the skull is much flatter and elongated than any modern human, they also lack the more globular cranial covering of modern human, their brow ridge is far more prominent than even the most dramatic of modern humans, and were you to flip the skulls over you'd note the markedly distinct incisors and a number of more technical differences in the other teeth.
K.Rose writes:
If it was possible for J,K,L,M,N to interbreed, what's to prove that these are not just a variety of different humans.
If potential interbreeding is indeterminate, then how is this uncertainty reflected in the conclusions?
I'm afraid I remain unclear why you think a theoretical potential for interbreeding is important? So I must ask you again to elaborate on this point? We can certainly be sure that D-E did not interbreed with modern humans due to the gulf of time separating them, just as we can be sure that Abraham Lincoln has no children with Marilyn Monroe because they lived at different times. So I'm not sure why the question of whether they could have interbred if that were not so is important?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by K.Rose, posted 02-17-2024 12:31 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10012
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


(1)
Message 532 of 671 (915908)
02-20-2024 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 499 by K.Rose
02-17-2024 12:31 PM


K.Rose writes:
The outward implication is that A eventually became N. I am trying to understand how this diagram shows us when one species/kind/lifeform evolved from one to the next, if its purpose is to demonstrate common ancestry.
A is a modern chimp, it is only there to represent basal ape features.
No fossil can tell us who its ancestors are nor who its descendants are. Even if we dug up a human skeleton we could not determine these things, short of sequencing DNA.
What the evidence demonstrates is that hominids looked more and more like modern humans through time, exactly what we would expect to see if humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with other apes. These are exactly the transitional fossils that creationists ask for.
Also, N is chosen as representative for modern, contrasting sharply with J,K,L,M. Everyday I can see live humans whose skull shape more closely resembles J,K,L,M than N, mine included.
That simply isn't true. No living human has the combination of pronounced eyebrow ridges, a huge gap between nose and upper lip, lack of a forehead, lack of a chin (shown in other specimens), and strong forward jutting jaw.
If potential interbreeding is indeterminate, then how is this uncertainty reflected in the conclusions?
They were separated by hundreds of thousands, even millions of years. How could they interbreed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by K.Rose, posted 02-17-2024 12:31 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22456
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 533 of 671 (915911)
02-20-2024 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 529 by K.Rose
02-19-2024 7:54 PM


K.Rose writes:
It's been a bit perplexing, on a website billed as E-vs.-C, trying to get concurrence among the members regarding the core difference between E and C.
Everyone describes things in their own way, including you. This is true about describing anything, not just evolution and creation. The real question is why you expect any different? And why you keep asking different forms of the same question?
Take common ancestry/descent: I agree with this as long as there is a human at the bottom of my ancestral tree, but disagree if there is a pan troglodyte or some other non-human.
In other words, you agree with the evidence until it conflicts with your religious beliefs. By the way, about hominid ancestral trees, it's not possible to tell which fossil species were directly descended from which other fossil species. We can assess degree of relatedness and measure ages, but there can't be an actual tree because determining direct descent isn't possible (except when we have DNA, see next paragraph). The best we can do is determine that they're at least cousin/nephew/niece species and possibly closer.
The Neanderthal is an example. Is the Neanderthal a descendant, ancestor or cousin species of humans. Fortunately we have enough DNA to know that Neanderthals and humans are cousin species that share a common ancestor, but we don't know which hominid species was the ancestor.
Could humans and Neanderthals interbreed? Since Neanderthal DNA has been found in human DNA there is no doubt they could interbreed. Does that make Neanderthals the same species as humans? You tell me. Our classification system has them as different species, but since they could interbreed there is disagreement.
Also, there seems to be a feeling that Creationism is anti-science, which is entirely false.
I don't think there's a single person here who lived the creation/evolution battles by attending or following school board meetings, presentations, debates and legislative meetings and by engaging with creationists themselves and reading the "science" produced by ICR, CRS, AIG and so forth, who would describe creationism as anything but anti-science.
Kitzmiller was about religion parading as science when the Dover school system tried to introduce the creationist textbook Of Pandas and People into the school curriculum as a reference book for their biology course. You yourself are choosing which science to accept or reject based upon whether they comport with your religious beliefs. This is all very anti-science.
Evolution is defined herein so broadly that disagreement with one part of it constitutes disagreement with all of it, present-day DNA observation and natural selection included. Creationists don't disagree with, among other things, observable microbiology, or the ubiquitous, everyday natural selection.
How is evolution different from any other science? Physics believes that the physical laws of today were the same in the past. Chemistry believes the same principles it applies today were the same in the past. Geology believes that the same forces and processes active on our planet today were active in the past. Evolution believes that life lives and reproduces today the same as it did in the past.
And can you describe that too-broad definition? Surely you don't mean the "natural selection operating on modified descent" definition, or the "changing allele frequencies in populations over time" definition. If you see a "too-broad definition" of evolution somewhere then please tell us what it is.
I have a problem with dating methods because they run contrary to my beliefs,...
Dating methods are just physics with some geology thrown in, so now you're rejecting physics and geology in addition to evolution. You also reject cosmology. Rejecting science for religious reasons identifies you as anti-science.
...and because they are measuring instruments that cannot possibly be validated. I cannot demonstrate that processes were different long ago, but neither can it be demonstrated that they were not.
Sure it can. When we analyze the light from distant stars and galaxies from millions and billions of years ago, we see evidence of the exact same elements behaving in the exact same ways as those elements on Earth.
The claim that radiometric decay rates were much greater in the past is easily dismissed because the intensity of radiation from compressing billions of years of minute radiation into 7000 years would instantly kill any life and melt the planet. We know how much radiation that was because we can measure the amount of radiation each isotope of each element gives off, and we know how long it has been giving off that radiation from the amount of daughter element with it. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40, and by measuring the relative amounts of each in a geologic sample we can determine the age and how long the potassium-40 had been radiating. Compress all the radiation of a billion year old rock into 7000 years and you've got a lethal amount of radiation and a molten rock.
Scientists can base their activities on these dating methods, by all means, but they remain methods that can never be properly validated.
You have yet to present any valid objection.
I'm fond of saying that things that actually happen leave evidence behind. If radiometric decay rates were far greater in the past, it would have left evidence behind, mainly that we wouldn't be here to examine the evidence, but here we are, so it didn't happen.
And if a global flood 5000 years ago were responsible for the world's geology then it would have left evidence behind, but there is none.
Deficient logic simply refers to incomplete logic that is in need of resolution,...
You didn't identify, and still haven't identified, any "deficient logic". You've identified propositions you disagree with but without any evidence that contradicts them. You reject these propositions not because they're deficient scientifically but because you find them deficient religiously, specifically with regard to your Christian origin beliefs.
...and, yes, it will lead to illegitimate conclusions if it is not recognized that it is in need of resolution. Circular reasoning is not necessarily wrong - The three items in the Circularity Summary are not "unacceptable", we simply need to be aware that they are in need of resolution.
Nobody but you saw any circular reasoning. Summing up, you object to those propositions and think they must be wrong scientifically, but you have no idea why, so you made up that they're circular arguments when they're not. You're just casting randomly about for reasons why they're wrong because you actually have no idea.
The way it looks to us is that you object to these propositions not because of science but because of your religious beliefs, which you readily admit. Despite that admission of religious motivation you continue thinking that you can show evolution wrong scientifically. You for some reason think that because you have religious objections to evolution that scientific ones must exist, too. That's not rational. Until you have some actual science on your side all you can is make misguided objections to evolution that reveal how poorly you understand it and science generally.
There have been PhD biologists trying unsuccessfully to make the same case you're trying to make, such as Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells. Until you learn more about biology and evolution you will only be able to raise objections that have already been proven wrong over and over and over again. Improve your understanding by reading Behe's and Well's books, and books by other creationist authors. They will help you in composing arguments that are more scientifically informed.
The EvC debate will continue, but it's important to understand what is at the root of it.
Religion is at the root of it. This is not a scientific controversy but a social/religious one where conservative Christians are attempting to push their religious beliefs into the secular arena.
Technical/scientific properties such as mass, force, material strength, acceleration, momentum, friction, math, chemical reactions, et al., have endless, everyday applications to bettering our standard of living (for lack of a better term). There is great utility in having children begin to understand these from an early age, for themselves and for society.
On the other hand, what does it matter if the copper ore is 1000 years old or 1,000,000,000 years old? Would that affect how we use it? Would we do things differently if our ancient common ancestor was a human rather than a pan troglodyte, would it change how we apply the natural laws we observe and utilize?
This reads like a proposal to disregard scientific knowledge that doesn't have everyday practical applications. Aside from the possibility that one never knows what practical applications might emerge from any scientific investigation, what is wrong with scientific study for the sake of knowledge?
One glaring purpose for making evolution and ancient earth mandatory studies for schoolchildren is their utility in refuting religious teachings at a young age.
But geology and cosmology, with a lot of help from physics and chemistry, also support an ancient Earth and universe. Why aren't you also condemning all those other fields of science?
These give children no practical knowledge to apply.
The purpose of public school science education is to teach children our current scientific understandings in all the major fields of science. Some of it has practical everyday applications, some of it doesn't.
This is why allowing evolution but prohibiting Bible study is a purely atheistic educational doctrine. Secularists who support this doctrine may claim they are not atheist, but that doesn't change the fact that doctrine itself is pure a-theism.
Yeah, a-theism (absence of theism) is pretty much the definition of the secular sphere.
Rather, we should offer elective courses on these subjects later in their educational career, by all means and along with Bible study offerings.
That would turn public schools into Christian schools that children of all religions attend.
It's just strange how molecules-to-man evolution is forced on schoolchilldren, particularly when it is surrounded by so much controversy, and since it doesn't have the practical utility of mass, force... and other scientific studies.
We also "force" physics, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, geology, biology, math, history, English and geography on schoolchildren.
You could make a much better argument for mandatory study of Biblical principles.
I gather you don't agree that public schools should be secular.
Understanding and practicing the teachings of Jesus Christ would be immediately applicable and fantastic for kids. Ah, but this cannot be allowed, separation of church and state you know.
I also gather you don't agree with separation of church and state. You do realize that separation of church and state not only prevents schools from teaching Christian beliefs, it also prevents them from teaching Judaic, Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist beliefs. Separation of church and state benefits everyone.
You don't seem to understand how secularism works. There are many different religions out there. We attend the churches of our choice for religion, and then for everything else like town government and public schools and police and fire we set aside our religions and come together in a secular space that is free from the influence of any religion. Doesn't that sound like a good thing to you?
Your response to “…imagine that tomorrow we discover something that invalidates everything we have come to believe regarding molecules-to-man evolution..." is indicative. It would give you more data to dig into, but, in and of itself, it wouldn't change how we do anything today.
How could it not change how we do things? For example, if evolution is wrong then the coronavirus did not evolve into different variants but changed by some other means. Understanding how it changed would help us fight future pandemics as well as the annual flu and RSV and maybe even the common cold.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by K.Rose, posted 02-19-2024 7:54 PM K.Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 545 by dwise1, posted 02-20-2024 4:49 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 562 by K.Rose, posted 02-21-2024 6:10 PM Percy has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10012
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 534 of 671 (915912)
02-20-2024 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 508 by K.Rose
02-17-2024 2:02 PM


K.Rose writes:
Evolution is a complex theory for which there is some level, between great and miniscule, I think it is agreed, of uncertainty.
That is true of every single theory in science, including the theories you accept.
To my own peril I'll say it again, though the repetition may be scolded and the position itself may be rejected out-of-hand, the issue is one of worldviews. The Creationist looks at the world and sees man as a result of God's Creation, and he understands that this cannot be proven by known natural processes and has no interest in arguing that it can be. The Evolutionist looks at the world and sees man as the result of an ancestor that is common to all other life, and is on a perpetual mission to put the final nail in the coffin of evidence, so to speak.
The difference is that the evolutionists have mountains of scientific evidence to back their conclusions. Creationists do not have evidence, and as you have shown creationists are immune to evidence. The difference in worldviews is that Creationists don't care what the evidence shows. As the creationist organization Answers in Genesis states:
quote:
No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.
--Answers in Genesis
Statement of Faith | Answers in Genesis
The impasse is that evolutionists care about facts and evidence. Creationists do not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 508 by K.Rose, posted 02-17-2024 2:02 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9117
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 535 of 671 (915914)
02-20-2024 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 499 by K.Rose
02-17-2024 12:31 PM


Everyday I can see live humans whose skull shape more closely resembles J,K,L,M than N, mine included.
How is it you get to see their skull shape?

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by K.Rose, posted 02-17-2024 12:31 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9117
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 536 of 671 (915915)
02-20-2024 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 529 by K.Rose
02-19-2024 7:54 PM


I have a problem with dating methods because they run contrary to my beliefs
Your beliefs have no effect on reality and evidently reality has no effect on your beliefs.
and because they are measuring instruments that cannot possibly be validated.
Personal incredulity does not affect science.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by K.Rose, posted 02-19-2024 7:54 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10012
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 537 of 671 (915916)
02-20-2024 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 529 by K.Rose
02-19-2024 7:54 PM


K.Rose writes:
It's been a bit perplexing, on a website billed as E-vs.-C, trying to get concurrence among the members regarding the core difference between E and C.
The core difference is that evolution is a scientific theory backed by mountains of evidence. Creationism is a religious dogma that lacks evidence and is impervious to evidence. Creationists did not arrive at their position because of evidence, and there is no evidence that can budge them. For a Creationist to change their mind they are going have to change their worldview to one where observable facts matter.
Also, there seems to be a feeling that Creationism is anti-science, which is entirely false. Evolution is defined herein so broadly that disagreement with one part of it constitutes disagreement with all of it, present-day DNA observation and natural selection included. Creationists don't disagree with, among other things, observable microbiology, or the ubiquitous, everyday natural selection.
Creationism is anti-science because it refuses to address observable facts and rejects theories solely on the basis of the theory's conflict with religious dogma.
I have a problem with dating methods because they run contrary to my beliefs, and because they are measuring instruments that cannot possibly be validated.
Thank you for admitting your rejection of evidence because of religious belief. As to validation of measurements, its done all of the time.
On the other hand, what does it matter if the copper ore is 1000 years old or 1,000,000,000 years old? Would that affect how we use it? Would we do things differently if our ancient common ancestor was a human rather than a pan troglodyte, would it change how we apply the natural laws we observe and utilize?
Yet another attempt to find an excuse to ignore the evidence.
One glaring purpose for making evolution and ancient earth mandatory studies for schoolchildren is their utility in refuting religious teachings at a young age.
That's completely false. Neither evolution nor an ancient Earth challenges Christian faith as described by the Clerge Letter Project (signed by over 15,000 Christian clergy):
quote:
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
The Clergy Letter Project
It's just strange how molecules-to-man evolution is forced on schoolchilldren,
Yes, just like we force Germ Theory, Atom Theory, Theory of Relativity, and all of the other theories they are taught. Give me a break. This is why creationists are deemed to be anti-science. The theory of evolution is one of the most well supported theories in all of science, and the only reason you can come up with to not teach it is because of what some misguided Christians teach about it.
While we are at it, is Heliocentrism forced on kids too?
quote:
But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis without traveling from east to west, and that the Earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves very swiftly around the Sun, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our hold faith by contradicting the Scriptures….
--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615
If we teach that the Earth rotates on its axis and moves about the Sun do we also have to have Bible studies that show otherwise?
You could make a much better argument for mandatory study of Biblical principles.
You mean the Biblical principles like not having any other God before the God of the Bible? How would that work in a pluralistic society with freedom of religion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by K.Rose, posted 02-19-2024 7:54 PM K.Rose has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by Phat, posted 02-20-2024 1:48 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10012
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 538 of 671 (915928)
02-20-2024 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by K.Rose
02-18-2024 7:18 PM


K.Rose writes:
#2 is at the heart of the evc debate, the point of contention, and this debate will, obviously, remain unsettled indefinitely.
That's because creationists refuse to accept evidence.
We have mountains and mountains of evidence demonstrating that species share a common ancestor and that the mechanisms of evolution are responsible for the differences between them. The differences in sequence conservation in exons and introns demonstrates natural selection. The match between the patterns of transitions and transversions seen in new mutations and the differences between the genomes of species demonstrates that the process of mutation we see happening right now is responsible for the differences between species. The nested hierarchy demonstrates both common ancestry and natural selection/mutation acting in concert with vertical inheritance.
We have all the evidence, but you won't address any of it. It's just ignored with a handwave. Evolution isn't a worldview. It's a theory supported by mountains and mountains of evidence.
That doubt can never be removed in science is significant; question is, how big is the doubt, how can it be calculated.
That no one can doubt the dogma of creationism no matter the evidence is signifcant.
I have already shown how to calculate the doubt (i.e. p values) in previous posts, and it was ignored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by K.Rose, posted 02-18-2024 7:18 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10012
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


(1)
Message 539 of 671 (915931)
02-20-2024 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by K.Rose
02-17-2024 1:19 PM


K.Rose writes:
In a nutshell then, we assume that the present results from the past,
How else would it be? Do you think the Universe was zapped into being this very microsecond? Aren't you the result of past processes?
without fully understanding the process in between,
We do understand them. I've been showing you how those processes work.
and then apply present processes to explain the past
NO!!! We run tests to see if these processes were active in the past. Those are the tests I have been showing you.
In simple terms this is known as circular reasoning,
It's not circular because we don't assume present processes were active in the past. We run SCIENTIFIC TESTS to determine if they were active in the past.
Not trying to be clever, just demonstrating that either application of observations and processes, or the combination of the two, do not categorically remove doubt.
You appear to be part of a worldview where only an unquestionable dogma counts as knowledge.
If you require 0% doubt then you must reject all of science. Are you going to do that?
The reason that we call creationism anti-science is your very attitude. You require 0% doubt which means you must reject all of science. You repeatedly claim that scientific hypotheses are assumptions. THEY AREN'T. You refuse to address the evidence. This is anti-science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by K.Rose, posted 02-17-2024 1:19 PM K.Rose has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 541 by Percy, posted 02-20-2024 2:05 PM Taq has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18280
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 540 of 671 (915933)
02-20-2024 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 537 by Taq
02-20-2024 11:40 AM


To Thine Own Self Be True
Taq writes:
You mean the Biblical principles like not having any other God before the God of the Bible? How would that work in a pluralistic society with freedom of religion?
People have always been free to believe whatever they want. Science and religion can always coexist if each discipline "stays in its own lane". Thats my opinion, anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by Taq, posted 02-20-2024 11:40 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 544 by Taq, posted 02-20-2024 3:58 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024