Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,148 Year: 5,405/9,624 Month: 430/323 Week: 70/204 Day: 12/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   THE EVOLUTIONISTS' GUIDE TO PROPER CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR
Philip
Member (Idle past 4832 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

Philip
Member (Idle past 4832 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

Philip
Member (Idle past 4832 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 79 of 120 (31185)
02-03-2003 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Percy
02-03-2003 12:09 PM


You (Percy) stated:
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?
--Most of the gaps to me are black holes that science will never explain in a ToE manner. Granted, science may become more profound in relativistic empiricism.
--As to your stating you are a theist (which I already remember you implied about 6 months ago when you stated you attended an evangelical group, I believe) your response is not a theistic confidence, at least in the biblical sense.
--I know you despise my preaching so I'm swift: Consider: Hebrews ch 11 where it states the first criteria of theistic faith: "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God so that the things which are seen were not made by the things which do appear."
--You and Schraf are taking the premise that the things which are seen must be made by the things which do appear. This seems to me atheistic when you assume all the scientific gaps have empirical explanations.
--Likewise scientific problems are already admitted in the literature. Naturally, of course, a FEW gaps will become explained scientifically I grant you. The gaps you and I discussed are entropic-like contradictions, gaps of profound improbability, etc., real problems for the mega-ToE and YEC alike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 02-03-2003 12:09 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 02-04-2003 9:10 AM Philip has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4832 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 96 of 120 (31478)
02-05-2003 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Percy
02-04-2003 9:10 AM


Percy, I mentioned several hundred 'gaps' (if you will) back in June '02.
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).
Much of the Bible is surreal, metaphorical, and/or metaphysical. The problem of making literal interpretations is perhaps equally difficult for the YEC, for the YEC will get caught red-handed with any private interpretation, both from within and without.
For example: If I 'privately' stated "God made every living thing that moveth on the 5th day", as Gen 1.21 indeed states, I'd be erroneous to all within and without. So I shouldn't literally interpret this in part from the whole of surrounding texts.
Thus fundamentalist-YECs themselves (as well as Christian-Evo's) have numerous gaps to reconcile with, as they hypothesize and apply science, metaphor, surrealism, faith, and/or the gospel of a theistic redemption, to their own comprehension of the black box.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 02-04-2003 9:10 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by wj, posted 02-06-2003 12:23 AM Philip has replied
 Message 101 by Joe T, posted 02-06-2003 2:01 PM Philip has replied
 Message 112 by Percy, posted 02-09-2003 2:03 PM Philip has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4832 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 98 of 120 (31487)
02-06-2003 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by wj
02-06-2003 12:23 AM


Nice biased try, like Quetzel's handwaving-oversimplified rebuke when presented all those hundreds of facts. Great rhetoric, but dishonest reproof.
Surely, I am merely pointing out to Percy that both sides have serious problems in their presumptions, and gave only a few hundred examples. Of course you can find hundreds of anti-YEC rebukes. I can discover thousands of YEC problems (given a few hours) as well.
The point is the definition of the (micro-)ToE is not presently adequate for a mega-ToE to be theorized scientifically. Nor is a YEC-scheme.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by wj, posted 02-06-2003 12:23 AM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by wj, posted 02-06-2003 1:32 AM Philip has replied
 Message 110 by Quetzal, posted 02-07-2003 2:55 AM Philip has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4832 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 102 of 120 (31597)
02-06-2003 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Joe T
02-06-2003 2:01 PM


Joe, thanks for your thoughtful reply.
I agree that the author is a poor choice, but better than myself in crudely throwing out the dilemmas of a mega-ToE, the only option for the empirical existentialist it seems.
The deal with Percy is that I disagree in making a mega-ToE out of a biological micro-ToE. This to me is bad science. Albeit, I fully agree with Percy's definition of the ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Joe T, posted 02-06-2003 2:01 PM Joe T has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4832 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 108 of 120 (31622)
02-07-2003 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by wj
02-06-2003 1:32 AM


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)
But the cosmic black box remains unexplainable and improbable via empirical existential reasoning: The known has somehow come forth out of the unknown, probably at several stages. For this reason the ToE seems completely impossible in over-generalizing a mega-ToE, except in failed hypotheses only.
The ToE as we presently know it, in my relatively junky opinion, stops a few millenia back. As mere Newtonian Physics becomes consumed by universal relativistic physics, the ToE becomes absorbed by quantitatively and qualitatively powerful ID and IC-like science that I know little about.
I speculate/hypothesize (even theorize) however that the quantitatively and qualitatively powerful ID and IC-like science, that I know little about, has and will continue to be redemptive, creative, and restorative in nature upon our cursed (if you will) cosmic-black-box ... as per the Gospel/Biblical scheme of a Christ-like ID.
You may ignore me. I'll try not to ignore you. This battle is for your inner truth and mine, so I don't care if you ignore me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by wj, posted 02-06-2003 1:32 AM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by wj, posted 02-07-2003 1:14 AM Philip has replied
 Message 111 by Quetzal, posted 02-07-2003 3:03 AM Philip has not replied
 Message 117 by Joe T, posted 02-10-2003 9:27 AM Philip has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4832 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 4832 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 4832 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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024