Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,576 Year: 4,833/9,624 Month: 181/427 Week: 94/85 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 94 of 120 (31287)
02-04-2003 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by John
02-04-2003 11:26 AM


quote:
But the question was, perhaps this wasn't clear, where is the line between direct and indirect observation? Your answer doesn't seem to address this, except very vaguely. As a rule of thumb, I understand your response. I've 'known' that something was wrong with an statement or idea for days or weeks before realizing what that something is.
Good form, John. I'm not sure how to answer this, but I will attempt to do so.
It is my opinion that the "line" drawn between direct and indirect observation is a moveable one. Therefore, it is open to debate and interpretation. Percy brought up a lot of good points, which only seemed to support what I was saying. Observations can easily turn into gray area. One person can observe something differently than another. Senses can deceive.
quote:
However, what I am getting at is this: Creationists often discount evolution as not being directly observable yet accept science which is equally not-directly observable as far as I can tell. I want to know where that line is drawn.
I often don't agree with this idea of Creationism being science. I find that when one mixes faith with science, criticism is the result. And that criticism is often warranted. Therefore, I take science for what it really is: observation and interpretation of the natural universe. When I look at it this way, I have no problem accepted much of science and my faith in God. I am open to interpreting new ideas, but my faith will always remain the same due to conviction. My faith tells me that the theory of evolution is wrong, but I can't prove whether or not it is true, nor am I going to devote time to discredit it, scientifically. I am comfortable with my faith.
------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by John, posted 02-04-2003 11:26 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 02-04-2003 1:45 PM Satcomm has not replied
 Message 100 by John, posted 02-06-2003 9:42 AM Satcomm has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 95 of 120 (31312)
02-04-2003 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Satcomm
02-04-2003 11:49 AM


Satcomm writes:
Percy brought up a lot of good points, which only seemed to support what I was saying.
Actually, the points were brought up to illustrate why attempting to draw a line between direct and indirect observation is the wrong approach. As you noted in an earlier post, where you draw that line is inherently ambiguous, and that's why the approach you suggest would not be very effective in a process which works through consensus.
It is not direct vs. indirect that is key, but whether there is an established chain of causation from the event itself to the human observable expression of that event. I gave the example a bullet passing through a light bulb, an unobservable event, and here's another example. The mass and charge of the electron were determined without any direct observation of electrons. The charge was determined by the Milliken oil drop experiment, and once the charge was known the mass was determined by measuring the deflection of the electron in a magnetic field as recorded on a photographic plate.
All these things are not directly observable, but you probably accept them. That is why your direct vs. indirect criteria isn't workable.
--Percy
[Fix typo. --Percy]
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 02-04-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Satcomm, posted 02-04-2003 11:49 AM Satcomm has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4800 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

wj
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 120 (31484)
02-06-2003 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Philip
02-05-2003 11:06 PM


Phillip, it seems that you cut'n'pasted a list of "gaps" in scientific theories in June 02. However it appears that you never actually settled on any to discuss further, you simply repeated second-hand bald assertions. Your supposed gaps of scientific credulity are most likely gaps in the scientific understanding of creationists and idists, not the real gaps which you assert.
Feel free to open threads on specific "gaps". It would be more rewarding than arguing theological interpretations and metaphors.
In summary, the "gaps" in the theory of evolution are largely illusory as any analysis of your list would demonstrate. The gaps which remain open for some theists to squeeze their idea of god into are progressively tightening.

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 98 by Philip, posted 02-06-2003 12:55 AM wj has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4800 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

wj
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 120 (31489)
02-06-2003 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Philip
02-06-2003 12:55 AM


Phillip, your presumption that there are serious problems with the theory of evolution is incorrect and therefore your conclusion is faulty.
I have invited you to argue any of your "gaps". Further handwaving by you will be ignored.

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 108 by Philip, posted 02-07-2003 12:40 AM wj has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 120 (31524)
02-06-2003 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Satcomm
02-04-2003 11:49 AM


quote:
It is my opinion that the "line" drawn between direct and indirect observation is a moveable one.
So that makes it a meaningless distinction does it not?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Satcomm, posted 02-04-2003 11:49 AM Satcomm has not replied

Joe T
Member (Idle past 2247 days)
Posts: 41
From: Virginia
Joined: 01-10-2002


Message 101 of 120 (31550)
02-06-2003 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Philip
02-05-2003 11:06 PM


Philip said:
quote:
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).
I’m not Percy, but it would be difficult for anybody to debate these gaps as there are so many basic errors in fact that it is hard to know where to begin. The author’s thesis (which I assume is some variation of Gee whiz that’s complicated. Must be God) gets buried in the mass of erroneous statements. Some, but certainly not all of the most obvious ones are discussed briefly below.
quote:
Why does the sun in the centre and the large planets at the outer edge, consist mainly of light gases while the group of smaller ones, ie. Mercury, Mars, Venus and Earth contain the heavy elements? Normally one would expect the original cloud of gas and dust rotating about its centre to have a distribution of material ranging from light in the middle to heavy at the outer edges.
This is basic high school astronomy. Gas giants have ice cores surrounded by lots of gas (Helium, Hydrogen etc). Close to the Sun; solar heat vaporized ices and prevented lightweight elements, like hydrogen and helium, from condensing. Therefore gas giants did not and cannot form close to the sun or any star.
Earlier the author states:
quote:
Note that the laws of thermodynamics are regarded as the best established laws in science.
Then he shows that he has no understanding of the First Law of Thermodynamics as he thinks that collisions between dust particles result in them vanishing!!!
quote:
The collection or accretion of dust particles by initially smaller bodies in order to grow to planet sizes, does not account for possible vaporization on impact.
Next in a long line of mistakes:
quote:
Venus, Uranus and Pluto rotate in a direction opposite to that of the rest of the planets.
Only Venus rotates in a different direction. Again this is high school science.
quote:
If there are to be a number of planets it would also be very clever to have large ones, like Jupiter and Saturn towards the outside, in order to shield the life supporting planet from dangerous comet bombardment.
If shielding the Earth from comet bombardment is clever, then the creator used a particularly poor means of doing it. For instance, as large as Jupiter is, it only provides direct shielding for about 0.0002 % of our sky in the planetary plane and no protection outside of this plane. Additionally, gravitational interactions between any of the gas giants and passing comets are just as likely to perturb a comet’s path toward the earth as away from it.
Next concerning placement of the planets within the solar system:
quote:
Coming too close will result in gravitational interactions that will slow down the rotation of the planet about its own axis. The days and nights would become inordinately long as happened with Mercury and Mars. The extremes of boiling hot long days and subzero long nights would not be amenable to biological life.
Aside from the fact that the author apparently believes that Mars is closer to the sun than is the Earth, Mars’ rotational period is essentially the same as Earth’s, with a Martian day being just over 1/2 hour longer than one on Earth.
Our author confidently concludes, But, let’s face it, there is still no really satisfactory understanding of the origin of the solar system. This might be a more convincing statement if the author presented any evidence that he had actually tried to learn something about the current ideas on the origin of the solar system.
Then our author ventures off into Biology with disastrous results.
quote:
Traditional biological classification (phyla, classes etc.) fits in with the Darwin model. A modern new system of classification called cladism has been developed in recent years. Cladograms deal with relationships amongst living and fossil species, but make no room for any common ancestors. The logic of this new approach cannot be faulted, but it is alien to the Darwin model.
This is as wrong as wrong can be. From the University of California at Berkeley website: Introduction to Cladistics
quote:
The basic idea behind cladistics is that members of a group share a common evolutionary history, and are "closely related", more so to members of the same group than to other organisms....
There are three basic assumptions in cladistics:
1. Any group of organisms are related by descent from a common ancestor.
2. There is a bifurcating pattern of cladogenesis.
3. Change in characteristics occurs in lineages over time.
There are indeed gaps in our knowledge of the natural world. However, using this author to define those gaps is a very poor choice.
Joe T.

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 102 by Philip, posted 02-06-2003 10:06 PM Joe T has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4800 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

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 120 (31599)
02-06-2003 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by nator
02-03-2003 11:21 AM


Actually, your analogy did not make sense. However, substituting air in place of wind, (as was suggested by another poster), would have been logical, as the two, air and aerodynamics, are interrelated whereas wind and aerodynamics are not neccessarily so, at least where the neccessity of fuction is concerned.
I have heard the argument on the TOE and abiogenesis not being interrelated but that is not, in my opinion, a logical conclusion because without a point of origin, the TOE has to fall apart when traced backwards. To be sure, some people do not mind missing the first fifteen minutes of a movie but they will never be able to fully explain the movie, having missed the very beginning.
Attempting to explain the evolution of life will inextricably force you to travel continually back in time, further and further, until you have arrived at the moment life began. Failure to be able to do so only makes the argument for evolution easier to dismiss as the fantasy that I accept it truly is.
At least with creation we are able to start at the beginning, before life existed, then see life suddenly appearing and we say, "Yes! God Did It!" With the TOE you want to say, "Yes! Evolution Did It!" but you refuse to acknowledge a starting point but rather prefer to jump into it after life has already been established, offering no explanation for the establishment of life in the first place.
If you are comfortable with that, then fine. As long as you are willing to acknowledge that you have absolutely no viable explanation as to how life can even exist in the first place. However, being unable to explain how it is possible that life can even exist in the first place automatically casts serious doubt on whether your explanation for anything following that event, that being the initial emergence of life, is even worth the mind that first conceived it, let alone the subsequent minds that continue to accept the TOEs' questionable conclusions which must be based upon its' extremely limited information base.
As a creationist, I am convinced I know how life began, where life is now, and where life will be in the distant future. All an evolutionist can claim being convinced of is that life somehow exists, having no idea of lifes' true beginning and no clue as to lifes' ultimate future.
To each their own, according to the degree of focus acheived by their minds eye!
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 76 by nator, posted 02-03-2003 11:21 AM nator has not replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 120 (31602)
02-06-2003 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by nator
02-03-2003 11:12 AM


[schrafinator: How can we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we don't understand yet, or do not have the ability to understand?]
Speak for yourself dear. Just because you do not yet understand the difference between Spiritual realities and the Physical realities, or natural system, as you put it, does not mean we are all uneducated in this matter. It is all a matter of perspective. Created in Spiritual Perfection, thrust into physical chaos, the evidence is quite clear to those who minds have been enlightened, and whose hearts have been renewed through that same enlightenment. I would attempt to explain this to you further, but that would require your open admission that submission is not a dirty word.
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 74 by nator, posted 02-03-2003 11:12 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by nator, posted 02-07-2003 12:14 AM Jet has replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 120 (31605)
02-06-2003 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
02-03-2003 10:35 AM


[Percipient: Perhaps her point becomes more clear if you replace the word "wind" with "air".]
Jet: Logical!
[Percipient: "Do you likewise criticize chemistry because it does not explain where elements came from?"]
Jet: Sorry! This seems like another poor use of an analogy. Your analogy seems as illogical an analogy as my saying, "Do you criticize creationism because it does not explain where God comes from?"
Just my opinion.
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 73 by Percy, posted 02-03-2003 10:35 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by nator, posted 02-07-2003 12:18 AM Jet has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 106 of 120 (31614)
02-07-2003 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Jet
02-06-2003 11:11 PM


So, this means that you AREN'T going to answer the question, "How can we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we don't understand yet, or do not have the ability to understand?"
If you have no other method than "special people with the Spirit inside can tell, and other people can't", then I don't think anyone cares.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Jet, posted 02-06-2003 11:11 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Jet, posted 02-10-2003 11:28 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 107 of 120 (31617)
02-07-2003 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Jet
02-06-2003 11:24 PM


Jet: Sorry! This seems like another poor use of an analogy. Your analogy seems as illogical an analogy as my saying, "Do you criticize creationism because it does not explain where God comes from?"
Exactly! You understand! Creationism does not need to explain where God came from to be scientific (it falls flat in other areas), because that's beyond the scope of Creationism.
Likewise, the chemical origins of life are beyond the scope of Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Jet, posted 02-06-2003 11:24 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Jet, posted 02-10-2003 11:59 PM nator has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4800 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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024