The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

One who believes in the Darwinist theory of evolution, as opposed to the Neo-Darwinist version.
.

You would have to define what you mean better. But that would pretty much anyone who has never heard of DNA. As what was mainly lacking from the original theory was a theory of a mechanism for the transmition of discreet inherited characteristics from generation to generation.

I'm open to correction: please provide the refs.

Neo-Lamarckism, orthogenesis, and saltationism would be three that spring to mind and have gone to the failed scientific theory graveyard.

Really? Richard Dawkins has refuted the theory of evolution? No, you are the one making it up - you have moved from my assertion that the theory itself may not be questioned, to offering proof that aspects of it can be. But that is precisely what I said - one may question various mechanisms, but not the theory, not the concept of biological evolution.

Not what he said, the point made was he has questioned aspects of it.

Others beg to differ. If you want an insight to the hysteria in the evolutionist establishment, remember what happened to Prof. Reiss:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4768820.ece

Basically UK Educational politics. The Royal society even backed him as long as it could. It would be akin to the Head of the Medical society suggesting the teaching of Homeopathy in Medical School.

What about for challenging biological evolution per se?

Even creationism has now incorporated 'wharp drive speed super biological evolution' post flood . Besides in you will probably turn around in a few pages and say that science is confined to material things anyway. The alternative to for abiogenesis is 'God did it', and I have not come across a notable scientific paper on the topic as of yet. Another notable fail was the concept of irreducible complexity.

That's handy - for those who get the final say on whether its scientific or not. Catch 22 anyone?


Again, I'll be grateful for the refs.

It would be nice if Creationists would at least submit a few papers to highly respected journals, before crying oppression.

marco_polo

Soul Winner wrote: »

This just illustrates the point Wolfsbane was making to Wiknight about people who don't subscribe to the theory of evolution. If their understanding of it is bad then target their reasoning but if their understanding of it is good then just attack the man. Go figure!!!

All I implied by my post was the article was completely full of inaccuracies. If I am I wrong then by all means feel free point out the parts of the article that I must have missed that demonstrate a deep understanding of current evolutionary theory ( As distinct to what creationists claim that the theory says).

I did not play the man in any way?

The Mad Hatter

Soul Winner wrote: »

This just illustrates the point Wolfsbane was making to Wiknight about people who don't subscribe to the theory of evolution. If their understanding of it is bad then target their reasoning but if their understanding of it is good then just attack the man. Go figure!!!

I haven't read his article, and I don't really care what he has to say about evolution. He is known for possessing some extreme views, and has even been accused of racism on occasion (such as after he made the statement that all Africa had given the world was AIDS).

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

This just illustrates the point Wolfsbane was making to Wiknight about people who don't subscribe to the theory of evolution. If their understanding of it is bad then target their reasoning but if their understanding of it is good then just attack the man. Go figure!!!

Kevin Myers does not have a good understanding of evolution.

All of the attacks on evolution in this thread stem from bad reasoning.

---

I would also like to discourage the use of the term "Neo-Darwinism". It is a nebulous term with multiple meanings. A more accurate term is "evolutionary biology".

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

This just illustrates the point Wolfsbane was making to Wiknight about people who don't subscribe to the theory of evolution. If their understanding of it is bad then target their reasoning but if their understanding of it is good then just attack the man. Go figure!!!

Wait, are you saying that Meyers understanding of Evolution is good?

Kevin Meyers poor understanding of evolution and natural selection has been discussed at length on this forum and the A&A forum. It has also been discussed at length in the letters to the Independent, letters I imagine Meyers doesn't read or chooses to ignore.

This is another aspect of the "persecution" that Creationists or those ignorant of Neo-Darwinian theory such as Meyers, claim takes place.

They state some blatant inaccuracies or lies about Neo-Darwinian theory. They are corrected. They state them again. They are corrected again. They state them again. They are corrected again. They state them again.

Eventually those trying to correct them give up, realising that they are not interested in learning what the theory actually says simply interested in putting forward a false version of the theory that is easier to rally against. So people stop taking them seriously. They stop replying. They stop reading their articles or papers.

And then "outsiders" start crying persecution because they are being attack and not being listened to.

It is a win win for someone trying to make it look like there is controversy over this subject in scientific circles. They just have to speak enough nonsense until people start ignoring them and then they cry persecution.

Wolfbane's examples are perfect examples of this. Sternberg, in an effort to get and ID paper published that he knew had not passed scientific standards, didn't do his job properly. He got in trouble for this and then cried "persecution! they are trying to censor me"

Using an example you guys might relate to, it would be like someone continuously coming on to the Christianity forum saying that Jesus was violent because of the comment about he has come to bring the sword.

The Christians on the forum correct him and say that this passages is not generally understood to mean a literal sword. The poster states it again, is corrected again, states it again, is corrected again.

Eventually one of the mods says you are not listening and ignoring all the Christian posters here who are trying to explain this to you, this is a warning not to start another thread about this or you will be banned. And the rabble rousing poster loves this! This is exactly what he wants "HA!", he says, "You are trying to censor me because I speak the truth to you! Truth you guys can't handle!"

One should always be cautious about claims of censorship, it is the first excuse of those who are being ignored.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

They state some blatant inaccuracies or lies about Neo-Darwinian theory. They are corrected. They state them again. They are corrected again. They state them again. They are corrected again. They state them again.

Eventually those trying to correct them give up, realising that they are not interested in learning what the theory actually says simply interested in putting forward a false version of the theory that is easier to rally against. So people stop taking them seriously. They stop replying. They stop reading their articles or papers.

It's called the proof by assertion logical fallacy

"Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted"

Scofflaw

Don't mind me - just enjoying the comfortable familiarity. Is that my old chair over there?

nostalgically,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

Kevin Myers and J C in one post it's like Christmas and my birthday at once.


/passes the mulled wine to Scofflaw and settles in.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Wait, are you saying that Meyers understanding of Evolution is good?

Kevin Meyers poor understanding of evolution and natural selection has been discussed at length on this forum and the A&A forum. It has also been discussed at length in the letters to the Independent, letters I imagine Meyers doesn't read or chooses to ignore.

This is another aspect of the "persecution" that Creationists or those ignorant of Neo-Darwinian theory such as Meyers, claim takes place.

They state some blatant inaccuracies or lies about Neo-Darwinian theory. They are corrected. They state them again. They are corrected again. They state them again. They are corrected again. They state them again.

Eventually those trying to correct them give up, realising that they are not interested in learning what the theory actually says simply interested in putting forward a false version of the theory that is easier to rally against. So people stop taking them seriously. They stop replying. They stop reading their articles or papers.

And then "outsiders" start crying persecution because they are being attack and not being listened to.

It is a win win for someone trying to make it look like there is controversy over this subject in scientific circles. They just have to speak enough nonsense until people start ignoring them and then they cry persecution.

Wolfbane's examples are perfect examples of this. Sternberg, in an effort to get and ID paper published that he knew had not passed scientific standards, didn't do his job properly. He got in trouble for this and then cried "persecution! they are trying to censor me"

Using an example you guys might relate to, it would be like someone continuously coming on to the Christianity forum saying that Jesus was violent because of the comment about he has come to bring the sword.

The Christians on the forum correct him and say that this passages is not generally understood to mean a literal sword. The poster states it again, is corrected again, states it again, is corrected again.

Eventually one of the mods says you are not listening and ignoring all the Christian posters here who are trying to explain this to you, this is a warning not to start another thread about this or you will be banned. And the rabble rousing poster loves this! This is exactly what he wants "HA!", he says, "You are trying to censor me because I speak the truth to you! Truth you guys can't handle!"

One should always be cautious about claims of censorship, it is the first excuse of those who are being ignored.

Or maybe there's just bad communication going on. If how life got here was all accidental - which it must be if there is no guidance or direction from anywhere - then surely you must admit that the points raised in KM's article are valid, and that his point stands, that in order to accept the evolutionary explanation of how life got to where it is today takes as much faith as does subscribing to any particular religion. Without a guide or director in the mix, Natural Selection is a blind process with no goals or purpose to it whatsoever. And yet, over time this blind process brought about the incomprehensible complexity in nature we see today? Without a planner, creator and sustainer of all life then this delicate balance came about by sheer chance alone. That is what evolutionary theory teaches isn’t it? That there is no supernatural agent involved, no God, that all the delicate balance and incalculable complexity and power in nature is the result of an undirected and goalless process we call Natural Selection. It takes faith to subscribe to that surely, which is what KM's point was in the article if one reads it again, he wasn’t trying to disprove or even discredit the theory. No Worfs or Picards in your responses please. .

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

If how life got here was all accidental - which it must be if there is no guidance or direction from anywhere

Abiogenesis was accidental, natural selection is not.

Soul Winner wrote: »

- then surely you must admit that the points raised in KM's article are valid,

Nope, he doesn't understand evolution and apparently neither do you. I suggest you read this post where I explain mathematically how it works, how it can turn a 0.00000000000002735% chance of success into a 66% chance without any intelligent guidance.

Soul Winner wrote: »

and that his point stands, that in order to accept the evolutionary explanation of how life got to where it is today takes as much faith as does subscribing to any particular religion.

Evolution has 150 years of intensive scientific scrutiny supporting it. Accepting it does not take any faith whatsoever as long as you understand it correctly.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Without a guide or director in the mix, Natural Selection is a blind process with no goals or purpose to it whatsoever. And yet, over time this blind process brought about the incomprehensible complexity in nature we see today? Without a planner, creator and sustainer of all life then this delicate balance came about by sheer chance alone.

Natural selection is the guide. Again, read the post I linked to for an explanation. Natural selection is not chance, it overcomes chance by increasing complexity in very small increments through millions of attempts at each step

Soul Winner wrote: »

That is what evolutionary theory teaches isn’t it?

No, it's not. It's what religious people continue to teach about evolution despite being corrected a million times.

Sam Vimes

Here's an example from a show on Channel 4 the other day trying to point out the flaws in the intelligent design theory:

Many species have a nerve that comes out of their brain and down their neck, which then splits into two. One part continues to the heart (I think it was) then the other part goes back into the head.

In most animals this is fine because the nerve is only about 6 inches long but a giraffe also has this nerve, which runs all the way down its neck and then all the way back up. It travels about 8 feet to get to a point 3 inches from where it started.

In fish where this nerve originated it was fine but in a Giraffe it's a terribly inefficient design. If an engineer was designing it, he would realise this, go back to drawing board and move the nerve to the more efficient place. But evolution can't go back to the drawing board because it has no foresight. Instead it gradually lengthened the nerve over millions of years because it has no way of knowing that rewiring it would be more efficient and it had no intelligence guiding it to do so.

This inefficiency in the body of a giraffe and in millions of other animals is not what you would expect from an intelligent designer but it's exactly what you'd expect from a non-intelligent process that gradually changes and only "knows" it's got something wrong because nature kills it and doesn't allow it to reproduce to pass on it's "wrong" variations. Luckily for giraffes, this inefficiency was not bad enough for its ancestors to be wiped out by predators but the dodo, who gradually lost the ability to fly because it didn't need it as it had no natural predators - until man arrived - was not so lucky

The show is called Inside Nature's Giants and I suggest you take a look at it

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Abiogenesis was accidental, natural selection is not.


Nope, he doesn't understand evolution and apparently neither do you. I suggest you read this post where I explain mathematically how it works, how it can turn a 0.00000000000002735% chance of success into a 66% chance without any intelligent guidance.


Evolution has 150 years of intensive scientific scrutiny supporting it. Accepting it does not take any faith whatsoever as long as you understand it correctly.



Natural selection is the guide. Again, read the post I linked to for an explanation. Natural selection is not chance, it overcomes chance by increasing complexity in very small increments through millions of attempts at each step


No, it's not. It's what religious people continue to teach about evolution despite being corrected a million times.

You're missing the point that KM was making. What you have said is all well and good in theory and is a very good explanation if you try to explain life without appealing to the supernatural to do it. But it still requires faith to accept that THIS IS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED (sorry for shouting). You have no proof that this is how it happened, you've only got models and equations which explain the theory itself, so therefore to accept as true that this is how it actually happened requires faith on your part. At the end of the day all you're really doing is putting your faith in a theory instead of any religion or any God.

Let’s take your trial and error process of Natural Selection. You say that abiogenesis was a chance happening and you state like it is a well established and indisputable fact, but its not. Then you make the jump from that assumption and say that once that happened then Natural Selection kicked in. Then you appeal to the fact that there is dodgy design in nature to support your position that if there was a designer then this would not happen. But surely saying that because something is badly designed that that is a good reason to think that there is no designer. You can have a badly designed car engine for instance but that is not a good reason for thinking that it wasn't designed. Then there are all the things that are well designed in nature, what about those? If bad design is suppose to be a good argument against a designer then good design must a good argument for a designer.

So my question is, how can a process which came about by chance alone be the guide that produces the efficiency and force we see in nearly all living things? I say chance because by your own reckoning Natural Selection only kicked in after the chance happening of abiogenesis occurred and as such is a child chance happening itself and as such what it guides are all subsequent spin off chance happenings stemming from the first chance happening of abiogenesis. All I’m trying to point out is, if you want to accept as true that abiogenesis was a chance happening and once that happened Natural selection took over and the drive and complexity we see in nature is but the byproduct of billions of years of this trial and error process then that takes faith. I am not saying that Evolution and Natural Selection are wrong, I'm simply pointing out that if you want to acept them as true then that takes faith.

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The show is called Inside Nature's Giants and I suggest you take a look at it

Can't view it in my area

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

You're missing the point that KM was making. What you have said is all well and good in theory and is a very good explanation if you try to explain life without appealing to the supernatural to do it. But it still requires faith to accept that THIS IS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED (sorry for shouting). You have no proof that this is how it happened, you've only got models and equations which explain the theory itself, so therefore to accept as true that this is how it actually happened requires faith on your part. At the end of the day all you're really doing is putting your faith in a theory instead of any religion or any God.

Again, evolution by natural selection has 150 years of scientific scrutiny supporting it. Accepting it requires faith in the same way that accepting the theory of gravity or the theory of electromagnetism requires faith, ie it doesn't. The evidence for evolution is all around us in fossils dating back hundreds of millions of years. There might be some small details of the theory that are wrong but the vast majority of it has been proven to the extent that it is humanly possible to prove something. You say it takes faith to say nothing supernatural happened but there is no evidence of the existence of the supernatural so in fact, no it does not take faith to say that something was not involved when there is no proof of its existence and when it could have happened quite easily without this thing being involved.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Let’s take your trial and error process of Natural Selection. You say that abiogenesis was a chance happening and you state like it is a well established and indisputable fact, but its not.

It was acheived in a lab a few months ago:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides

Soul Winner wrote: »

Then you make the jump from that assumption and say that once that happened then Natural Selection kicked in. Then you appeal to the fact that there is dodgy design in nature to support your position that if there was a designer then this would not happen. But surely saying that because something is badly designed that that is a good reason to think that there is no designer. You can have a badly designed car engine for instance but that is not a good reason for thinking that it wasn't designed.

But your designer is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and generally perfect. He doesn't do bad design.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So my question is, how can a process which came about by chance alone be the guide that produces the efficiency and force we see in nearly all living things? I say chance because by your own reckoning Natural Selection only kicked in after the chance happening of abiogenesis occurred and as such is a child chance happening itself and as such what it guides are all subsequent spin off chance happenings stemming from the first chance happening of abiogenesis.

Again, natural selection is not chance. Abiogenesis involved chance but natural selection is not chance. Natural selection is basically trial and error which I'm sure you agree is not the same as chance. And just because the very first stage involved some chance does not mean the entire process of natural selection is also chance. Religious people like to lump abiogenesis and natural selection together but they are completely separate and not dependent on each other. One is chance and the other is trial and error.

What you're suggesting is like saying that if you're doing a maths exam and you guess at one of the answers, that requires you to also guess at all of the other answers. In reality the different questions are independent events just like abiogenesis and natural selection. Rest assured that the level of complexity of life has been completely explained by science without ever using the word chance. Only abiogenesis requires chance.

Soul Winner wrote: »

All I’m trying to point out is, if you want to accept as true that abiogenesis was a chance happening and once that happened Natural selection took over and the drive and complexity we see in nature is but the byproduct of billions of years of this trial and error process then that takes faith.

I know what you're saying, I am explaining to you why what you're saying is not correct. Abiogenesis is unlikely when considered in isolation but when considered in the context of a universe that is 14 billion years old and which contains trillions upon trillions upon trillions of planets it is not unlikely. In a universe that is so vast and that has existed for so long anything that is possible, no matter how unlikely, becomes almost inevitable. And once that first hurdle was overcome, chance took a back seat and billions of mutations and trial and error combined to gradually increase complexity to what it is today. It might seem unlikely but the fact that we are here today testifies to the fact that it is possible.

This is in contrast to your theory, which requires something that is by definition impossible (ie outside nature or supernatural) to have happened. Now that takes faith. Why insist that something supernatural must have taken place when it can be explained perfectly well through natural means?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Or maybe there's just bad communication going on.

Nope, that isn't the case. Plenty of people find it relatively easy to understand what the theory of evolution is saying, even if they don't agree with it. When someone says something about a scientific theory that is blatantly incorrect and is correct and repeats the incorrect statement irrespective of that, it is hard not to conclude there is an agenda going on.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If how life got here was all accidental - which it must be if there is no guidance or direction from anywhere - then surely you must admit that the points raised in KM's article are valid, and that his point stands, that in order to accept the evolutionary explanation of how life got to where it is today takes as much faith as does subscribing to any particular religion.

Why would I accept that? (and don't call me Shirley)

It is like saying that if you accept gravity pulls things down apparently without any intelligent reason then surely that requires as much faith as accepting religion? No, it doesn't require any faith at all. Look, drop ball, falls to ground same time over and over again.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Without a guide or director in the mix, Natural Selection is a blind process with no goals or purpose to it whatsoever. And yet, over time this blind process brought about the incomprehensible complexity in nature we see today?

And .. ?

That is what evolution explains? How is this a problem with evolution

Soul Winner wrote: »

Without a planner, creator and sustainer of all life then this delicate balance came about by sheer chance alone.

No, it came about by Darwinian evolution.

An analogy that is often used that I quite like is looking at a river and pounder that it managed to get from the top of the mountain to the sea by "sheer chance alone".

Of course it didn't. Chance is only a small part of it.

It got their by a natural process of water and gravity carving a route out of the land scape. It is a blind process but it is not blind luck that the river actually managed to make it to the sea. The river doesn't "know" where it is going, but based on a set of simple rules it will always work its way down to sea level.

It is only after it has done this what we look back at it and go "Wow, how did it know!"

Soul Winner wrote: »

That is what evolutionary theory teaches isn’t it?

No, it isn't. Any more than geology teaches that rivers find their way to the sea through "sheer chance"

Soul Winner wrote: »

It takes faith to subscribe to that surely

No more "faith" than it takes to subscribe to the idea that a body of water at elevation will eventually form a river down to sea level based on a simple set of rules covering how it flows.

That is a point that is missed with evolution.

Darwinian evolution is a process that life uses, like gravity/water errosion is a process that a river uses.

It is not a theory that says life stumbled around for a bit and some how managed to turn into us. It is the "some how" bit in that and you can actually apply the process in Darwinian evolution to lots of other things, not just life, in the same way you can apply the process a river uses to other things such as high pressure water cleaning.

If evolution did just say life stumbled around for a bit and some how managed to turn into us yes that would require faith because the process is unknown. In the same way that saying we don't know how but the river manages to find its way to the sea.

But we do know how, so there is no faith involved. It does it by following the rules of the process.

Soul Winner wrote: »

No Worfs or Picards in your responses please. .

I promise nothing

Sam Vimes

I think one of the major problems with the religious view of evolution is that they see human beings as a target to be reached when in reality we're just another step along the way and we could just as easily not have existed. It's the same kind of logical flaw that makes people think that in the lotto the numbers 123456 would never be drawn. They don't realise that those numbers have just as much chance of being drawn as any other combination and they're just assigning arbitrary value to that particular combination.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's the same kind of logical flaw that makes people think that in the lotto the numbers 123456 would never be drawn. They don't realise that those numbers have just as much chance of being drawn as any other combination and they're just assigning arbitrary value to that particular combination.

Off topic, I know, but vastly more people opt for that combination of numbers than any other. If 123456 did come up then you'd probably only win about €500 anyway.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Off topic, I know, but vastly more people opt for that combination of numbers than any other. If 123456 did come up then you'd probably only win about €500 anyway.

Yeah, some guy on AH a few months ago thought he was oh so clever picking that combination thinking no one else would go for it

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think one of the major problems with the religious view of evolution is that they see human beings as a target to be reached when in reality we're just another step along the way and we could just as easily not have existed. It's the same kind of logical flaw that makes people think that in the lotto the numbers 123456 would never be drawn. They don't realise that those numbers have just as much chance of being drawn as any other combination and they're just assigning arbitrary value to that particular combination.

I can't speak for other sorts of Christian understanding, but Creationists do not think evolution is goal-led. We recognise its logic is pure chance - or rather the forces of nature acting in an undirected way. Man is just the chance outcome of billions of years of energy/matter interacting.

Logically, of course, that makes Man of no more significance than the dog-dirt on the pavement. Atheists have to pretend he is, or - in a God-like manner - make him so. They're just assigning arbitrary value to that particular combination.

wolfsbane

marco_polo said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
One who believes in the Darwinist theory of evolution, as opposed to the Neo-Darwinist version.
You would have to define what you mean better. But that would pretty much anyone who has never heard of DNA. As what was mainly lacking from the original theory was a theory of a mechanism for the transmition of discreet inherited characteristics from generation to generation.

OK - but I'm not entering a spat between two sorts of evolutionist, just pointing out the difference.

Quote:
I'm open to correction: please provide the refs.
Neo-Lamarckism, orthogenesis, and saltationism would be three that spring to mind and have gone to the failed scientific theory graveyard.

Thanks. But are you saying those who hold such views are still recognised as real scientists? Or are they rejected as pseudo-scientists? Would their theories be open to debate?

Quote:
Really? Richard Dawkins has refuted the theory of evolution? No, you are the one making it up - you have moved from my assertion that the theory itself may not be questioned, to offering proof that aspects of it can be. But that is precisely what I said - one may question various mechanisms, but not the theory, not the concept of biological evolution.
Not what he said, the point made was he has questioned aspects of it.

Exactly my point. He did not reject evolution, therefore he is still part of the gang.

Quote:
Others beg to differ. If you want an insight to the hysteria in the evolutionist establishment, remember what happened to Prof. Reiss:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4768820.ece
Basically UK Educational politics. The Royal society even backed him as long as it could. It would be akin to the Head of the Medical society suggesting the teaching of Homeopathy in Medical School.

Yes, politics. The suppression of the opposition, never mind any validity their argument might have.

Quote:
What about for challenging biological evolution per se?
Even creationism has now incorporated 'wharp drive speed super biological evolution' post flood .

As far as I recall, creationism has always held to rapid speciation.

Besides in you will probably turn around in a few pages and say that science is confined to material things anyway.

Yes, that is what science is about.

The alternative to for abiogenesis is 'God did it', and I have not come across a notable scientific paper on the topic as of yet.

Creationism holds to the truth that how God did it is not scientifically discoverable. It was a supernatural act. Evolutionism however demands such to be ruled out, so must account for abiogenesis in a material way.

Another notable fail was the concept of irreducible complexity.

No failure involved. Irreducible complexity stands as a witness to the credulity of evolutionists.

It would be nice if Creationists would at least submit a few papers to highly respected journals, before crying oppression.

Maybe you could offer them reassurances that any such submissions will be met with full explanations for refusal, not just 'its not our field' type of put-downs? I've spoken to a few such scientists and they think there is no longer any point. My advice - as a total outsider to science - was to present the material and publish both it and the replies/failures to reply from the institutions. But maybe I'm being too simplistic.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

I can't speak for other sorts of Christian understanding, but Creationists do not think evolution is goal-led. We recognise its logic is pure chance - or rather the forces of nature acting in an undirected way. Man is just the chance outcome of billions of years of energy/matter interacting.

Then I'm afraid you don't recognise its logic because it's not pure chance. Look at this post where I explain how the method of natural selection can turn a 0.00000000000002735% chance to a 66% without any intelligence being required. If you want to reject evolution you will have to acknowledge that it is not pure chance because as long as you keep saying it is, you are simply creating a straw man to knock down, pretending evolution is something other than it is so you can convince yourself it's ridiculous
. Every time a christian insists that evolution is pure chance despite numerous corrections it makes me think they just don't want to hear the truth

Evolution is not goal led in that its path is not pre-defined but it is directed and natural selection is what directs it. Natural selection is simply the process of trial and error and the path of least resistance but what it is not is chance. We did not get here "by pure chance", we got here "by pure trial and error".

If you can look at my post where I explain the process mathematically and explain my error without using the long debunked idea of irreducible complexity (or maybe by proving it rather than simply declaring it), then you will actually be rejecting evolution and not a straw man version of it

wolfsbane wrote: »

Logically, of course, that makes Man of no more significance than the dog-dirt on the pavement. Atheists have to pretend he is, or - in a God-like manner - make him so. They're just assigning arbitrary value to that particular combination.

We are of no more significance than the dog-dirt on the pavement if by significance you mean "given a special place by God". It may not be a pleasant thought but that doesn't mean it's not true.

I'm confused by your use of the term "assigning arbitrary value to that particular combination". I was using it in terms of probability in that people would marvel at the numbers 123456 coming out on the lotto not realising that combination has as much chance as any other. I was showing a common misunderstanding that people have of probability, similar to how christians point to unlikely things as being miracles when really they're just unlikely. Whereas I think you're talking about the value we place on human life, ie that it's wrong to kill and suggesting that it's not if we weren't created by God. The two are not really the same thing. We may not be "special" as in created by a God but we are still living beings with minds so killing us is still a bad thing to do. The concept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" makes sense whether it was handed down from God or not

Sam Vimes

You may not be a proponent of the irreducible complexity idea (although I think it's a requirement of being a creationist, correct me if I'm wrong), but I thought I'd preempt the argument by asking some questions about the eye, an organ which I have often heard described as irreducibly complex. If the eye is irreducibly complex, explain:

1. Hawk's eyes and eagle's eyes which are considerably more complex and efficient than our own
2. Dog's eyes which are less complex and efficient than our own
3. Cat's eyes, who can see in the dark far better than us, can sense movement far better than us and whose eye structure is very different to our own
4. Colour blind people, who lack some of the "cones" that allow colour to be processed
5. The fact that birds and bees can see ultraviolet
6. Vestigial eyes (click number 6) which grow but degenrerate to be completely useless during fetal development. In fact explain vestigial organs in general if we're supposed to be created by a perfect designer
7. Four-eyed fish whose eyes are broken into two chambers so they can rest on the water's surface and see both above and below the water at the same time
8. Fish eyes, who can't turn them and don't require eye lids
9. Bat eyes, which are all but useless but not as useless as the vestigial eyes on some fish.

Are all of these types of eyes, all of varying structure, complexity and efficiency, all irreducibly complex?

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then I'm afraid you don't recognise its logic because it's not pure chance. Look at this post where I explain how the method of natural selection can turn a 0.00000000000002735% chance to a 66% without any intelligence being required.

If that's the case then why hasn't life come about by this method millions of times in the past? Why are the numbers of species declining instead of increasing exponentially with every new occurrence of this type of life generating 66% success rate? Why has this happened only once in earth's history if the chances are really that good for it to happen at all?

Here's what you say about Natural Selection:

"Natural selection:
You roll the dice just as before but this time, at each stage of the sequence you can roll the dice as many times as you want and when you put in the wrong number the sequence doesn't start again. The keypad waits until you get the CORRECT ANSWER and then moves onto the next number in the sequence."

If the keypad (Natural Selection) knows what the correct sequence of numbers are to begin with then how does it know this? If it doesn't know this then it IS all down to chance that the right number sequence happens to match up. So which is it? If Natural Selection (the keypad) knows what the right sequence of 20 numbers are and is just wating for matter to arrange itself to fit that sequence then how does it know that this particualr sequence of numbers is the correct one when it doesn't even know anything at all? If if doesn't know what the correct sequence of numbers are to begin with, then like I said it IS all just a series of chance happenings.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

If that's the case then why hasn't life come about by this method millions of times in the past?

Why are the numbers of species declining instead of increasing exponentially with every new occurrence of this type of life generating 66% success rate? Why has this happened only once in earth's history if the chances are really that good for it to happen at all?

Who says it hasn't? It could have died out a million times before. And I think you're talking about abiogenesis which is not evolution and is indeed a chance process. As the tag on this thread says, abiogenesis =/= evolution.

The 66% success rate was the result in my example. That's not exactly the chance with evolution. And who says the number of species is declining? We need a new flu vaccine every year because the virus keeps mutating. A species is just a human term but effectively every year a new species of flu appears.

And an example on the macro level would be labradoodles which didn't exist 50 years ago.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If the keypad (Natural Selection) knows what the correct sequence of numbers are to begin with then how does it know this? If it doesn't know this then it IS all down to chance that the right number sequence happens to match up. So which is it? If Natural Selection (the keypad) knows what the right sequence of 20 numbers are and is just wating for matter to arrange itself to fit that sequence then how does it know that this particualr sequence of numbers is the correct one when it doesn't even know anything at all? If if doesn't know what the correct sequence of numbers are to begin with, then like I said it IS all just a series of chance happenings.

It doesn't "know" what the correct sequence is, that was just the example I gave. It's difficult to give an analogy without using the term "know", I was just showing that the life itself doesn't have to know anything.

It "knows" in that if a mutation is not good for the environment that the animal finds itself in, it will die. Nature tells it it's got the "wrong answer" by killing it. An example can be seen above with the fish with vestigial eyes. The ones on the surface had predators to avoid so any of them who mutated to have bad vision were eaten. They developed bad vision and nature said "wrong answer fishy" in the form of a predator eating it. In comparison, the ones in the cave did not have these predators and the eyes didn't work in the dark anyway so the ones who mutated to have bad vision did not get killed. The ones that kept their vision were wasting energy keeping these eyes going that the bad-vision ones could use to find food so in that scenario it was the ones with no vision who survived.
Nature said to the ones with vision "wrong answer fishy" because it was wasting energy that it's bad eyed brethen weren't so it didn't get to the food as fast and died out

With natural selection, there is no absolute "correct sequence of numbers", there's only "correct for the given environment". As my example shows, the same variation resulted in death on the surface but not in the cave. No intelligence is required, it's just about which mutations happen to be good for the given environment

Sam Vimes

As a side note, I'd like you to always keep in mind that you are arguing that 150 years of intensive scientific scrutiny is nonsense. These scientists did not have vested interests like christians do, they have done their very best to find holes in evolutionary theory and after all this time, they have yet to prove it wrong. The theory has been updated several times since its first inception but the best scientific minds in the world have accepted is as proven to the same extent as gravity.

Basically, if evolution appears to be nonsense to you, you should consider the possibility that you just don't understand it.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You may not be a proponent of the irreducible complexity idea (although I think it's a requirement of being a creationist, correct me if I'm wrong), but I thought I'd preempt the argument by asking some questions about the eye, an organ which I have often heard described as irreducibly complex. If the eye is irreducibly complex, explain:

1. Hawk's eyes and eagle's eyes which are considerably more complex and efficient than our own
2. Dog's eyes which are less complex and efficient than our own
3. Cat's eyes, who can see in the dark far better than us, can sense movement far better than us and whose eye structure is very different to our own
4. Colour blind people, who lack some of the "cones" that allow colour to be processed
5. The fact that birds and bees can see ultraviolet
6. Vestigial eyes (click number 6) which grow but degenrerate to be completely useless during fetal development. In fact explain vestigial organs in general if we're supposed to be created by a perfect designer
7. Four-eyed fish whose eyes are broken into two chambers so they can rest on the water's surface and see both above and below the water at the same time
8. Fish eyes, who can't turn them and don't require eye lids
9. Bat eyes, which are all but useless but not as useless as the vestigial eyes on some fish.

Are all of these types of eyes, all of varying structure, complexity and efficiency, all irreducibly complex?

Irreducibly complex refers to the fact that their correct functioning state could not have arisen by increments, as evolution requires. Most of the parts are needed at once for any sort of function to be done. Some missing parts - the cones, for example - impedes the operation. Others mean no sight at all. For evolution to be true, every part would have to have a value for it to be selected. 99 non-functioning parts can't hang around waiting for the necessary 1 that is needed for them all to be a functioning unit.

Vestigial eyes are just that - eyes that degenerated. Loss of information, not proof of non-functioning eyes having evolved toward sight.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As a side note, I'd like you to always keep in mind that you are arguing that 150 years of intensive scientific scrutiny is nonsense. These scientists did not have vested interests like christians do, they have done their very best to find holes in evolutionary theory and after all this time, they have yet to prove it wrong. The theory has been updated several times since its first inception but the best scientific minds in the world have accepted is as proven to the same extent as gravity.

Basically, if evolution appears to be nonsense to you, you should consider the possibility that you just don't understand it.

So these scientists were working with the real possibility in their minds that evolution might not be true? That a mature recent creation might be the reality?

Care to show that in their writings?

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Irreducibly complex refers to the fact that their correct functioning state could not have arisen by increments, as evolution requires. Most of the parts are needed at once for any sort of function to be done. Some missing parts - the cones, for example - impedes the operation. Others mean no sight at all. For evolution to be true, every part would have to have a value for it to be selected. 99 non-functioning parts can't hang around waiting for the necessary 1 that is needed for them all to be a functioning unit.

The part in bold is not true. Having value is a big help but animals are full of various inefficiencies that, while detrimental to their operation, are not bad enough to get them killed in their given environment. A giraffe does great in Africa where there are high trees but put it in the desert where there are only small bushes and it'll die fairly lively.

Also, all you've done is define irreducible complexity, you haven't proven that it's the case. The first "eye" was most likely a single nerve ending that was sensitive to light and this nerve ending gradually became more complex through mutations and natural selection

wolfsbane wrote: »

Vestigial eyes are just that - eyes that degenerated. Loss of information, not proof of non-functioning eyes having evolved toward sight.

That's only one of my examples. What about all the other variations that are all at varying levels of complexity and all suited to their own particular environments. The four-eyed fish is particularly amazing imo.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So these scientists were working with the real possibility in their minds that evolution might not be true? That a mature recent creation might be the reality?

Care to show that in their writings?

When testing evolution, these scientists are absolutely working with the real possibility that it might not be true. If they weren't they wouldn't be doing their jobs properly. It's just that over the last 150 years the evidence has become completely insurmountable just like the evidence that the universe is 14 billion years old has become insurmountable. They can work on the contrary idea but they would have to throw out the entirety of human knowledge to date in order to accept it as true.


If you look at my example with the fish and you can understand why, if through a mutation a sighted fish gave birth to blind offspring on the surface they would die but if the same fish gave birth to the same offspring in the cave they would not die but would survive and flourish, you will understand how nature "knows" which variations are good for the given environment and you will understand evolution. For scientists to seriously consider that evolution does not exist, they would have to pretend that these fish do not exist because they represent compelling evidence that evolution is true

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

Irreducibly complex refers to the fact that their correct functioning state could not have arisen by increments, as evolution requires. Most of the parts are needed at once for any sort of function to be done. Some missing parts - the cones, for example - impedes the operation. Others mean no sight at all. For evolution to be true, every part would have to have a value for it to be selected. 99 non-functioning parts can't hang around waiting for the necessary 1 that is needed for them all to be a functioning unit.

You're confusing 'little by little' with 'piece by piece'. No-one's saying that the modern eye came about because various parts of the modern eye appeared from nowhere. Well, no-one except creationists, anyway.

Sam Vimes

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You're confusing 'little by little' with 'piece by piece'. No-one's saying that the modern eye came about because various parts of the modern eye appeared from nowhere. Well, no-one except creationists, anyway.

I didn't even cop that that's what he meant because I didn't think anyone had such a poor understanding of evolution.

Of course each part didn't evolve to their current structure independently, waiting for that final piece of the puzzle for it all to kick into action. Each part came along at different times and each part started out very differently, and much simpler than they are today and gradually refined into the structure you see today. Now if, say, the cornea was taken away our eye wouldn't work but back then the eyes were of a structure that didn't require a cornea, just like the eye of the planarium which can only distinguish light from dark

The first eye would have been a single nerve ending, it would not have required anything else to be sensitive to light. It was only over millions of years that the rest of the apparatus evolved. Here's a bit of the history of the study of the evolution of the eye, with a quote from the man himself:

Since 1802, the evolution of a structure as complex as the projecting eye by natural selection has been said to be difficult to explain.[4] Charles Darwin himself wrote, in his Origin of Species, that the evolution of the eye by natural selection at first glance seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree". However, he went on to explain that despite the difficulty in imagining it, it was perfectly feasible:

...if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.[5]

He suggested a gradation from "an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism" to "a moderately high stage of perfection", giving examples of extant intermediate grades of evolution.[5]

Darwin's suggestions were soon proven to be correct, and current research is investigating the genetic mechanisms responsible for eye development and evolution.

...

The earliest predecessors of the eye were photoreceptor proteins that sense light, found even in unicellular organisms, called "eyespots". Eyespots can only sense ambient brightness: they can distinguish light from dark, sufficient for photoperiodism and daily synchronization of circadian rhythms. They are insufficient for vision, as they can not distinguish shapes or determine the direction light is coming from. Eyespots are found in nearly all major animal groups, and are common among unicellular organisms, including euglena. The euglena's eyespot, called a stigma, is located at its anterior end. It is a small splotch of red pigment which shades a collection of light sensitive crystals. Together with the leading flagellum, the eyespot allows the organism to move in response to light, often toward the light to assist in photosynthesis,[14] and to predict day and night, the primary function of circadian rhythms. Visual pigments are located in the brains of more complex organisms, and are thought to have a role in synchronising spawning with lunar cycles. By detecting the subtle changes in night-time illumination, organisms could synchronise the release of sperm and eggs to maximise the probability of fertilisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

So even single-celled organisms have form of eye. Now that's reducible complexity if ever I've seen it

Also, note the use of the term "proven to be correct". You are arguing that something is impossible when it has been proven to have happened. You might as well be saying gravity doesn't exist.