| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
26 Jan 2005 06:07:09 AM |
| Object: |
Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
From the article:
-------------------------------
Evolution is adequate to explain many of the puzzles of how living things
develop. It is not a complete theory, and possibly it can never be to the
satisfaction of all parties to this controversy. But it is simply mindless for
boards of education to pose a theory of intelligent design to compete with
evolution in the biology textbooks. For one thing, what if there are three or
three thousand or three million plausible explanations for the riddles of life?
Many advocates of creationist theory are quite sincere in their beliefs. They
are entitled to hold those beliefs if they wish. But they have no business
trying to bootstrap their religious beliefs into an educational system which at
its best does not do an adequate job in science education.
-------------------------------
Read it at
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050126/OPINION02/501260302/-1/OPINION
or http://tinyurl.com/66jy5
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
.
|
|
| User: "Happy Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 04:23:47 AM |
|
|
"Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote in message
Jay, why do I think electrons are real? I have a degree in physics,
and I'm familiar with quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle. What is an electron? That is another question. There is a
lot I don't understand about them.
That's not what he asked. Out of curiosity, what's your degree? Where's it
from? What was your PhD thesis? Where's it (and your subsequent stuff)
published? And, again why do you believe electrons are real? Exactly.
Evolution can be accommodated by my religious beliefs so that is not
why I am a much bigger skeptic when it comes to this theory.
Predictions based on this theory have not panned out. Darwin himself
felt that his theory would crumble if, for example, the cell turned out
to be something that was not quite simple.
Who gives a ***** what Darwin believed?
Evolution today in its
present form has become a tautology - impossible to prove or disprove,
impossible to test. It is on the level of an axiom. I can accept it
as that, but not as a fact, or even as established.
The theory makes predictions that can be tested.
The examples I referred to earlier are often presented in textbooks as
evidence. I'm amazed at how much is made over them, because iIf that
is the best there is, evolution is bankrupt for evidence. I'll be glad
to go into those examples if you wish, but if you have something better
- I'm all ears.
Go into examples.
moo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John M Price PhD" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
30 Jan 2005 08:10:09 PM |
|
|
Best in monospaced font.
In article <1106884446.247506.130250@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> from sci.skeptic you wrote:
Jay, why do I think electrons are real? I have a degree in physics,
and I'm familiar with quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle. What is an electron? That is another question. There is a
lot I don't understand about them.
### ####### ### ###
### ########### ### ###
### ### ### ### ###
### ### ### ### ###
### ### ### ### ###
### ### ### ###
######## ########### ######## ###
######## ######## ######## ###
(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved.
Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior
written consent of the author with the express and only exception of
followup postings limited to and within usenet.
--
John M. Price, PhD
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
Question with boldness even the existence of God;
because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason,
than that of blindfolded fear.
- Thomas Jefferson: Letter to Peter Carr, 1787
.
|
|
|
| User: "josephus" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
31 Jan 2005 09:40:36 AM |
|
|
I make a predition about Steve. he has avoided lettings us know what
his real creditonal are. he claimed them we ddi not intially ask abvout
them until he told us he had them
I predict that he has no credentials and he lied about it. He will not
even answer the reasonable questions put to him but he posts points
stright down the party line.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Happy Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
31 Jan 2005 01:35:00 PM |
|
|
"josephus" <dogbird@earthlink.net> wrote in
I make a predition about Steve. he has avoided lettings us know what
his real creditonal are. he claimed them we ddi not intially ask abvout
them until he told us he had them
I predict that he has no credentials and he lied about it. He will not
even answer the reasonable questions put to him but he posts points
stright down the party line.
He's a polite IDer / Creationist. That's all. He'll vanish once he's
avoided the tough questions (which he has, repeatedly). Someone else will
subsequently do the same thing all over again. Still, it's good for lurkers
and the non Christ-besotted to see the systematic destruction of the IDers
silly claims by a few excellent, and tolerant, posters here.
moo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
31 Jan 2005 10:20:04 AM |
|
|
josephus wrote:
I make a predition about Steve. he has avoided lettings us know what
his real creditonal are. he claimed them we ddi not intially ask abvout
them until he told us he had them
I predict that he has no credentials and he lied about it. He will not
even answer the reasonable questions put to him but he posts points
stright down the party line.
Sigh. You are probably right. Simple honesty is so rare in
believers.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
30 Jan 2005 08:29:27 AM |
|
|
On 27 Jan 2005 19:54:06 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
Jay, why do I think electrons are real? I have a degree in physics,
and I'm familiar with quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle. What is an electron? That is another question. There is a
lot I don't understand about them.
he's got a degree in physics and doesnt accept radioactive decay?
Evolution can be accommodated by my religious beliefs so that is not
why I am a much bigger skeptic when it comes to this theory.
Predictions based on this theory have not panned out.
nested hierarchies? common descent? all seen...
Darwin himself
felt that his theory would crumble if, for example, the cell turned out
to be something that was not quite simple. Evolution today in its
present form has become a tautology - impossible to prove or disprove,
impossible to test. It is on the level of an axiom. I can accept it
as that, but not as a fact, or even as established.
see:
http://www.cofc.edu/~southgat/bio102ch14pw.html.html
for an example of observed speciation.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
27 Jan 2005 10:44:38 PM |
|
|
So you have a degree in physics, yet you think that the best evidence
for evolution can be found in grammer/secondary school textbooks? If
someone came up to you with the Rutherford model of the atom and says
that is totally wrong so we should stop teaching physics would you
agree with them? If they refused to look at the actual atomic theory
that scientest actually use but insist on basing their arguments from
basic public education texts, would you give their arguments any
credence. Would you hire a physicist (to do physics) whos only
education was from a high-school physics text and had no university
training? I've already stated that public schools (and their
associated texts) give a horribly poor description of evolution, why do
you think that represents the best arguments/evidence for evolution.
BTW, there are thousands of ways evolutionary theory could be
disproved, if the human eye turned out to be wired like a squid, if a
cat-dog fossil is found, if sequencing the dna of species made it clear
that it could not be releated to other species that all other evidence
points to a close relationship. That the basic human building block
matched dust, on and on and on....
Steve, every argument I've seen you present is based not on what
evolutionary theory states but the twisted views of evolutionary theory
generated by people who either do not understand it or understand it
but choose to lie about it.
If you do have a college degree in physics, you should be more then
capable of reading the literture and getting an acurate understanding
of evolution and not some comic book understanding, that you spout here
on this newsgroup.
Finally, you say you have a physics degree and cite the 2nd law of
thermodynamics, so answer this simple question, why does cyrstal
formation not violate the 2nd law, in your opinion.
---Jay
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
27 Jan 2005 11:14:23 PM |
|
|
Jay, to answer your question first. A crystal does not form randomly.
It reflects an order that exists in the molecular structure.
You make some awesome charges here about twisted views and comic book
understanding. It would be more illuminating to me if you responded to
the issues raised.
I could find you a few quotes from respected evolutionists, who assert
that evolution today is at an axiomatic level, impossible to disprove.
It is so accommodating to whatever it finds, as I think your paragraph
above disputes but so well illustrates.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
27 Jan 2005 11:45:40 PM |
|
|
Is water vs. a snowflake more orderly or less orderly? Don't they both
have the same molecular structure? Does one violate the 2nd law and
the other doesn't? If you didn't know about the molecular structure
(or didn't care) how could you tell if a snowflake was designed or
formed through natural processes? Why do you think that a snowflake
doesn't violate the 2nd law, but somehow evolution does? Does a
devolping baby from the ferterlized egg thru birth to adulthood violate
the 2nd law and requires an active intellegence/designer to intervene
at every step in the growth process? If the infant developing doesn't
violate the 2nd law, why would evolution?
I could find you a few quotes from respected evolutionists, who
assert
that evolution today is at an axiomatic level, impossible to
disprove.
Who is using an appeal to authority here? I gave you a handful of ways
that evolution could be disproved, why aren't they legitimate?
Please cite the problems with my examples here ==>
Evolution is not that accomidating, it is fairly rigid in what is to be
expected and what is totally incompatable with it. The double nested
hierarchy for example makes very acurate predictions on what will be
found in both morphology and at the genetic level as well as what wont
be found. Take a species whose DNA has never been sequenced, do you
think that scientests could make accurate predictions on what would and
would not be found? Radical differences would certainly put evolution
on the hot seat! If it was accommodating to whatever it finds, that
would not be the case.
---Jay
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 12:23:58 AM |
|
|
Jay, I'll reply in order to your post, and then I'm going to bed.
I've enjoyed the exchange. A molecule of water is incredibly complex,
and obviously a snowflake is made up of water. Nothing violates the
2nd law. The origin of the complexity that we find I don't believe can
be addressed scientifically since observing present natural laws or
processes and postulating they are the processes of bringing everything
into existence is a philosphical assumption, just as creationism is.
It is possible, but it is not pure science, in my humble opinion. The
example of a baby developing from a fertilized egg doesn't violate the
second law. Every step of development is pre-programmed into the DNA
molecules - utter mind-boggling complexity. The baby's development is
not an increase in complexity - it only appears that way to our naked
eye. It is an unfolding of pre-existing complexity and order that
begins to decay and return to dust from the point of conception!
OK, you got me on appealing to authoity. On your examples I replied
to them in another place above.
I don't follow your reasoning in the last paragraph. Scientists can
make predictions from from DNA. How does that establish evolutionary
theory? The big question today (which is being mostly ignored) is how
the almost inconceivable DNA complexity got there in the first place,
using the evolutionary model.
Good night. Perhaps will meet up with you later.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 01:12:54 AM |
|
|
Have a good night Steve, but I'll leave you with the following.
Evolution is not abogenesis (sp?). Why is it that fertilazation and
developement, in your own words, do not violate the 2nd law but
evolution does. Please be specific. If it turns out that the first
cell of life was created ex-nihlo, how does that effect evolution one
bit?
On falsifaction of evolution, I must have missed where you addressed my
examples, can you either repost them or post a link to your response?
If all life is connected to a common ancesctor, with DNA as the
replication of that life, you would see a giant tree and that changes
(mutations) would follow the same branching pattern. If life wasn't
related that way, then there shouldn't be the pattern. For example, if
I were to graf a branch from one tree onto a different tree, that can
be detected. Likeways, if all life is not related in the fashion that
evolution theory predicts, you would not be surprised to find those
types of grafs occuring. OTOH, if life is descended as evoltionary
theory porposes, then you would see the same pattern in the DNA, which
is inded found. If life is not related, then what predictions can you
make?
Yes the origin of DNA is a hard problem. Did you know that determing
the motions of the planets (including the retro-grade motion) was a
hard problem for our ancestors? We can conclude that angels push them
at their discretion or we can try to solve the problem. The origin of
DNA, we can conclude God created it or we can try to solve the problem.
We may never succeed, we may not be smart enough, or it may be true
that it cannot be explained in naturalistic terms - but it makes no
sense not to try to solve this riddle.
One last question for the night (you convientely failed to answer any
of my other questions/challenges, but I'll try). Is there any
phenomonym occuring in the world today that you believe requires
supernatural intervention? That is, that it cannot be explained by
science? Note I'm not saying we can explain everything, I'm asking if
you believe that there is events happening today that require divine
intervention to work? Should those events lie outside of realm of
scientific investigations?
---Jay
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 09:02:08 PM |
|
|
Jay, I've been out tonight so this will be brief. Your question is why
do I think evolution violates the second law? In a nutshell, because
it claims that order and complexity in the world can arise from
inanimate matter by natural processes.
I'll find the link before I sign off, if I can.
Your question is what predictiions would I make if all life did not
have a common ancestor? For one, I would predict that in the fossil
record I would not find a homogenously uniform minutely graduated chain
from amoeba to man, but rather distinct species except for minor
horizontal variation over time.
Yes, I like trying to solve riddles. I do not like asserting that we
have solved them when we haven't.
I failed to answer ANY of your questions?? I thought that was what I
was doing. What did I overlook?
I believe there is a God. I believe any claims of the supernatural
should be subjected to scrutiny and science is welcome and sometimes
helpful by participating in that scrutiny. If science can't explain
something, it doesn't follow de facto that the event in question is
supernatural.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
30 Jan 2005 08:34:53 AM |
|
|
On 28 Jan 2005 19:02:08 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
Jay, I've been out tonight so this will be brief. Your question is why
do I think evolution violates the second law? In a nutshell, because
it claims that order and complexity in the world can arise from
inanimate matter by natural processes.
no, it doesnt at all. it predicts descent with modification from
living organisms. so your basic definition is wrong.
I failed to answer ANY of your questions?? I thought that was what I
was doing. What did I overlook?
I believe there is a God. I believe any claims of the supernatural
should be subjected to scrutiny and science is welcome and sometimes
helpful by participating in that scrutiny.
how does a scientist use scientific means to scrutinize the
supernatural, or its claims? how does the supernatural work? how can
we detect it?
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
28 Jan 2005 11:53:12 PM |
|
|
Thanks for the response!
Steve wrote:
Jay, I've been out tonight so this will be brief. Your question is
why
do I think evolution violates the second law? In a nutshell, because
it claims that order and complexity in the world can arise from
inanimate matter by natural processes.
Evolution most definitely does not claim this. You are thinking of
abiogenisis. Evolution only comes into play after life came into
existence. Please do not confuse the terms. They are very different.
BTW, abiogenisis does not violate the the 2nd law either, but lets save
that for another thread. Suffice to say, do you now concide that
'evolution' does not violate the 2nd law? If you wont concide that, I
want to know why.
I'll find the link before I sign off, if I can.
Your question is what predictiions would I make if all life did not
have a common ancestor? For one, I would predict that in the fossil
record I would not find a homogenously uniform minutely graduated
chain
from amoeba to man, but rather distinct species except for minor
horizontal variation over time.
Why, how does those predictions derive from your theory? Would you
predict that all types of life forms would be found in every strata?
If not, why not. Would you predict that flowering plants would be
found in only the most recent layers, why or why not? Would you
predict that mammals would appear before the earliest known
invertebrates? Why or why not. Steve, these are not rhetorical
questions, I'm hoping for an answer from you.
Yes, I like trying to solve riddles. I do not like asserting that we
have solved them when we haven't.
Are you implying that scientists have done this, asserting they solved
the mystery of abiogenisis? <sarcasm>If so, I missed the major
scientific breakthrough of my lifetime</sarcasm> There is a lot of
research going on in this field, but I don't believe anyone has claimed
success. A lot is still not known. If you are offended that they
believe that natural process could account for the formation of the
beginning of life, well what do you expect? By definition, that is
what science seeks to find out - how could the phenomonm be explained.
I don't understand why that is so difficult. If you were to corner any
scientist working in this field and say "are you 100% positive that
life had to arise in a naturalistic way, that no supernatural entity or
god was involved, at all, or could conceivably have been involved." I
would venture to guess that you would find few takers. Instead, I
would imagine that they would replay that they have to work under the
assumption that it happened based on the 'laws of nature' otherwise why
bother investigating it. Every branch of science operates that way.
Every observed phenomonm is assumed to have a natural explanation - or
do you think that is a problem, do you think that assumption is
equivalent to religious faith and dogma?
I failed to answer ANY of your questions?? I thought that was what I
was doing. What did I overlook?
I laid out a number of specific challenges which you have avoided or
dodged. For example, I asked why you think electrons exist, what is
the scientific evidence/reasoning that lead you to that conclusion -
that you came closest in answering - but not really, you said because
you have a physics degree and know about the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle. So, if someone has a biology degree, that is all that they
need to say in order for you to accept why they think evolution
explains the diversity of life? I asked, specifically, demonstrate to
me that the earth orbits the sun and not, what is obvious to my senses,
the reverse, that the sun goes around the earth. You have not done
that. There are many more I can pull out of this thread that you have
not answered, and if you wish I can pull them out. I also asked you to
explain why my examples of how evolution could be falsified were
incorrect. You claimed you answered them, I never saw those answers
and I asked you to either respond again or give the links to the
message in which you did answer them. You have not given me a single
example of scientific reasoning that you consider is valid, for any of
the examples I asked for, even though you admitted you believe them to
be true. Shall I go on?
I believe there is a God. I believe any claims of the supernatural
should be subjected to scrutiny and science is welcome and sometimes
helpful by participating in that scrutiny. If science can't explain
something, it doesn't follow de facto that the event in question is
supernatural.
Yes, if science doesn't have a model for a specific phenomonm then that
doesn't mean it is supernatural in nature. First of all, even if
science can accurately describe an event, that doesn't prove the event
wasn't supernatural either, it's just that if there is a natural
explaination for an event that someone claimed is supernatural, it
makes the supernatural explanation, a bit harder to accept. Basically,
science has nothing to do with the supernatural and it falls outside
the boundaries of science. If you want to believe that there are
things that can never be explained by science because they are
supernatural in nature, fine, believe what you want, but don't delude
yourself into thinking that that is science, because it isn't.
For example, there is a light switch in the room I'm sitting in, if I
flip it up, a lightbulb hanging from the ceiling goes on. I am naive
in thinking that by flipping the switch, I closed a circuit and
electricity flowed into the bulb causing it to glow. It is naive
because electricity doesn't exists, invisible gnomes make all so-called
electric devices work. They are very clever and mischievous and time
their turning on and off the devices to give the illusion that I am the
cause. This causes them no end of amusement. Sometimes they slip-up
and miss an opportunity. I turn on the switch, nothing happens, I try
it again and it works. Why is this not a legitimate explanation? Why
is it any better or worse then saying life can't just happen, therefore
God did it? Please answer these questions as well because I don't see
a difference between the two.
Thanks for you responsiveness,
---Jay
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
29 Jan 2005 09:50:44 PM |
|
|
OK, Jay. I will try to respond in order point by point. There are a
lot of threads going from my posts two days ago, and it is hard to
follow them all and keep up. I've got about an hour per night so will
try to stick with you but I know some others will fall through the
cracks.
That is informative about abiogenesis. I didn't know you made a
distinction. I am using the term evolution as I described it in my
opening statement because it means different things to different
people. Tell me what you mean by evolution, and I will tell you if I
believe it violates the 2nd law. As already stated there are many
processes commonly associated with evolution that I accept. Let me say
if you just push the starting point back from inanimate matter to a
beginning simple life form, the problem still remains. What is your
starting point? Do you believe in ASCENT of the species?
"Why, how does those predictions derive from your theory?" Well, if my
theory was that there was not a common ancestor I would find that cats
have always been cats in the fossil record, and so on, with an absence
of transitional forms. "Would you predict that all types of life forms
would be found in every strata?" Yes, if I accepted the uniformitarian
assumption that these strata were laid down over long periods of time.
Your phrases "recent layers" and "earliest strata" reflect these
assumptions which are in reality based upon a geological timetable set
up rather arbitrarily150 years ago. Until these most scientists
believed the strata were laid down catastrophically with animals sorted
through the strata as we find in flood layers. "Would you predict that
flowering plants would be
found in only the most recent layers, why or why not? Would you
predict that mammals would appear before the earliest known
invertebrates?" Do you see how your questions are based upon
uniformitarian assumptions? No I would not necessarily predict any time
sequence for the appearance of any life forms. I am answering your
questions as put. There are riddles to solve in any model. For
instance, how does a person who accepts the prevailing geologic
timetable, which was set up rather arbitrarily 150 years ago, explain a
petrified tree extending through three strata supposedly separated in
time by billions of years? I'm not a competent biologist or geologist
to propose an answer. I am comfortable with riddles for which I don't
have answers. I am uncomfortable with dogmatism, which when people,
instead of replying to the question, begin calling you a liar,
dishonest or stupid for questioning their belief system. (this is not
directed to you, Jay)
Concerning claims that are made, the question goes back to what you
mean by the word evolution and what other people mean when they say it
happened. A few weeks ago in our daily newspaper a professor said
something like "we don't have all the details worked out but all
scientists believe in evolution" (rough paraphrase) What is he saying
all scientists believe in - details to confirm what? You seem to have
focused on the jump from inanimate matter to life. The general idea is
explaining complexity and order in the universe by natural means, is it
not? If so, I reject the claim that evolution as a theory explains
that. And that is what theories are supposed to do - to say that we
don't by what mechanism it may have happened, but we all agree it
happened is a strange predicament for a theory that started out (before
complications arose) to explain how complexity happened.
Questions I have avoided. Thanks for being specific and helping me
understand what you were referring to. You didn't like my answer about
the electron. It was not satisfactory to you or was not the answer you
were expecting - but it was an answer. That's the best I can do. In
referring to a physics degree, I was just saying I am acquainted with
this field of information rather than write you a book. With limited
time - there has to be some selectivity. I assure you it is not
avoidance, and I do not want to by-pass what you consider relevant. To
expand on why I believe one thing and not another further: Most of
what scientists believe, bottom line, they take on the word of others
since knowledge is so specialized. I am no exception to that. When
questions or controversy between competent people arise, you weigh the
issues. In that case, you may remain undecided, or you may find one
position quite convincing. I did not accept the premise of your
question about the sun and the earth because both answers are equally
correct from Einstein's point of view, which I accept. I do remember
your examples of how evolution could be falsified. I don't think I
replied to them - at least I can't find your original post. I remember
you said if a "cat-dog" fossil was found, it would falsify the theory.
I didn't go down tha road because I felt you missed my point about
transitional forms. If there was a question in there that you really
want me to respond to, would you mind restating it as well as any
others that were important to you that I have overlooked?
Well, I think we agree on your last two paragraphs. So I agree there
can be many legitimate explanations that are impossible to disprove
scientifically, including the theory that we were all created 5 seconds
ago complete with memories. Do I believe it? No. Can I logically
disprove it? No.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Happy Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
30 Jan 2005 05:16:02 PM |
|
|
"Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote in message
Questions I have avoided. Thanks for being specific and helping me
understand what you were referring to. You didn't like my answer about
the electron. It was not satisfactory to you or was not the answer you
were expecting - but it was an answer. That's the best I can do. In
referring to a physics degree, I was just saying I am acquainted with
this field of information rather than write you a book. With limited
time - there has to be some selectivity. I assure you it is not
avoidance, and I do not want to by-pass what you consider relevant.
Nope. It's bona fide avoidance. You've been asked about your degree. One
sentence would tell us all we need to know about it. You've been aksed,
numerous times, specific questions, giving examples, about the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics and the electron. You've ignored or avoided them.
Again, from frogman:
Steve, I'm going to ask you a set of questions. The goal is, if you
are sincere, and I hope you are, is to gauge what you consider proper
evidence. Please answer them so I know what type of evidence would be
acceptable to you regarding evolution as a science:
Should people be convicted of crimes only if there are eyewitnesses, or
can crime scene evidence be used? If the latter, list some examples of
legitimate and illegitimate evidence, and what makes it so.
Do you think atoms, protons, and electrons really exist? If so, why,
if not why not?
Do you think that the sun is a star? Why or why not?
Do you think that objects fall at the same rate of acceleration on the
earth? What would you guess be to the number of dropped objects that
have been measured compared to the total number of objects that ever
fell is? Do you think that for all the objects that fell, but were
never measured, that the results would agree with the figures for the
extremely small sample of measured ones? Does it concern you that
results of the measured ones almost never match the theoritical value?
Why would that be and do you think that the difference can be explained
in an honest way?
So I will repeat just one of the questions that you avoided, why do you
think electrons are real? What is the evidence that convinces you?
Clearly it is not because you see them, so there must be other
scientific evidence that convinces you.
Finally, you say you have a physics degree and cite the 2nd law of
thermodynamics, so answer this simple question, why does cyrstal
formation not violate the 2nd law, in your opinion.
You answered:
"Jay, why do I think electrons are real? I have a degree in physics,
and I'm familiar with quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle."
That's not an answer.
I did not accept the premise of your
question about the sun and the earth because both answers are equally
correct from Einstein's point of view, which I accept. I do remember
your examples of how evolution could be falsified. I don't think I
replied to them - at least I can't find your original post. I remember
you said if a "cat-dog" fossil was found, it would falsify the theory.
I didn't go down tha road because I felt you missed my point about
transitional forms.
You said:
"The fact that in the fossil record cats have always
been cats and dogs are always dogs, and we don't find any cat-dogs
presents a serious difficulty.":
Well??
You have done nothing here but spew well worn Creationist rhetoric.
Answer the above questions and prove me wrong.
moo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
30 Jan 2005 01:47:19 AM |
|
|
Thanks for the response Steve (please excuse the spelling/grammer
mistakes, it's late and I'm too lazy to spell check it).
Steve wrote:
OK, Jay. I will try to respond in order point by point. There are a
lot of threads going from my posts two days ago, and it is hard to
follow them all and keep up. I've got about an hour per night so
will
try to stick with you but I know some others will fall through the
cracks.
I appreciate that.
That is informative about abiogenesis. I didn't know you made a
distinction. I am using the term evolution as I described it in my
opening statement because it means different things to different
people. Tell me what you mean by evolution, and I will tell you if I
believe it violates the 2nd law. As already stated there are many
processes commonly associated with evolution that I accept. Let me
say
if you just push the starting point back from inanimate matter to a
beginning simple life form, the problem still remains. What is your
starting point? Do you believe in ASCENT of the species?
Most people who study abiogensis and evolution understand that they are
different. Evolution concerns itself with how the biodiveristy we see
around us occured. It assumes that life already exists, but a very
simple, primative form of life. From there, all living things are
releated. That is my starting point. For the sake of argument, I will
pick the first single cell life as the starting point for our
discussion of evolution. The claim is that all life is descended from
those single cell life forms. Do I understand you correctly and you
have no problem with that belief? Do you share it? I suspect not,
based on your statements below, but I would like you to lay out exactly
what you think is true (small 't', scientific truth that is). So, lets
leave abiogensis out of the discussion, and assume that poof, life
formed, by magic or by natural means, it is irrelivant. From an
evolutionary perspective, all that matters is life exists. If you then
accept that all life is related to those initial living cells, and that
can explain the biological history of the earth, then we are done. No
argument here. But if you don't accept that, then lets concentrate on
why you don't think evolution is sufficient to explain the biodiversity
of the world.
Just to keep things clear because at this point I don't have a clue as
to what you accept as scientificly true or not, I'll make a quick list
and you can tell me if you accept them or not.
1. All life on earth is related and has descend from a single (or a
relatively small set) of primitave cells through nature processes.
2. The earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old.
That's it as a starter, depending on your answers, I may ask your
opinion on additional statements.
If you accept both of those statements but want to concentrate only on
how the living matter could have (or not have) arisen, then start a new
thread. Here I want to talk about only evolution and not dilute or
distract the conversation with how life initially got started. Fair
enough?
Also, please define ASCENT of the species, so I know how to answer your
question. I believe that all life is interconnected and that
everything currently alive or have lived is descended from a (or
possibly a few) original living thing. I do not believe that different
species all came into existence fully formed, not derived from each
other, at about the same period of time. Does that answer your
question?
"Why, how does those predictions derive from your theory?" Well, if
my
theory was that there was not a common ancestor I would find that
cats
have always been cats in the fossil record, and so on, with an
absence
of transitional forms.
I just want to make sure I understand you here. Do you mean that any
fossil that is found that matches your definition of a 'cat' counts as
a cat, and all other fossils fall into the non-cat category? If that
is the case it is a trival point and has no meaning. For example, if a
fossil is found that has 90% of features that are common with modern
cats, is it a cat? 80%? 50%? Also, what do you mean by cats? Small
house cats, lions, lynx, pumas are all cats to you or are the separate?
How do you draw the line? Finally, does the fossil record support you
prediction, do no 'cat-like' creatures appear in the fossil record?
"Would you predict that all types of life forms
would be found in every strata?" Yes, if I accepted the
uniformitarian
assumption that these strata were laid down over long periods of
time.
First of all, at this point I put no time test or assumptions as to
when each layer was deposited or even that the layers were deposited.
If you drive along most any road that has been cut through the earth
(hills, mountains, etc), you cannot help but notice that there appears
to be layers. Do you accept that. That each of these layers apper to
have its own set of characteristics, such has color, composition,
chemical make-up, and even impressions of things that look like
skeletal remains, lets call them fossils. (I'm trying to avoid
assumptions here). This is the raw data, do you agree? After
examining numerious layers and noting their characteritics, along with
which ones almost always appear above (i.e father from the center of
the earth) other layers, and which ones almost always appear below
(closer to the center of the earth), would you expect that all types of
fossils would appear virtually in every layer? That there would not be
any pattern? For example, fossils of type A seem always to appear in
layers cataloged as type Q, and fossils of type B are never, ever
present in layers of type Q, do you think that these types of
statements would never hold?
I'm going through this elaborate description to try to get a simple
question answered. That is, based on your theory of life on earth,
would you expect to see an ordering of fossels in layers or not? If
you would expect an ordering, what in your theory causes you to predict
finding that type of distribution. Hopefully, this is clear enough for
you to give me a clear answer. If not, do you think that the
examination of the earth confirms on contridicts that prediction?
Your phrases "recent layers" and "earliest strata" reflect these
assumptions which are in reality based upon a geological timetable
set
up rather arbitrarily150 years ago. Until these most scientists
believed the strata were laid down catastrophically with animals
sorted
through the strata as we find in flood layers.
Do you really believe that the strata classifications are arbitray?
Seriously? I'm not talking about the actual names that the call each
layer (even that is not arbitary), but do you think that there is no
consistent order to the strata on earth? No offense, but I'm almost
too flabergasted to continue. Please, please, please, backup your
claim that this is arbitrary.
"Would you predict that flowering plants would be
found in only the most recent layers, why or why not? Would you
predict that mammals would appear before the earliest known
invertebrates?" Do you see how your questions are based upon
uniformitarian assumptions? No I would not necessarily predict any
time
sequence for the appearance of any life forms. I am answering your
questions as put.
No, I don't see how my questions are based upon uniformaitarian
assumptions. There are layers in the earth, it is commonly assumed
that, in general, layers that lie ontop of other layers, got there
after the layers they sit on. It is hard to imagine (but I'm willling
to accept that I'm wrong), the the layers on top existed before the
layers below them. Even if it was laid down in a flood on a single
day, the layers on top would have formed after the layers below it? Is
that not a reasonable assumption? My question is, would your therory
predict that no fossils of flowering plants would ever be found in the
lower layers, but only in the upper layers? Why or why not? It's a
simple question with no hidden 'uniformitarian assumptions'. Would
your theory predict that fossils of what look like mammels be found in
the bottom most layers, well below the layers where the fossils of what
appear to be invertebrates are first found? Why or why not?
There are riddles to solve in any model. For
instance, how does a person who accepts the prevailing geologic
timetable, which was set up rather arbitrarily 150 years ago, explain
a
petrified tree extending through three strata supposedly separated in
time by billions of years? I'm not a competent biologist or
geologist
to propose an answer. I am comfortable with riddles for which I
don't
have answers. I am uncomfortable with dogmatism, which when people,
instead of replying to the question, begin calling you a liar,
dishonest or stupid for questioning their belief system. (this is not
directed to you, Jay)
Fine, you may not be a biologist or geologist, but did you ever try to
find out what explanations they offer, or even if that situation you
describes exists? Why do you assume that they don't have scientific
answers to your alleged riddles? Where is your evidence that thier
only response to these so called difficulties is dogma, name calling
and ridicule? Have you even tried to make even the most cursory
attempt to see what the scientific community has to say about it. Here
is my challenge to you, because I am angry about your libel (even
though it is not directed at me, personnally, you have libelled hard
working dedicated scientists with your statement).
1. Show the evidence or a cite for 'petrified tree extending through
three strata supposedly separated in time by billions of years',
because I simply do not believe there is such a thing.
2. If you can show me that that exists, list the scientific response
to this that is nothing but 'dogmatism, ... calling [the questioner] a
liar, dishonest or stupid for questioning their belief system.'
If you cannot do this, then I expect you would be honest enough to
retract you statement and apologize.
I've read hundreds of outragous claims by creationists, and I am hard
pressed to find a single one that doesn't have a honest answer based on
hard evidence and sound reasoning. I'm not saying that there are no
individuals that have never ridculed a creationists claim because they
thought that either the claim or the claimer was stupid, what I am
saying is that I know of no claim where that is the only response, and
that scientist in general have to resort to ridicule as their only
defense. On the other hand, I don't believe the creationists are as
generous in their style of argument. I've seen/heard too many
creationists present distorted views of evolution and then say, in
essence, how stupid do you have to be to believe such tripe! If you
think I am wrong, present a creationist argument that you feel has
never been addressed properly in a respectful manner. Again, if you
can't do that, I expect a retraction and an apology and I would be very
dissapointed if you use that type of argument again. If you do present
a case, and I can find a scientific response in under 10 minutes by
just using either google or searching the talk-origins archive - then I
will consider you at best intellectually lazy or at worse a liar, and I
don't want to believe either of those things about you.
Concerning claims that are made, the question goes back to what you
mean by the word evolution and what other people mean when they say
it
happened. A few weeks ago in our daily newspaper a professor said
something like "we don't have all the details worked out but all
scientists believe in evolution" (rough paraphrase) What is he
saying
all scientists believe in - details to confirm what? You seem to
have
focused on the jump from inanimate matter to life. The general idea
is
explaining complexity and order in the universe by natural means, is
it
not? If so, I reject the claim that evolution as a theory explains
that. And that is what theories are supposed to do - to say that we
don't by what mechanism it may have happened, but we all agree it
happened is a strange predicament for a theory that started out
(before
complications arose) to explain how complexity happened.
Let me see if I can clear up your confusion. My mother visited me from
out-of-town receintly. She took a plane to get to where I live. If
someone asked me to map out the exact flight path that plane she was in
took, the exact roads she traveled to and from the airports, where she
stopped for gas, etc, I couldn't not answer those questions. Even
though I don't know the precise details of her trip I'm certain that
she arrived through natural means, that no teleportation or magic was
involved. That is what the scientist in your example is doing. All
the evidence to date supports evolution, we might not know the complete
history of every species, when each one appeared, why and how each
branch occurred, but it is obvious it happened, because there is
evidence that it had happen in the past along with evidence that it is
happening right now. If you challenged me by saying that since I don't
know the details of my mothers trip, I can't say in confidence that she
arrived by natural means, would you be surprised if I thought there was
something wrong with you? There is massive amounts of evidence that
evolution occurred, from a variety of disciplines. Just because we
don't know the full detailed history of every form of life doesn't
change the fact that the evidence is there that all life is connected,
not one bit.
Here is another example. Do you believe that you had a
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather? Yes
or no? If you do believe that you did, can you tell me anything about
him, at all? His name, his age when he died or if he died at all,
where and when he lived, did he marry, did he have any children, what
was his occupation, the color of his hair, what language(s) he spoke
(there is a trick question in this list, bonus if you identify it)? If
I said to you, then you have just blind irrational faith that you have
such a relative, because you can't answer any of my questions about
him, what would your response be? Furthermore, if I could make an
educated guess about the time and region that he lived in based upon,
family history and lore, genitics, general population migrations, etc,
and then described what might be the details about the time and life he
might have lived, do you see a problem with that?
So yes, I don't find it strange that nearly all scientists agree that
evolution exists even if all the details are not known, since the
evidence for it is overwhelming. More so then the evidence that
electrons exist even though we don't know all the details about them as
well. So I'm back at an earlier question, why do you accept that
electrons are real but reject evolution as real? What is your standard
of evidence?
Questions I have avoided. Thanks for being specific and helping me
understand what you were referring to. You didn't like my answer
about
the electron. It was not satisfactory to you or was not the answer
you
were expecting - but it was an answer. That's the best I can do.
In referring to a physics degree, I was just saying I am acquainted
with
this field of information rather than write you a book. With limited
time - there has to be some selectivity.
I'm confused, are you saying that you don't have a physics degree or
have I misparsed your sentence. If you do have a degree then the
answer is not, I think electrons are real because I have a degree, but
I have examined the evidence, I have recreated critical experments, I
have analyzed the data, the theory of electrons explains the data very
well. You might say that both answers are an appeal to authority, but
there is a difference. In the latter case, you can say if you do A, B,
and C - you will see D. According to the theory, the reason you see D
is because of X, Y and Z. Not only that, a consequence of the theory
is Q. Don't take my word, try it for yourself and look at the results.
Do you see the difference?
BTW, the reason I asked about electrons, is that it is really hard to
explain it in a forum like this (same with the Earth/Sun question).
You actually have to put the effort into it and read, study,
experement, etc. It is not something you can prove to someone who
doubts it in a newsgroup. Same (but actually less so) with evolution.
If you don't believe it is a valid theory, and you have every right,
and even an obligation to believe so, then it is incumbent on YOU to
find out what it really claims, what is the evidence and why so many
scientists, from every cultural, ethnic and religous background accept
it as valid. It is up to you to do the work before you stand up and
say this theory is wrong because of my naive beliefs. It is no
different then my saying it is obvious to me that the sun circles the
earth and I don't care about all the existing knowledge that
contridicts me. Do you get my point? You claim to have a degree in
physics, to me that means you claim to be a scientist, yet you come
here with virtually no real understanding of evolution and spout off,
IMHO, absurb claims as to why evolution must be false, without doing
what appears to be any studing of the topic from a scientific
perspective. The claims you make are the standard claims that appear
in hundreds of creationist web-sites and books, so I'm lead to the
conclusion that that is where you got your ideas from. It is possible
that you came up with them independently, and that is because a lot of
these ideas are as naive (I don't mean this in a negative way) as the
sun going around the earth, that is, they are formed as naive
hypothosis, without any real detailed study of the subject.
I assure you it is not
avoidance, and I do not want to by-pass what you consider relevant.
To
expand on why I believe one thing and not another further: Most of
what scientists believe, bottom line, they take on the word of others
since knowledge is so specialized. I am no exception to that.
Yes and no. It is not the case that simply because a scientist makes a
statement, that it is accepted on that basis alone. That if you agree
with it it is good science and if you don't then it is bad science or
wrong. Far from it. There is a rigours review process that scientific
claims must pass. Every detailed must run the gammet and be vetted.
It is far from perfect but it is currently the best we have and gives
us a lot more confidence then simply 'I say so, so there'. Every step
of the reasoning can be examined if you doubt it or choose to.
Experments can be reproduced and the results compared. Occasionally
mistakes (both unintentional and unfortunatly intentional) occur, but
they are almost always discovered because either further experments
fail to reproduce the results or consequences of the theory fail to
materialize. So, yes, I take it on faith that if the statements made
by a scientist have gone through the peer review process and is
published in a respectable journel, then yes I don't feel the need to
do the work myself. That is a far cry from just taking their word for
it, though.
When questions or controversy between competent people arise, you
weigh the
issues. In that case, you may remain undecided, or you may find one
position quite convincing. I did not accept the premise of your
question about the sun and the earth because both answers are equally
correct from Einstein's point of view, which I accept.
Not really, the old ptolomy system is not consistent or equally correct
from Einsteins POV. It doesn't work, plain and simple. True,
according to Einstein, you can pick any point and declare it the
'stationary point' and all other points move relative to that point,
but if you were to pick the center of the Earth, it would not be the
sun simply revolves around it, the transformations are extermely
complex and I doubt anyone has the patience to work it out. No, my
challenge was to disprove the simple idea that the Sun goes around the
Earth. That is not hard to do, but it is far from trival (channel
Galalio if you don't believe me), and the reasoning is far from simple
- but not so hard that I couldn't present the evidence to a middle
school science class.
I do remember
your examples of how evolution could be falsified. I don't think I
replied to them - at least I can't find your original post. I
remember
you said if a "cat-dog" fossil was found, it would falsify the
theory.
I didn't go down tha road because I felt you missed my point about
transitional forms. If there was a question in there that you really
want me to respond to, would you mind restating it as well as any
others that were important to you that I have overlooked?
You proposed the cat-dog fossil. That was your original example,
saying that we don't see that type of fossil, so that is a problem for
evolution. I was saying that you don't understand evolution if you
think that a cat-dog fossil is to be expected, and if one were found,
our current understanding of evolution would have to be discarded or
drastically modified. Do you concide at this point that evolution can
be falsified? If not, why not? That was what I wanted in the form of
a response.
As far as missing your point regarding trasitional forms, I don't think
I understand your point. Again, if you think a cat-dog transitional is
to be expected, you are simply wrong. Other then that, you are also
wrong in saying that there are no transitional forms. I posted some
links and I believe you said you would read them. So, do you also
concide that transitional forms do exists, and that there really isn't
a problem for evolution regarding transitional forms?
Well, I think we agree on your last two paragraphs. So I agree there
can be many legitimate explanations that are impossible to disprove
scientifically, including the theory that we were all created 5
seconds
ago complete with memories. Do I believe it? No. Can I logically
disprove it? No.
Steve, I've put a lot of time and thought into this response to you,
mainly for the selfish reason that I enjoy thinking about these things
as well as enjoying the intellectual challange to see if I understand
the ideas enough to explain them coherently. I hope you take my
response in that light and I truly look forward to your comments.
---Jay
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
02 Feb 2005 03:02:03 PM |
|
|
Frogman,
Sorry, only today did I see your post of Jan 29. I'll try to respond
where I can below:
Most people who study abiogensis and evolution understand that they
are
different. Evolution concerns itself with how the biodiveristy we
see
around us occured. It assumes that life already exists, but a very
simple, primative form of life. From there, all living things are
releated. That is my starting point. For the sake of argument, I
will
pick the first single cell life as the starting point for our
discussion of evolution. The claim is that all life is descended
from
those single cell life forms. Do I understand you correctly and you
have no problem with that belief?
I consider it an open question scientifically - a belief or a theory.
Do you share it? I suspect not,
I've nowhere here propogated another theory. I'm not making claims.
I've said that to assert this scheme of things as a well established
fact is dogma.
based on your statements below, but I would like you to lay out
exactly
what you think is true (small 't', scientific truth that is). So,
lets
leave abiogensis out of the discussion, and assume that poof, life
formed, by magic or by natural means, it is irrelivant. From an
evolutionary perspective, all that matters is life exists. If you
then
accept that all life is related to those initial living cells, and
that
can explain the biological history of the earth, then we are done.
If the initial living cells are incredibly complex, I think it is
"possible" scientifically. But there are serious problems. A good
theory will harmonize all the data with the fewest exceptions and make
accurate predictions without serious modifications to the theory.
According to many serious evolutionists, the current theory of
macro-evolution does not meet this criteria.
No argument here. But if you don't accept that, then lets
concentrate on
why you don't think evolution is sufficient to explain the
biodiversity
of the world.
The problems are well documented, and I don't need to quote
creationists here, but cutting edge evolutionists. I would have to go
on their authority, though, since I am not a biologist. I would be
glad to provide you some quotes from these leading authorities, if you
wish.
Just to keep things clear because at this point I don't have a clue
as
to what you accept as scientificly true or not, I'll make a quick
list
and you can tell me if you accept them or not.
1. All life on earth is related and has descend from a single (or a
relatively small set) of primitave cells through nature processes.
a theory that is possible, but not a "good" theory scientifically
2. The earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old.
True scientifically, If there were no creation (bringing into existence
a fully formed entity). The "if" is an assumption that can be neither
verified or refuted scientifically. (Example, if there were stars
created complete with light rays falling upon the earth, the stars
could be one minute old. If an adult man were created he would be one
minute old, but extrapolating back on the basis of present processes,
you would conclude that he was perhaps thirty years old.)
That's it as a starter, depending on your answers, I may ask your
opinion on additional statements.
If you accept both of those statements but want to concentrate only
on
how the living matter could have (or not have) arisen, then start a
new
thread. Here I want to talk about only evolution and not dilute or
distract the conversation with how life initially got started. Fair
enough?
OK.
I have not read the rest of your extensive post - I reply as I go. I
have to break now and if I don't get back to this tonight, I will pick
up on it tomorrow where I left off. Feel free, though, to respond.
Maybe we should consider starting a new thread, since this one is
getting pretty cumbersome.
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
02 Feb 2005 03:16:47 PM |
|
|
On 2 Feb 2005 13:02:03 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
If the initial living cells are incredibly complex, I think it is
"possible" scientifically. But there are serious problems. A good
theory will harmonize all the data with the fewest exceptions and make
accurate predictions without serious modifications to the theory.
According to many serious evolutionists, the current theory of
macro-evolution does not meet this criteria.
really? like who? no 'serious' scientist doubts that speciation takes
place.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
03 Feb 2005 06:06:24 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 2 Feb 2005 13:02:03 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
If the initial living cells are incredibly complex, I think it is
"possible" scientifically. But there are serious problems. A good
theory will harmonize all the data with the fewest exceptions and
make
accurate predictions without serious modifications to the theory.
According to many serious evolutionists, the current theory of
macro-evolution does not meet this criteria.
really? like who? no 'serious' scientist doubts that speciation takes
place.
Correct. Even creationsists do not doubt that speciation takes place.
Are you familiar with the distinction of the term macro-evolution?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
03 Feb 2005 07:08:33 PM |
|
|
On 3 Feb 2005 16:06:24 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
Bob wrote:
On 2 Feb 2005 13:02:03 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
If the initial living cells are incredibly complex, I think it is
"possible" scientifically. But there are serious problems. A good
theory will harmonize all the data with the fewest exceptions and
make
accurate predictions without serious modifications to the theory.
According to many serious evolutionists, the current theory of
macro-evolution does not meet this criteria.
really? like who? no 'serious' scientist doubts that speciation takes
place.
Correct. Even creationsists do not doubt that speciation takes place.
Are you familiar with the distinction of the term macro-evolution?
creationists dont know what macro/microevolution is. and speciation is
the ball game. it's how new features are generated.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
03 Feb 2005 06:25:28 PM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
Bob wrote:
On 2 Feb 2005 13:02:03 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
If the initial living cells are incredibly complex, I think it is
"possible" scientifically. But there are serious problems. A good
theory will harmonize all the data with the fewest exceptions and
make
accurate predictions without serious modifications to the theory.
According to many serious evolutionists, the current theory of
macro-evolution does not meet this criteria.
really? like who? no 'serious' scientist doubts that speciation takes
place.
Correct. Even creationsists do not doubt that speciation takes place.
Are you familiar with the distinction of the term macro-evolution?
Who is it that makes this distinction?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noelie S. Alito" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
03 Feb 2005 07:33:08 PM |
|
|
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Steve wrote:
Bob wrote:
On 2 Feb 2005 13:02:03 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
If the initial living cells are incredibly complex, I think it is
"possible" scientifically. But there are serious problems. A good
theory will harmonize all the data with the fewest exceptions and
make
accurate predictions without serious modifications to the theory.
According to many serious evolutionists, the current theory of
macro-evolution does not meet this criteria.
really? like who? no 'serious' scientist doubts that speciation takes
place.
Correct. Even creationsists do not doubt that speciation takes place.
Are you familiar with the distinction of the term macro-evolution?
Who is it that makes this distinction?
The professor in my biology class at UT, for one, makes a distinction
between the study of microevolution and macroevolution.
Noelie
--
"Rhyming with 'goalie' for over 44 years."
nnooeelliiee@mmaaiill.uutteexxaass.eedduu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 04:09:30 AM |
|
|
Noelie S. Alito wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Steve wrote:
Bob wrote:
On 2 Feb 2005 13:02:03 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
If the initial living cells are incredibly complex, I think it is
"possible" scientifically. But there are serious problems. A good
theory will harmonize all the data with the fewest exceptions and
make
accurate predictions without serious modifications to the theory.
According to many serious evolutionists, the current theory of
macro-evolution does not meet this criteria.
really? like who? no 'serious' scientist doubts that speciation takes
place.
Correct. Even creationsists do not doubt that speciation takes place.
Are you familiar with the distinction of the term macro-evolution?
Who is it that makes this distinction?
The professor in my biology class at UT, for one, makes a distinction
between the study of microevolution and macroevolution.
Noelie
Deos he suggest it is a real distinction or just one people use to help
classify things (ie wold he say there are limits that prevent
micrevolution becoming macro evolution)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 03:25:24 AM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
Bob wrote:
On 2 Feb 2005 13:02:03 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
If the initial living cells are incredibly complex, I think it is
"possible" scientifically. But there are serious problems. A
good
theory will harmonize all the data with the fewest exceptions and
make
accurate predictions without serious modifications to the theory.
According to many serious evolutionists, the current theory of
macro-evolution does not meet this criteria.
really? like who? no 'serious' scientist doubts that speciation
takes
place.
Correct. Even creationsists do not doubt that speciation takes
place.
Are you familiar with the distinction of the term macro-evolution?
Creationist claim that 'microevolution' takes place, which although a
term rarely used in scientific publications, refers to evolutionary
changes below the level of cladogenesis such as, to give an example,
the how the size distribution in North American sparrows is affected by
latitude.
'Macroevolution' refers to evolutionary changes above the level of
cladogenesis, which is the creation of a new species. Examples of this
are numerous and well-recorded, and include speciation events by
hybrodisation in Galapagos finches, the appearance of a new species of
mosquito in the London Underground, and appearance of a new species of
mayfly as a consequence of a single gene mutation.
Creationists redefine these terms to suit their own agenda. That does
not support their arguments, however: an argument based on a falsehood
fails in any honest forum. If the re-definition of 'macro-evolution' is
'evolutionary events which I can argue haven't occured' (which is the
creationist useage), it turns an expression with an objective meaning
into one with a purely subjective meaning, and as such scientifically
useless.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
02 Feb 2005 04:33:23 PM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
Frogman,
Sorry, only today did I see your post of Jan 29. I'll try to
respond
where I can below:
No problem. I appreciate you taking the time to read it and respond.
Thanks.
Most people who study abiogensis and evolution understand that
they are
different. Evolution concerns itself with how the biodiveristy we
see
around us occured. It assumes that life already exists, but a
very
simple, primative form of life. From there, all living things are
releated. That is my starting point. For the sake of argument, I
will
pick the first single cell life as the starting point for our
discussion of evolution. The claim is that all life is descended
from
those single cell life forms. Do I understand you correctly and
you
have no problem with that belief?
I consider it an open question scientifically - a belief or a
theory.
Do you share it? I suspect not,
I think it is the current prevailing theory and that it is very well
established in the scientific community. That it is an open to
question, just like every single other scientific theory, evolution
doesn't stand out in any way.
I've nowhere here propogated another theory. I'm not making claims.
I've said that to assert this scheme of things as a well established
fact is dogma.
I think it is as dogmatic as the idea that the earth orbits the sun,
that the sun is a star, and that electrons exits. Would you describe
those as dogmatic? Why or why not. IMHO, the evidience for evolution
is as strong if not stronger then any of those other claims.
based on your statements below, but I would like you to lay out
exactly
what you think is true (small 't', scientific truth that is). So,
lets
leave abiogensis out of the discussion, and assume that poof, life
formed, by magic or by natural means, it is irrelivant. From an
evolutionary perspective, all that matters is life exists. If you
then
accept that all life is related to those initial living cells, and
that
can explain the biological history of the earth, then we are done.
If the initial living cells are incredibly complex, I think it is
"possible" scientifically. But there are serious problems. A good
theory will harmonize all the data with the fewest exceptions and
make
accurate predictions without serious modifications to the theory.
According to many serious evolutionists, the current theory of
macro-evolution does not meet this criteria.
Name a single one and tell me what criteria that that 'serious
evolutionist' says that macro-evolution fails to meet.
No argument here. But if you don't accept that, then lets
concentrate on
why you don't think evolution is sufficient to explain the
biodiversity
of the world.
The problems are well documented, and I don't need to quote
creationists here, but cutting edge evolutionists. I would have to
go
on their authority, though, since I am not a biologist. I would be
glad to provide you some quotes from these leading authorities, if
you wish.
I am unaware of a single 'cutting edge evolutionist' that doesn't think
evolution is sufficient to explain the biodiversity of the world (note
there is a difference in disagreeing about which specific evolutionary
mechanism is responsible for something vs. evolution can explain it,
just like there might be disagreement as to which route my mother
followed when she visited me, but not that she actually visited me).
You say it is well documented and that can provie the 'quotes'. Please
do so. But if you do provide the quote, you can't just say 'Dr. so and
so says: "...."', but you need to include a reference to the original
source, the book or article it appeared in, and the page or section
that it appears, so it can be checked. Fair enough?
Just to keep things clear because at this point I don't have a
clue as
to what you accept as scientificly true or not, I'll make a quick
list
and you can tell me if you accept them or not.
1. All life on earth is related and has descend from a single (or
a
relatively small set) of primitave cells through nature processes.
a theory that is possible, but not a "good" theory scientifically
Why is not 'good', what are its problems, from a scientific POV.
2. The earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old.
True scientifically, If there were no creation (bringing into
existence
a fully formed entity). The "if" is an assumption that can be
neither
verified or refuted scientifically. (Example, if there were stars
created complete with light rays falling upon the earth, the stars
could be one minute old. If an adult man were created he would be
one
minute old, but extrapolating back on the basis of present
processes,
you would conclude that he was perhaps thirty years old.)
Can we limit our discussion to science? If the evidence indicates that
the man is 30 years old, has scars, a belly-button, and healed wounds,
then, from a naturalistic perspective he is 30 years old. I don't care
if he was created 2 seconds ago, or even if he exists or not or that
God just put the perceptions in my brain, but he is not there. I only
care about what we can say about him based on the observed data. Fair
enough?
So can we agree that based on the scientific data, the earth formed
approx. 4.5 billion years ago? A simple yes or no will be sufficient
at this point.
That's it as a starter, depending on your answers, I may ask your
opinion on additional statements.
If you accept both of those statements but want to concentrate
only on
how the living matter could have (or not have) arisen, then start
a new
thread. Here I want to talk about only evolution and not dilute
or
distract the conversation with how life initially got started.
Fair
enough?
OK.
I have not read the rest of your extensive post - I reply as I go.
I
have to break now and if I don't get back to this tonight, I will
pick
up on it tomorrow where I left off. Feel free, though, to respond.
Maybe we should consider starting a new thread, since this one is
getting pretty cumbersome.
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
