Evolution: Religion or Science?

[Gurdur]

...wrong post.

[Gurdur]

This is a little odd. I do recognize that there are variances around the edges of determinism, largely because of the impact of the randomness of quantum mechanics, but determinism is broadly held. The import of determinism is reflected in the scientific method itself. We assume reproducibility and falsifiability are gold standards of evidence because we expect that cause and effect are consistent. This is the heart of determinism.

You confuse physical determinism with psychological determinism, and make no allowance whatsoever for scientific and philosophical exploration of mind, plus by this confusion yopu would be making your own position untenable. More below.

The more insidious problem is that those elements that are not demonstrable by the scientific method (e.g., love, purpose) are often held in lower regard. Ergo, my post above.

Again, I disagree --- from personal scientific experience in this actual area, the science of mind.

First of all you said "scientists" implicitly en masse don't believe in love, justice, etc., now you imply they maybe do but hold them in lower regard ?

What you want to say here is not clear at all.

It is a bit of a stretch to call determinism a minority position when it is the foundation of the scientific method.

Really ? I think you're comparing apples with oranges, and I don't think you make your own stance clear at all; you jump too easily from physical determinism ---

the position that physical actions are largely determied by physical causes, (would you care to disagree, BTW, with that tenet at all ?), which is the basis of most science, though not at all all science --

----

and then you jump to psychological determinism ---

the position that all mental, actions are caused by previous physical actions, with no room for abstract concepts with effect, like love, justice, etc.

 

So:

let me ask you again:

 

do you yourself accept physical causes for physical actions ?

If not, why not ? How do you physically operate everyday if you don't accept that ?

 

Then:

what makes you think psychological determinism, which is what you're really aimng at, is " the foundation of the scientific method" ?

 

Then:

what makes you think scientists act as a herd, or don't believe in love, or don't rigorously test evolution, or look down upon love etc. ?

[Gurdur]

The mutations that we observe are damaging, not constructive.

That's merely a postulate of yours. Since you deny evolution, you deny all the evidence that judgment of the observable data presuming evolution gives us. Moreover, I think your postulate is quite simply wrong; even just looking at how bacteria mutate under selective pressure from antibiotics, there's no way you can uphold that postulate.

Just how is multi-drug-resistant strep or staph "damaged" by mtations ?

Evidence for mutations causing in increase in information load are non-existent.

This is a circular argument of yours. Since you apparently deny evolutioon out of hand, you then deny the evidence that evolution gives us ---- which is tons of evidence, when we look at the fossil and DNA records.

At this point, the question is:

Do you have a better explanation than evolution/mutation ?

Let's cut to the chase.

[eMTee]

inteligent design

[eMTee]

There (you say) is evidence for evolution in science. but you are yet to find this evidence also in fossil record.

[Gurdur]

inteligent design

Is Intelligent Design supposed to be an explanation ? Or is it merely a unfounded speculation ?

 

Design by whom ? Why ? How ? Why so badly designed ?

Why the errors like the placements of receptors and connecting neurons in the human retina ?

 

Why not presuppose UNintelligent design, BTW ? Serious question.

Let's get at the basis of what makes a good explanation.

[eMTee]

Is Intelligent Design supposed to be an explanation ? Or is it merely a unfounded speculation ?

 

Design by whom ? Why ? How ? Why so badly designed ?

Why the errors like the placements of receptors and connecting neurons in the human retina ?

 

Why not presuppose UNintelligent design, BTW ? Serious question.

Let's get at the basis of what makes a good explanation.

 

Can you even start to say that you or anyone else on this planet can do a better job than that the creator has done already?

 

Another explanation why this creation is so badly created. we sinned, and the Earth was cursed, and is now dying.

 

When somone says "explain to me how I got from there to here" one can simply reply "you walked"

 

so you ask to give an explanation better than evolution..I reply inteligent design

 

UNinteligent desigh. supose a retarted wacko built a plain. By chance somthing happened, and created the perfect world. The law of science created the universe? what created the laws of science?

 

Everything had to come from somthing. The 'Big Bang', how did the big ball get there, what created it, and what created the stuff that created the Big Ball, and what created that? when it all comes down, somwhere it had to be created out of nothing.

[Harzburgite]

There (you say) is evidence for evolution in science. but you are yet to find this evidence also in fossil record.

Are you serious? The fossil record is replete with evidence of evolution. It overflows with it. Tell me I have misread your post.

[Erasmus00]

There (you say) is evidence for evolution in science. but you are yet to find this evidence also in fossil record.

 

Yes, there is evidence for evolution in the fossil record. Spending 5 to 10 seconds with google turned up http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html.

 

The only people who say there is no evidence for evolution in the fossil record are creationists out to decieve. Why must they be out to decieve? Because I'm sure many people have pointed them to references that refute what they are saying (as I am now doing for you), but they insist on using the same discredit arguments. It does the faith a disservice.

-Will

[Gurdur]

Can you even start to say that you or anyone else on this planet can do a better job than that the creator has done already?

Circular argument. I'm sure I could do a better job on the human retina. After all, several different eye arrangements have arisen in evolution.

Another explanation why this creation is so badly created. we sinned, and the Earth was cursed, and is now dying.

That is not an explanation, that is a mere presumption.

Define "sinned". Explain why the "Creator" should curse the whole Earth (which BTW is an unBiblical notion; where do you get your own theology from ?)

so you ask to give an explanation better than evolution..I reply inteligent design

You have not yet given me any actual explanation

UNinteligent desigh. supose a retarted wacko built a plain. By chance somthing happened, and created the perfect world. The law of science created the universe? what created the laws of science?

Some questions we can never answer; our best idea to date is quantum randomicity.

Everything had to come from somthing...... somwhere it had to be created out of nothing.

Uh huh, please explain where your "Creator" came from.

[Biochemist]

...The only people who say there is no evidence for evolution in the fossil record are creationists out to decieve...

I can only hope that you all recognize you are talking past each other. You are using different definitions of "evolution", and each refuting arguments that the other has not made.

 

This thread is not acting like an informed discussion, and I am debating closing it down

[Biochemist]

You confuse physical determinism with psychological determinism, and make no allowance whatsoever for scientific and philosophical exploration of mind, plus by this confusion yopu would be making your own position untenable.

Au contraire. For a determinist, there is no boundary between physical and psychological. The mind is a product of our physical being. I am not making this up.

 

Determinists hold that all events are the resultant of earlier events. That includes our thoughts, which are the resultant of previous events and previous thoughts. Very few determinists separate psychological determinism from physical determinism. You are the first one that I have heard do it. If you are a physical determinist, and do not allow for a theistic input, where do our thoughts come from? Are they self generating? Are they completely uncaused?

..you said "scientists" implicitly en masse don't believe in love, justice, etc.,

I said that determinists don't believe in it, and that many scientist are determinists.

do you yourself accept physical causes for physical actions ?

Sure.

..what makes you think scientists act as a herd...

This one is easily defensible, but is probably another thread topic. There are dozens of good examples. But for the moment, look at the incredibly slow uptake of Punctuated Equilibrium as accepted dogma. And the incredible lag time it takes for the dearth of evidence in support of gradualism (as a general speciation mechanism) to impact accepted dogma.

[brianthepoet]

For those who do not believe in the Bible, a geologist near Mt Ararat has recently unearthed what he believes to be a primitive arc-welding machine.

It is quite small, having just a simple motor and a generator. It is only about two by two.

Trouble is, the bushes on the generator are all burned out, so every time they try to start it, it floods.

For further info, look up a great book called "Telling lies for God" by Ian Plimer. He shows the problems of Noah checking on all the animals. I wonder what the termites ate.

 

 

 

+++ All my life I thought I was going without, then I started going within. *Brianthepoet'96

[Southtown]

Also, how does removing religious commandments from a public building violate the seperation of church and state?

No statute requires that they be there. The people who work in public buildings have freedom as US citizens to express any religion they wish. A ban on the 10 commandments would however be legal action and therefore constitute a breach of the seperation.

 

Displaying the 10 isn't enforcing religion on anyone to constitute a breach of freedom that they should be banned. Nobody's being told what to believe. Think about this sentence again "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof..." Do you understand what that means? Banning the 10 anywhere is "prohibiting the free excercise" of religion.

 

The 10 were not mandated to be posted by any state or federal mandate (breach of seperation), and they are not infringing on anyone's religious freedom (breach of 1st am.). A mandated removal will be legal action regarding religion (breach of seperation) and it will prohibit the free excercise thereof (breach of 1st am.).

 

I can refute every single point you have mentioned there...

You should at least talk some science considering the thread topic. Explain to me how amino acids can form accidentally, make protiens and begin to reproduce, by completely non-organic mechanisms.

 

Your tendency to assess the validity of people over the validity of ideas is hardly rare in my experience.

Perhaps Harzburgite is assessing your validity based upon the irrelevance and ill founded character of your ideas. (Though I note from Boerson's comments that they aren't even your ideas.)

The first four ideas, anyway. Irrelevance, maybe, ill-founded character, not yet demostrated. Thanks for proving my point, though.

 

The mechanism of evolution is still in question in detail and will continue to provide a rich ground for extending our knowledge an understanding via research.

HAHAHA! I hear this a lot... on the Science Channel. You know what our discoveries will attest to before we discover them. That's rich.

 

I'm sure I could do a better job on the human retina. After all, several different eye arrangements have arisen in evolution.

Considering the diversity, complexity, and intricate balances of the ecosystem on our little mud ball, the fact that we're all still here testifies to it's adequacy. The human eye doesn't appear too shabby to me, either.

 

“While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real-time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (ms) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of [1985] Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.” John K. Stevens, “Reverse Engineering the Brain,” Byte, April 1985, p. 287.

 

Could it be that you just don't fully understand it yet? :D

[eMTee]

Circular argument. I'm sure I could do a better job on the human retina. After all, several different eye arrangements have arisen in evolution.

 

all eyes serve their purpose for every particular animal

And I quite dare you to create an eye from dirt that is even as good as the simplest eye.

 

That is not an explanation, that is a mere presumption.

Define "sinned". Explain why the "Creator" should curse the whole Earth (which BTW is an unBiblical notion; where do you get your own theology from ?)

Ok, I'll define 'sinned'. when an archer missed the target, they called that a sin in the old days. When you steal a cookie from the cookie jar, that is a sin.

 

I get my "unBiblical" theology diectly out of the Bible

 

You have not yet given me any actual explanation

 

 

Uh huh, please explain where your "Creator" came from.

My Creator is the Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end, He claimed a name in Moses's day, called himself "I Am" "before the World was, I Am" which gives him a sence of eternal power.

[eMTee]

For those who do not believe in the Bible, a geologist near Mt Ararat has recently unearthed what he believes to be a primitive arc-welding machine.

It is quite small, having just a simple motor and a generator. It is only about two by two.

Trouble is, the bushes on the generator are all burned out, so every time they try to start it, it floods.

For further info, look up a great book called "Telling lies for God" by Ian Plimer. He shows the problems of Noah checking on all the animals. I wonder what the termites ate.

For one, I don't think that the "ark-welding machine" or is that "arc" was used to weld the Ark, there was no metal metioned in the plans given in the Bible. about the "Problems" The God of Noah was also the creator of the universe..I think he would be quite capable of taking care of a few "problems".

[Boerseun]

For one, I don't think that the "ark-welding machine" or is that "arc" was used to weld the Ark, there was no metal metioned in the plans given in the Bible. about the "Problems" The God of Noah was also the creator of the universe..I think he would be quite capable of taking care of a few "problems".

Heck - and here I was thinking you had a sense of humour!

 

Brian, good one! :D