Show Me And I’ll Believe

[infamous]

I wonder how many folks here recognize that the main factions here use different definitions of "evolution". The most generally accepted definition (that species change over time) is accepted by almost everyone, including the vast majority of strict Creationists.

 

I really wish that the folks that critique "evolution" would be more explicit about their issues when the science elements are under discussion. And I would hope that the basic science sorts in this forum could successfully tease out the specific areas of agreement and disagreement.

 

Evolution is a basket of ideas, some synergistic, some conflicting. Saying that evolution is supported by fact (true) is like saying that socialistic economic theory is supported by fact (also true). Neither statement surfaces any particularly valuable discussion.

These are some excellent observations Bio. I judge myself to be a 'not so strict Creationist', or more to the point, a believer in evolution beginning from an intelligent design. Just for the record; The problem begins in the mind of 'strict evolutionists' with the offhand rejection for the possibility that an intelligence of one sort or another started the whole process. Even though I believe in evolution, I submit that there is just as much speculation involved in strict evolutionary opinion as there is for an intelligent designer.

[Pyrotex]

OK then according to ... pyrotex... all agree that evolution is false based on the facts. But true if taken on faith. God bless you for I am an open theist Christian and you have finally come to your senses! ...according to science are all faith based belief systems, because they have no empirical evidence that support their claims!...It is irrational and rather ignorant to worship Darwin and science.

Excuse me.

But I have this tiny little human attribute, call it a quirk, but I really really dislike it when people put words in my mouth that I did not say, when they misrepresent my point of view. :)

 

Your post is an excellent example of, in my opinion, the basis for most disagreement between so-called "Christians" and the biological sciences (including evolution). 1. You don't know what you are talking about. 2. You make unwarranted and rather inane accusatory statements, like "worshiping" Darwin. 3. You make false statements about what we have said. 4. You use sarcasm, mockery and jeering as a substitute for intelligence.

 

Have a nice day.

[Biochemist]

...The problem begins in the mind of 'strict evolutionists' with the offhand rejection for the possibility that an intelligence of one sort or another started the whole process...

You could be correct, Inf, but I am not sure. If we take C1ay as a prototype for an evolutionist (sorry to pick on you C1) he is pretty much a basic science type with agnostic roots. He reacts against any presumption not supported by evidence. He is not bothered that there is an intrinsic conflict between gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium, because there is evidence for both. In contrast, he is bothered by an assumption of a divine intervention (as opposed to an allowance for the possibility). I don't think he excludes the possibility. He just doesn't assume it.

 

Speaking for myself (as a basic scienctist, but a theist) I think God had an active hand in Creation, but I don't have any assumptions about the actual incidents. God usually works through laws of physics, and may have done so since the big bang. This would make my data interpretation closer to C1ay's point of view than to most creationists. Data is data and should be reviewed objectively. Agnostics can certainly be objective. I am not sure about true atheists, but agnostics certainly can.

 

Confirmation of definitions might be a good topic for a separate thread. It would certianly give us a place to point new posters when they reopen a theistic perspective in otherwise scientific threads.

[Biochemist]

OK then according to stevencarrwork, InfiniteNow, pyrotex, santus, etc, all agree that evolution is false based on the facts....

Plenty of logical assumptions, but no facts. Quantum theory is not logical but has facts.......It is irrational and rather ignorant to worship Darwin and science.

Rsade-

 

It is not a productive style to misquote other posters with (what appears to be) an attempt to provoke.

 

If you have questions about specific facts, ask them.

[C1ay]

If we take C1ay as a prototype for an evolutionist...

 

Confirmation of definitions might be a good topic for a separate thread. It would certianly give us a place to point new posters when they reopen a theistic perspective in otherwise scientific threads.

To clarify my opinion, evolution is the change of something that already exists, nothing else. Something cannot evolve from nothing. Because of this I see creation vs evolution as apples and oranges. Then again, my friends and family accuse me of being too literal but to me that's what science is, a literal interpretation of the evidence.

[Biochemist]

To clarify my opinion, evolution is the change of something that already exists, nothing else. Something cannot evolve from nothing. Because of this I see creation vs evolution as apples and oranges. Then again, my friends and family accuse me of being too literal but to me that's what science is, a literal interpretation of the evidence.

Thanks for the clarification, C1ay.

 

Just to reiterate, if we use C1ay's definition (which I think is the valid one), then almost all Creationists are evolutionists. I agree with the "apples and oranges" point.

[infamous]

To clarify my opinion, evolution is the change of something that already exists, nothing else. Something cannot evolve from nothing. Because of this I see creation vs evolution as apples and oranges.

Very well spoken C1ay. As the true scientist that you are, and honest man in particular, you have earned my respect and I'm sure the admiration of every member of this forum...........................Infy

[Erasmus00]

Thanks for the clarification, C1ay.

 

Just to reiterate, if we use C1ay's definition (which I think is the valid one), then almost all Creationists are evolutionists. I agree with the "apples and oranges" point.

 

Not true. Most of the people who self-apply the "creationist" label believe in a literal, biblical creation. This model suggests everything was created largely as is, and the things that have changed have only changed "within their own kind."

-Will

[Pyrotex]

Not true. Most of the people who self-apply the "creationist" label believe in a literal, biblical creation. This model suggests everything was created largely as is, and the things that have changed have only changed "within their own kind."

-Will

I agree with Erasmus. I have been debating such folk for ten years on UseNet. And in my own family. Almost without exception, if you pin down a person who claims to be a "creationist", they believe 2 principle things: the Universe is the literal creation of a supreme being; and evolution (or "Darwinism" as they often call it) is Man's attempt to prove that the Universe doesn't need a supreme being.

Creationists come in two flavors: young-Earthers and old-Earthers. The former believe the Universe is about 6,000 years old.

And then there are the deists who believe in a supreme being as creator and allow for something that looks like "evolution" but it is really the active guiding hand of the creator. In my ten years, I have rarely if ever heard these folks call themselves "creationists".

[Biochemist]

Not true. Most of the people who self-apply the "creationist" label believe in a literal, biblical creation. This model suggests everything was created largely as is, and the things that have changed have only changed "within their own kind."

-Will

Well, those who "self" apply" are a pretty small subset of the folks that are labeled "creationists" on this site. The popular press labels ID advocates as creationists. ID advocates are rarely literalists. And even the die-hard creationists are not uniformly literal.

 

This just underlines my point that we should start a thread that establishes a lexicon for this discussion. We could subsequently refer any discussion of evolution, creationism, ID or related topics to a level-setting thread. And yes, even die-hard creationists believe that at least some things have changed. That would make them evolutionists.

[Pyrotex]

"creationist"

For a typical, generic, representative, paradigmal, illustrative look at true-blue, dyed-in-the-wool "creationists", take a look at the small book, "Has God Spoken?" by Arnold Schnabel.

 

The book is divided into chapters, one for each of several fields of science and philosophy. Each chapter attempts to show that the Old Testament contains hidden messages showing that the ancient Hebrews knew all about quantum mechanics, stellar radio emissions, atomic theory and all.

Other chapters purport to use "modern" science to validate scripture which obviously says that plate tectonics is bogus, paleontology is bogus, evolution theory is bogus, oceanography is bogus, etc. The chapters on evolution are particularly telling, and make up the majority of the book.

 

The logic used in this book to defend creationism (as such) is a wonder to behold. It defies description or even classification. It is such a torturous muddle that it is hard to refute, if for no other reason, than it is difficult to distinguish all the rhetorical fallacies, delusions and falsehoods from each other so they can be individually addressed. It's a gem!!! :) :)

[InfiniteNow]

What bugs me is that so often, scientists can see the views of creationists and understand the reasons for them, only attacking after being baited into it. Yet, so often, creationists do not see the views of scientists nor understand the reasons for them, and use emotional and only tangentially related attacks to support their points.

 

 

...some, not all...

[Biochemist]

...Creationists come in two flavors: young-Earthers and old-Earthers. The former believe the Universe is about 6,000 years old.

Thanks for proving my point, Pyro. The "old earth Creationists" (who are themselves not homogeneous) do not believe much of Genesis 1 literally. They usually retain the notion that it is inspired, but not literal.

[Biochemist]

What bugs me is that so often, scientists can see the views of creationists and understand the reasons for them, only attacking after being baited into it. Yet, so often, creationists do not see the views of scientists nor understand the reasons for them, and use emotional and only tangentially related attacks to support their points.

Although it might appear to be a syllogism, it only makes sense to discuss basic science with basic scientists. If a theist is a basic scientist (or at least understands the scientific method) a discussion is not only possible, but valuable.

 

Too often scientists use scientific arguments to position against philosophical statements (which is a logic error) and Christians do the reverse. These aren't discussions. It is just two interlocutors talking past each other.

[InfiniteNow]

Too often scientists use scientific arguments to position against philosophical statements (which is a logic error) and Christians do the reverse. These aren't discussions. It is just two interlocutors talking

past

each other.

Excellent point, BC.

[Pyrotex]

Thanks for proving my point, Pyro. ....

Omigod!! I proved your point!!! :)

Dammit, I HATE it when that happens!!! :eek:

[blazer2000x]

I assume you were excepting the Biblical authors from this statement.

 

I thought somebody would say that. I believe in the Bible because of God. Not the other way around.

 

And as for the bycicle - motorcycle analogy: no, it will never accidentaly create a motorcycle. There are too many varying materials. A new shift that just made a metalic click would not help the bike survive. So it would disappear. There is no part of a bicycle that can turn into a gas tank, if a bike for some reason did have a swell in the metal frame, it would make it heavier and less durable (not to mention more costly to produce). There is no way that could be filled with liquid of any sort. By adding the race you did what I was trying to do with the costumers buying the bikes, trying to artificiate natural selection. I don't see how you think an internal combustion engine with throttle control and safely expelled exhaust would develope. The bike just doesn't have the parts or the materials to make them out of. The same goes for nature. I'll prove it to you. Let's say we make a computer program that generates an image and copies it pixel by pixel. Then we make a random number generator to imitate an accidental mistake. If the RNG spits out a specific value, the computer will randomly change the color of the pixel it' currently copying. Now get a second image, and set the computer to conmpare the copies with that image. If two pixels ever match, the computer will lock that pixel in the copy, so it will not be randomly changed (this is against nature). Now set the program to copy the image at one billion times per second. If were trying with say, an 8x8 pixel image, and using only sixteen colors, you have 16384 possible overall image choices. So with or without the image comparison, you will have at least one exact replica in less than half a second, but that's if the entire image can change instantly, you in reality have lets say a 50/50 chance of one pixel changing. So now you have 2097152 chance. So it'll take you still under a second. But instead of having sixteen colors, lets say you have the normal, 32 million. And lets say your image is instead 320x200 pixels. Now you have a one in 65,536,000,000,000,000,000 chance of getting a replica. At one billion images per second, that means it'll be at least 65,536,000,000 seconds

(758,518.518 days) before you'll have a really good chance of succeding. But, of course, life doesn't replicate at that speed. Let's say instead you had one image per every five minutes, and a 1/50 chance of a single pixel changing. Not only that, but the image won't "lock" pixels when they're similar to the other image, because it has no image to compare it to. You should seriously try this out. With sixteen colors and a 100x100 image that you draw. No locking, but as soon as it matches the output stops. You can speed up the replication to however fast you want, but at the end it calculates how long the image would have taken to form at a rate of one per five minutes. You get billions of years for something that simple. I think I'm definetely going to make this...

Anyway, even if evolution were posible by pure trial and error, it still would take a lot longer than any age even remotely possible on earth's timescale. The number is probably in the hundred digits range. I'll make the program if I can and let you know. (not sure if my computer can run such a complex program for so long without crashing). I'll even upload it and post a link if it works. :shrug:

Maybe this will convince you. (Or hey, maybe it'll change my mind!):hyper:

Hmmm... That post really took a turn I didn't expect.