Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 269
  1.    #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Creationsm is not part of science because it totally lacks scientific evidence. Creationsts believe in creationism because of what the bible says, not because of data they have. Science is about data and evidence, creationism isn't.

    Can you show me a single publication of evidence for creationism which was published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal, and not in creationist publications or in news-papers or creationist books?
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html

    I like this page because it also provides the criticisms against. It acknolwedges

    "One peer-reviewed intelligent design article has now been published, albeit in a fairly minor journal that focuses on taxonomic description (Meyer 2004). Others likely will follow, given enough time.

    Publishing, however, is not an end in itself. Scientific ideas mean nothing unless they can withstand criticism and be built upon. (See Elsberry [2004] and Gishlick et al. [2004] for criticism of Meyer [2004].) Publishing such poor papers only hurts the cause of ID as science."
  2.    #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    You seem to be under the impression that the calculations behind evolution have not been thoroughly tested and thoroughly thought through in theory as well as tested and checked in nature... Clearly, you totally underestimate the processes on which science is based on.
    Actually, I'm under the impression that you can help me to better understand the theory. That is why I submit my questions and hypotheses in this forum
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    No, this is not correct. The carrier of the disadvantageous mutation will have less (or no) offspring, not the same number as the others, so your calculation is wrong.
    Wrong again. The carrier of the advantageous mutation will have more offspring than the rest. Your calculation does not work.You miss how sound the evidence for evolution is. It has been tested, calculated, observed, challenged, reconsidered, and found valid again and again.
    So, then my conclusion was correct, namely the advantage of the mutant must be such to not only improve its own survival, but also diminish the survival of its siblings/cousins.

    But, if we agree on that, now I ask you to help me understand the plausibility (Dawkins' standard) that a sufficiently small enough mutation 'x' as to be likely to survive (Dawkins' criteria) is at the same time sufficiently large enough as to be able to eliminate or greatly reduce the possibility of the other members of the species reproducing.
  3.    #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    In fact, creationists reject science too often, no?
    For instance...?
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    So, then my conclusion was correct, namely the advantage of the mutant must be such to not only improve its own survival, but also diminish the survival of its siblings/cousins.

    But, if we agree on that, now I ask you to help me understand the plausibility (Dawkins' standard) that a sufficiently small enough mutation 'x' as to be likely to survive (Dawkins' criteria) is at the same time sufficiently large enough as to be able to eliminate or greatly reduce the possibility of the other members of the species from reproducing.
    I don't believe that the survivability of a mutant necessarily needs to eclipse that of the wildtype. Speciation occurs and thus variety arises. Certain mutants may be more fit to live in a certain climate, such as different colored moths living in different settings (a rural environment vs. an industrial one), but they can both certainly coexist.

    As for a small enough mutation...let's take the example of a bacteria containing a gene coding for a natural resistance to an antibiotic that is found within its environment. A gene is made up of nucleotide bases, and it's very well possible that an error in DNA replication occurs, and a base (or multiple bases) is either deleted or incorrectly inserted and this can render the gene completely useless. As such, this organism no longer has the necessary means of surviving in its environment.

    The chance of this mutation happening in 90% of a population is rather low...there are plenty of safeguards against mutations such as this that help keep the mutation level relatively low. But imagine that the environment of an organism changes, and that the 10% which HAVE undergone the mutation are able to survive far better than the wildtype...wouldn't that fit Dawkins' notion?
  5.    #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    99.999 % of the people who can read Leviticus 11 would agree that this text says that grasshoppers and beetles belong to a group of animals which fly and have four legs. You seem to be willing to switch off common sense and accept some extremely far fetched interpretation of the text, only to evade the obvious: that the bible says beetles and grasshoppers have four legs. You do not accept what is actually written there because it is against your belief that everything in the bible is literally true.
    I don't recall stating that belief.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Look at these lines from the New Testament:

    1. John:
    "He [Jesus] said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit".

    2. Luke:
    "Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into Thy Hands I Commit My Spirit." and having said this, He breathed His last."

    (A) Do you agree with me that these lines are from the bible?

    (B) Do you agree with me that, from reading what is actually written there, both texts claim to describe what Jesus said immediately before he died?

    (C) Do you agree with me that the two texts state totally different things about what Jesus said immediately before he died?
    I thought you and BobyMike already addressed this.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html

    I like this page because it also provides the criticisms against. It acknolwedges

    "One peer-reviewed intelligent design article has now been published, albeit in a fairly minor journal that focuses on taxonomic description (Meyer 2004). Others likely will follow, given enough time.

    Publishing, however, is not an end in itself. Scientific ideas mean nothing unless they can withstand criticism and be built upon. (See Elsberry [2004] and Gishlick et al. [2004] for criticism of Meyer [2004].) Publishing such poor papers only hurts the cause of ID as science."
    Thanks for the link, I am glad you like the site, but it clearly states (and details the reasons):

    "None of those papers give any actual evidence for intelligent design."
    (Intelligent Design (ID) is sort of a modern version of creationsm)

    So the fact remains, creationism/intelligen design lack evidence. In the language of science, they don't even reach "hypothesis" state, let alone "theory" state, they are just ideas without data supporting them.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  7.    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Sorry shopharim but this seems to be nonsense. Creationists are philosophers at best but not scientists. Not too convincing.
    What is nonsense?
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I ask you to help me understand the plausibility (Dawkins' standard) that a sufficiently small enough mutation 'x' as to be likely to survive (Dawkins' criteria) is at the same time sufficiently large enough as to be able to eliminate or greatly reduce the possibility of the other members of the species reproducing.
    The rate of reproduction does not necessarily have to be smaller in the individuals not carrying the mutation, the percentage of individuals with the beneficial mutation will raise over time anyway.

    However, in nature there is always also intra-species competition: individuals compete for the same resources, e.g. food, space, etc. So an increase in the fitness of some individuals automatically decreases the fitness of the other individuals.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9.    #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherv
    I don't believe that the survivability of a mutant necessarily needs to eclipse that of the wildtype. Speciation occurs and thus variety arises. Certain mutants may be more fit to live in a certain climate, such as different colored moths living in different settings (a rural environment vs. an industrial one), but they can both certainly coexist.
    That's what I thought, but we may be off on this
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherv
    As for a small enough mutation...let's take the example of a bacteria containing a gene coding for a natural resistance to an antibiotic that is found within its environment. A gene is made up of nucleotide bases, and it's very well possible that an error in DNA replication occurs, and a base (or multiple bases) is either deleted or incorrectly inserted and this can render the gene completely useless. As such, this organism no longer has the necessary means of surviving in its environment.
    Agreed. However, it seems that in the case the mutant is disadvantaged.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherv
    The chance of this mutation happening in 90% of a population is rather low...there are plenty of safeguards against mutations such as this that help keep the mutation level relatively low. But imagine that the environment of an organism changes, and that the 10% which HAVE undergone the mutation are able to survive far better than the wildtype...wouldn't that fit Dawkins' notion?
    I think it does fit Dawkins' notion. So, I would add that factor to the plausability conversation. Thanx for furthering my understanding.
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I thought you and BobyMike already addressed this.
    Not really. There are three simple and staightforward questions. Which are your answers?

    1. John:
    "When Jesus therefore had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit".

    2. Luke:
    "Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into Thy Hands I Commit My Spirit." and having said this, He breathed His last."

    (A) Do you agree with me that these lines are from the bible?

    (B) Do you agree with me that, from reading what is actually written there, both texts claim to describe what Jesus said immediately before he died?

    (C) Do you agree with me that the two texts state totally different things about what Jesus said immediately before he died?
    Last edited by clulup; 03/03/2005 at 04:17 PM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  11. #71  
    Pardon me for jumping in, but after reading through this thread, I still do not know how Creationists and evangelics account for h. habilis/erectus, etc. Where do they fit in? And who "created" them? Earliest species of "man" communicated with guttural sounds. Yet in reading Genesis, there was more in depth communication. Are they before Adam and Eve? Did we de-evolve, and then re-evolve?

    For the record, I am agnostic. I can't say we were created, nor can I say we came from primordial ooze...although it seems more likely we came from the ooze.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Off the record: So am I
    okay....shhhh...our secret.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  13.    #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    This quote:
    "Creationism is a religious metaphysical theory which claims that a supernatural being created the universe. Creation Science is a pseudoscientific theory which claims that (a) the stories in Genesis are accurate accounts of the origin of the universe and life on Earth, and (b) Genesis is incompatible with the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. “Creation Science” is an oxymoron since science is concerned only with naturalistic explanations of empirical phenomena and does not concern itself with supernatural explanations of metaphysical phenomena."
    And the source: click
    * Also, there seems to be a difference between creationism and creation science.
    The next paragraphs of that source states:

    "Creationism is not necessarily connected to any particular religion. Millions of Christians and non-Christians believe there is a Creator of the universe and that scientific theories such as the theory of evolution do not conflict with belief in a Creator"
  14.    #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Look at these lines from the New Testament:

    1. John:
    "He [Jesus] said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit".

    2. Luke:
    "Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into Thy Hands I Commit My Spirit." and having said this, He breathed His last."

    (A) Do you agree with me that these lines are from the bible?
    Yes
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    (B) Do you agree with me that, from reading what is actually written there, both texts claim to describe what Jesus said immediately before he died?
    I'm having difficulty answering this one. Knowing what you mean by your question, I would say "yes." Being precise about your question, I would say "no." Figuring that you will insist that a "no" is merely a refusal on my part to "face facts" makes we wish we could just discuss the Blind Watchmaker.

    There is no indication in "what is actually written" that they were "claiming" to describe what Jesus said immediately before he died. There is no indication that they were attempting to quote Jesus verbatim. There is no indication that they felt their descriptions were exhaustive.

    For example, when Jesus bowed his head, as John describes, did he also close his eyes? We don't know. The fact that John does not mention it does not mean it did or did not happen. It means John did not mention it. It is entirely possible that Jesus said yet a third statement IMMEDIATELY before He died that no one recalled when they decided to record their testimony.

    However, let me be the first to say, that is semantics. I know it is semantics. So, for practical purposes I say "Yes"
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    (C) Do you agree with me that the two texts state totally different things about what Jesus said immediately before he died?
    Yes (with the caveat above)
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I'm having difficulty answering this one. Knowing what you mean by your question, I would say "yes." Being precise about your question, I would say "no." Figuring that you will insist that a "no" is merely a refusal on my part to "face facts" makes we wish we could just discuss the Blind Watchmaker.
    I appreciate your openness!

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    However, let me be the first to say, that is semantics. I know it is semantics. So, for practical purposes I say "Yes"
    So we can agree that, at least for practical purposes (which in my view means understanding things the way they were actally meant to be understood by the writer), the bible contains contradictions and therefore a literal, word-by-word understanding is not possible.

    It does NOT prove that the the bible as a whole does not make sense and that the ideas it offers are wrong althogether, but it does show that being too narrow-minded about the meaning and the factual value of some of the stories leads into contradictions, to say the least.
    Last edited by clulup; 03/04/2005 at 02:55 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The next paragraphs of that source states:

    "Creationism is not necessarily connected to any particular religion. Millions of Christians and non-Christians believe there is a Creator of the universe and that scientific theories such as the theory of evolution do not conflict with belief in a Creator"
    I never said that the theory of evolution is in conflict with the belief in a creator, I don't even think it is. The Roman Catholic church would hardly have made its peace with evolution if it would rule out a creator. Personally, I don't see a reason to assume a creator, but you can still decide you want one and say it was him who started evolution.

    There is an overwhelming amount of evidence from various fields of science that support evolution and thus allow an extremely high level of confidence that this is indeed what happened on earth. It is a fact that the species on this planet have evolved in the way evolution describes, by any definition of fact people use in their lives.

    Of course you will find people who claim otherwise, but when you weigh what they call evidence against evolution, vs. the evidence modern science has to offer in favour of it, I am sure the outcome is clear, at least for an open mind.

    I think far too many people in the US (I say in the US because this seems to be an exclusively US phenomenon, you will not hear anything of that sort in a public debate in Europe, also not from strong believers) waste their time with fighting evolution. I am sure they could use their energy for far more useful, fruitful and far more Christian things.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  17.    #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    No problem there. Still, creationism is based on a “religious metaphysical theory, which claims that a supernatural being created the universe.” This would associate creationists more with philosophers than scientists. (Perhaps some scientists say philosophical things – and vise versa, but I maintain that creationists are far from being scientists or deal with science.)
    Chick-Dance,

    I would offer that much of what is considered established scientific fact today began as hypothesis (metaphysical/philosophical...) by someone or some ones who thought that conventional wisdom was lacking. Such hypothesis fueled experiment, which then either bore out or ruled out the hypothesis.

    That a school of thought is in the hypothetical phase does not preclude it from the realm of science. Objective scientists do not preclude concepts, rather they exclude concepts WHEN THE DATA WARRANTS.

    So, a more fruitful discussion would be, what data excludes the viable possibility of a creator?

    And, the answer from the source you gave and from the Catholic source clulup gave is that evolution and creationism (NOT "Creation Science") are compatible (at least given what we know so far).
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    And, the answer from the source you gave and from the Catholic source clulup gave is that evolution and creationism (NOT "Creation Science") are compatible (at least given what we know so far).
    What?? I never gave any source saying creationism and evolution are compatible - they are not.

    Creationism totally lacks data that support the idea. It is wishful thinking based on what the bible says about how earth was created.

    All I said is that despite evolution being a fact, there can still be a creator who started the whole thing, you know, somebody who arranged the big bang 13 or whatever billions of years ago. Not that there was ever a trace of that creator found, nor do we have to postulate there is one, but you can still assume there is one, because nothing proves there isn't one.

    But the way creationists claim the world started (the way it is described in the bible) totally contradicts everything we know about life on earth and how it developed.
    Last edited by clulup; 03/04/2005 at 03:38 PM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    What?? I never gave any source who said creationism and evolution are compatible.
    That may have been from an earlier statement I made (maybe on the first or second page). I said that the Catholic church has said that evolution is a valid theory and has not discredited it. The Catholic church also has said that it does not matter how the body got here...that's not a contradiction of the bible. When the bible says that we are made in God's image, what is meant is that our SOUL is made in God's image. And one thing Catholicism says is that the soul of a person has NOT evolved. (how could if of evolved if it was made in God's image). The means by which the vessel the soul resides in (the body), is not important. So in this sense, creationism and evolution are compatible.
  20.    #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    What?? I never gave any source saying creationism and evolution are compatible - they are not.
    My apologies. I was referring to this:

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I am not a great fan of the Roman Catholic church, but since it represents by far the largest Christian congregation, I think the following view is of interest in this discussion (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

    Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church
    ...

    In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Pope John Paul II updated the Church's position: "In his encyclical Humani Generis, my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines." [9]
    But upon further re-reading, I see Pius XII identified no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of faith, not evolution and creationism.
Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions