Darwins theory of evolution

by gisburnuk 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Abaddon

  hooberus:

  My words regarding creationists and their qualifications were 'typically' & 'often'...

  Why are you now creating the impresion that either I or the talk origins site says that ALL creationists fit that description? Is it neccesary for you to defend your beliefs using crafty argumentative techniques, such as the straw man argument you are attempting to create?

  Many of these "normal science magazines" are run by dogmatic evolutionists who reject creation apriori (based on philosophic grounds),

  Unless you are able to provide comprehensive documetary evidence to support this slur, this is simply a lie or a deceitful exaggeration. Most scientists believe in evolution because of the evidence.

  I can show very easily that the majority of websites/publications by creationists are run by those who fit my description above - can you show your above claim to be equivalently truthful? Go on then...

  Oh, re. CRSQ and CENTJ; if a bunch of plumbers (whose work was considered as sub-standard by most other plumbers) set up their own plumbing organsiation, would that mean they were suddenly good plumbers?

  The reason why you did not recieve an answer (from me) on the bristlecone pine tree issues has been pointed out to you on other threads.

  I don't believe you. If you could refute that evidence, you would. You can't so you make excuses. Yet, as I point out, the unrefuted evidence which shows your YEC beliefs to be wrong is ignored by you, as you carry on pushing YEC beliefs.

  Like I say, it's about what you would like to believe, not what the evidence supports.

  The material on the link you provided is not evidence. There is an assertion there that '"Dendrochronolgy" is more hoax than science'. I would like to see this backed up, as dendrochronology is actually very well considered, and if it is a hoax, it is a very consistant one. I went round a Gaulish village in France, dating back before the Romans. All the dendrochronological dates simply verified the other dating methods, rather than showing up as vastly different. Yup, I remember, all the OTHER experts are wrong, isn;t that right? Even when they can show they're not!

  As I say, it's about what you want to believe. You wouldn't let yourself be operated on by people with the same level of professional respectability and/or education as you accept scientific data from.

  Isn't that strange? You'll believe amateur opinions and unfounded speculation, but if you were ill you'd go to someone who had proper qualifications and wasn't considered misguided by 90% of the medical profession?
• 

  hooberus

  hooberus:

  My words regarding creationists and their qualifications were 'typically' & 'often'...

  Why are you now creating the impresion that either I or the talk origins site says that ALL creationists fit that description?

  I did no such thing. I never said, nor implied that you said that "ALL creationists fit that description". Instead I quoted exactly your statement (which uses the words "typically" etc.). Read my post again.

  As for talk origins - I never said, nor implied that that talk origins says that "ALL creationists fit that description" (ie: lack qualifications). In fact my quote from talk origins was meant to refute the idea that creationists "typically" lack qualifications (note the parts that I underlined). See my original post.

  Is it neccesary for you to defend your beliefs using crafty argumentative techniques, such as the straw man argument you are attempting to create?

  I did no such thing.
• 

  hooberus

  Re: my statement: "Many of these 'normal science magazines' are run by dogmatic evolutionists who reject creation apriori (based on philosophic grounds),"

  Unless you are able to provide comprehensive documetary evidence to support this slur, this is simply a lie or a deceitful exaggeration. Most scientists believe in evolution because of the evidence.

  My statement was about one the reasons why editors of 'normal science magazines' reject creation (and hense refuse to publish creation arguments), and not directly about why "most scientists believe in evolution".

  It was a statement about why they reject creation, not a statement about why they believe in evolution.
• 

  hooberus

  Oh, re. CRSQ and CENTJ; if a bunch of plumbers (whose work was considered as sub-standard by most other plumbers) set up their own plumbing organsiation, would that mean they were suddenly good plumbers?

  Of course it would not mean that they were "suddenly good plumbers." My comments re CRSQ and CENT J, were not to imply that simply because creationists set up their own peer-revieved journals that therefore they were suddenly good scientists, but instead to explain a reason why the journals were set up. Here is my comment again: "Many of these 'normal science magazines' are run by dogmatic evolutionists who reject creation apriori (based on philosophic grounds), thus creationist scientists have started their own peer reviewed journals such as: . . ."
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  In regards to a priori positions, hooberus, you said that the mainstream science journals were run by editors who rejected creation outright from the beginning, ergo the need for creationists to setup their own journals.
  

  Don't you think that their stance is a conclusion that was arrived at by logical and objective consideration of all the evidence at hand? In the link you offered on pseudogenes there was an article by Gibson. Even he had to admit (to be intellectually honest) that all the evidence on the eta globulin sequences made a strong case for shared ancestry. Even if some non-coding sequences have been found to have important regulatory functions, such as binding sites for transcription enhancers or suppressors, this doesn't negate the other evidence.

  Those creationist links you offered were interesting because I always like to see/hear how the debating side with the difficult to defend stance will argue it. If you truly have no a priori stance, then you can see how descent with modification is the simplest explanation.
• 

  hooberus

  In regards to a priori positions, hooberus, you said that the mainstream science journals were run by editors who rejected creation outright from the beginning, ergo the need for creationists to setup their own journals.

  Here is my statement: Many of these "normal science magazines" are run by dogmatic evolutionists who reject creation apriori (based on philosophic grounds), thus creationist scientists have started their own peer reviewed journals such as: . . . "

  One of the reasons that they give for excluding creation is because of their belief in methological naturalism. For example in an anti-creationist arcticle the editor of Scientific American said: " 'Creation science' is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms." Scientific American July 2002

  Also in a correspondence to Nature magazine Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University said: " Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic" Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.

  Note one of the reasons given for the exclusion of creation- naturalism. Naturalism (or the related concept of methological naturalism) is a concept which if adhered to can generate an a priori bias against the realistic consideration of the intelligent creation of anything .

  Don't you think that their stance is a conclusion that was arrived at by logical and objective consideration of all the evidence at hand?

  Not necessarily.
  

  In the link you offered on pseudogenes there was an article by Gibson. Even he had to admit (to be intellectually honest) that all the evidence on the eta globulin sequences made a strong case for shared ancestry. Even if some non-coding sequences have been found to have important regulatory functions, such as binding sites for transcription enhancers or suppressors, this doesn't negate the other evidence.

  The "pseudogene" argument is one line of evidence in the creation/ evolution issue. For a look at the overall picture you may wish to read Gibson's general survey of evidence and interpretation:

  Gibson, ?Creation and Evolution: A Look at the Evidence?
  http://origins.swau.edu/papers/evol/gibson/default.html
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  You're actually right hooberus about the a priori stance of methodological naturalism. Any a priori stance runs the risk of overlooking a possible explanation. All of our current theories and views on physics and biology are only imperfect views because we're not at the point of absolute comprehension of any one thing or phenomenon. Many would argue we never can attain such a point. So I could see the point of some that would argue why overlook evidence of a creation?

  I guess I would have to say that taking such a stance now is not illogical because the other view was given a fair chance for some time historically speaking. Newton and many other scientists believed in a Creator. They were still practicing the scientific method and it worked very well to increase understanding in the sciences. Many phenomena could be explained without resorting to supernatural causes but God wasn't eliminated from the picture at the very outset. The closer we approach to our day the more could be explained simply by natural causes without the need for divine intervention. So the stance of methodological naturalism has not led us astray and has instead borne out to be a very reliable view to take. We've been gaining vast amounts of knowledge in all fields of research. Why invoke an untestable explanation that yields us practically nothing when the other approach has yielded so much more?

  As for the overall picture of the evidence and how its interpreted, I'll just say its the interpretation where we'll disagree. Not because I'm an atheist, (I don't know what I am anymore) but because the evolutionary interpretation is so very powerful in encompassing a broad range of biological information and observations.
• 

  willy_think

  The question of genetic drift and natural selection is not in debate any longer. Researchers have been observing virus mutations for decades. The documented evolution of virus over millions of their generations is factual data.

  The conflict that exists is not with genesis but with some interpretations of geneses. For instance if the "7 Days" represented 7=the number of perfection and god, Days=time, stages, chapters. You find that the world was made in the prefect length of time, or according to gods stages of creation. That is one understanding that works fine with natural selection. So if the conflict is not with the book but with some imperfect men's interpretation of the book and that interpretation conflicts with reason I must ask; am I being asked to suspend my ability to think independently? Am i being lead to surrender my personal growth in favor of a group identity?
• 

  Abaddon

  hooberus, sorry for late reply I was away;

  I said "Why are you now creating the impresion that either I or the talk origins site says that ALL creationists fit that description?"

  You said "I did no such thing. I never said, nor implied that you said that "ALL creationists fit that description". Instead I quoted exactly your statement (which uses the words "typically" etc.). Read my post again."

  Oh, I did. I make mistakes too. But not this time. You construct an argument to show that not all Creationists have dodgy or non-existant qualifications.

  It would be wrong to infer from this list that all creationists have suspicious credentials. In fact, a good number of prominent creationists have legitimate -- even noteworthy -- doctoral degrees in scientific fields. For example, Duane Gish earned a doctorate in biochemistry from Berkeley, Steve Austin earned a doctorate in geology from Pennsylvania State University, and Kurt Wise earned his doctorate in paleontology from Harvard while studying under Stephen Jay Gould. So just because a few well-known creationists failed to earn their graduate degrees the traditional way does not mean that all or even most of them did.

  No one had advanced an argument staing that all Creationists have dodgy or non-existant qualifications.

  You trying to defend Creationists from an acusation which had not been made is accurately described by the statement you object to. You may not realise that you're doing it, but that doesn't mean you are not doing it.

  Of course it would not mean that they were "suddenly good plumbers."

  You haven't said whether you would trust your health to a person who claimed that 99.99% of all medical professionals were wrong and that they, unencumbered by a relevent education, were right. I don't think you would, so choosing to "risk your life" (after all, you think I'll have to answer to god if I am wrong and I think you'll waste your life if you are wrong) based on pronouncements of a similarly unconvincing nature seems strange.

  You also have signally failed to present any evidence of your accusation that 'Many of these 'normal science magazines' are run by dogmatic evolutionists who reject creation apriori (based on philosophic grounds).'
  
  This statement you provided as evidence isn't proof of apriori rejection;

  "'Creation science' is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms."

  This is not apriori rejection of a god. It's god not being present observable measurable discernable or otherwise neccesary as far as the evidence available indicates. If god were observable, he'd be incorporated. It is not a philisophical objection to god that causes the rejection of literal Biblical creation, it's the lack of evidnece of either the event or the creator that causes the rejection of literal Biblical creation.

  If you only had evidence one person had been in the room and the only finger prints on the cookie jar belonged to that person, you would assume that they had taken the cookies.

  You would not reject the idea that god had taken the cookies on apriori grounds (you didn't like the idea of god) as there would be no evidence to either support that god existed or that he'd taken the cookies.

  Likewise with this quote;

  "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic"

  Someone saying that an intelligent designer isn't naturalistic is quite different from an
  apriori rejection of god or creation. It's saying that IF all evidenece did point to an intelligent designer, as there is no direct evidence of such a designer (and no satifactory mechanism for the generation of the designer - yet another deep fundamental flaw in Creationism and ID you've yet to counter) to suppose that such a designer existed in the absence of evidence would entail suppositions. Guess work. It would require believing in the SUPER natural, i.e. that which cannot be explained by our understanding of the natural world.

  As nothing supernatural has ever been proved, that's not an unreasonable stance. It is not saying "god doesn't exist 'cause I don't like the idea of god". It's saying "god doesn't exist because to believe in him would require accepting a different set of rules to those that apply in the rest of the natural world".

  You on the other hand are a presuppositonalist, so I really don't know what point you're trying to make by accusing others (falsely) of practising the philosophy you hold dear.
• 

  azaria

  First, I didn't read all the long posts and as you can probably tell, this has been put together rather hastily.

  Of course the Bible is faith based. Evolution is science.

  As others have stated, do your own research and form your own opinion. It is not faith based for one and science for the other Both the bible and evolution are faith based. Evolution has not been proven without a shadow of a doubt thus it is faith based. Some here seem to imply that Evolution is an absolute fact; that information will gradually prove it true. Evolution is also science based as is intelligent design. Because someone isn’t that well informed doesn’t mean that the little information that they do have is flawed. Vise versa because someone is very knowledgeable in a subject doesn’t automatically mean that the subject is true.

  Below is a site some may find interesting. Many scientists are gradually realizing that there is Intelligent Design. There are so many flaws in evolution. Darwin himself said that his theory was shaky but felt that he would be proven right eventually; that the fossil evidence would be found. It has not been found Yes, eventually, they may be proven right but I highly doubt that. No evidence has been found of fossils in transition; eg; fish into reptiles. Evolution depends on millions of positive mutations in order for simple life-forms to evolve into complex life forms. The problem is that most mutations (over 99%) are harmful, destructive, and disadvantageous to the organism.. In the 1950's Stanley Miller did experiments.....

  He wanted to demonstrate that organic matter can arise spontaneously from inorganic matter without the need of a supernatural intelligence. Ultimately, that would prove that you don't need a creator in order to bring life into existence.

  The thing is, he did prove that an intelligent designer was required; himself.

  Instead of proving that no outside intelligence was needed to produce the building blocks of life, Dr. Miller ended up demonstrating the exact opposite. As hard as Dr. Miller tried, he just couldn't stop interjecting intelligence into his experiment. And the more his own 'outside intelligence' he introduced, the more he was actually showing life can't begin spontaneously.

  I understand that he has discredited his own book (Origins of Life) that has been used in the High schools . I will try to find out if this is indeed true. I’m hoping to get more info by the weekend. I will post my findings.

  http://www.discovery.org/csc/

  http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=98

  http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf