|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 02/15/2006 : 20:22:18 [Permalink]
|
Your argument is not a reasonable scientific explanation. It has been brilliantly shot down by well qualified scientist. Your argument is more a statement of personal incredulity. You can't understand how evolution could be possible, and I personally doubt that you have ever tried. says Moakley
Oh but I have. I am not willing to relinquish reason and logic when looking at a scientific theory. When someone simply denies my logic, I ask, "why?" Why must I throw out logic when talking about science? I thought logic was a large aspect of scientific study. When some biologist writes of some mutation they've observed and then concludes that their study supports evolutionary theory, I say, hmmm. I can think of several other explanations. They have not proved their conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, they may have truly observed an actual occurance of nature, but placed the wrong explanation on their observance due to a lack of true logical thinking. I read this all the time in so called "evidence" papers presented by evolutionists. Conclusions made without using proper logic and excluding other reasons is not logic at all. It is presumption. It is a "possible" explanation, but by no means the only one, and therefore, it cannot be said to be only in support of a certain theory. Unless you have evidence that absolutely rules out other explanations your conclusion remains a theory and is not a fact.
In a court of law, evidence is presented that narrows down the who, what, why, when, and where of a crime. Some evidence is circumstantial, but not conclusive, while other evidence will place a specific individual at a specific time at a specific place. That physical evidence is weighed far more heavily by a jury than circumstantial evidence that still leaves room for other explanations.
I would suggest that many of you are swayed by circumstantial evidence that others tell you is physical evidence because they have actual data and observance which seems to be physical evidence of evolutionary theory. However, the same evidence can be explained with other theories and is, therefore, not conclusive physical evidence. Too many missing pieces of evidence; too much time past; to many events that altered the "scene of the crime" so to speak.
In other words, you are claiming "scientific" approach, which is not denied, but you are coming to a conclusion with your evidence with far too many facts missing. You cannot be certain of your conclusion scientifically because of the lack of overwhelming evidence and logic. Therefore, you are actually placing greater weight on a "belief" about the "correctness" of a particular theory. When more evidence is gathered, or other scientific breakthroughs occur, the theory may change again as it already has many times.
Therefore, a dogmatic approach regarding evolutionary theory is based more on belief than on actual evidence.
I do not deny that part of my belief affects my thoughts on these matters. I do deny that logic is on your side. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
 |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 20:44:01 [Permalink]
|
To augment what I have said about "belief" being more of a basis for your agrument than you admit, I would like to add Naturalism to the mix, as a belief or another theory that many of you hold to to support your argument. It is based on your anecdotal personal evidence and is very much a part of your overall belief system that supports the current evolutionary theory.
Is there one of you who does not hold to the Naturalism (all physical, no spirit or soul or God)philosophy?
Can you deny that this philosophy affects your "scientific" viewpoints and limits your ability to accept the theory of intelligent design as scientific simply because it includes a belief in a higher intelligence behind the formation of living things?
Isn't it also true that you believe anyone who claims to be scientific in their approach but holds a contrary philosophy to naturalism, such as any belief in a higher being, is automatically a less respected scientist than a naturalist scientist? If I am presumptious in making this statement, tell me why. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 20:44:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Oh but I have. I am not willing to relinquish reason and logic when looking at a scientific theory. When someone simply denies my logic, I ask, "why?" Why must I throw out logic when talking about science? I thought logic was a large aspect of scientific study.
Logic is a part of science. However, your "logic" must consist of more than "I can't believe it."
quote:
When some biologist writes of some mutation they've observed and then concludes that their study supports evolutionary theory, I say, hmmm. I can think of several other explanations. They have not proved their conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.
Other explanations? Like what? And I would argue that "reasonable" doubt has indeed been met. Perhaps you are speaking about unreasonable doubt?
quote:
Therefore, they may have truly observed an actual occurance of nature, but placed the wrong explanation on their observance due to a lack of true logical thinking. I read this all the time in so called "evidence" papers presented by evolutionists. Conclusions made without using proper logic and excluding other reasons is not logic at all. It is presumption. It is a "possible" explanation, but by no means the only one, and therefore, it cannot be said to be only in support of a certain theory. Unless you have evidence that absolutely rules out other explanations your conclusion remains a theory and is not a fact.
This just seems to be aimless ranting on your part. Scientists come to wrong conclusions because they don't use logic? Care to support that accusation?
quote:
In a court of law, evidence is presented that narrows down the who, what, why, when, and where of a crime. Some evidence is circumstantial, but not conclusive, while other evidence will place a specific individual at a specific time at a specific place. That physical evidence is weighed far more heavily by a jury than circumstantial evidence that still leaves room for other explanations.
Yes, but courts can and do convinct on circumstantial alone, do they not? And that must mean that circumstantial evidence must meet the law's reasonable doubt requirement, correct? So what exactly are you trying to imply here?
quote:
I would suggest that many of you are swayed by circumstantial evidence that others tell you is physical evidence because they have actual data and observance which seems to be physical evidence of evolutionary theory.
Cirmcumstancial or physical, all evidence points to evolution.
quote:
However, the same evidence can be explained with other theories and is, therefore, not conclusive physical evidence.
I don't know of a single scientific theory which exists in opposition to evolution. Care to name any? (And ID is not a scientific theory.)
quote:
Too many missing pieces of evidence; too much time past; to many events that altered the "scene of the crime" so to speak.
Not for the great majority of experts working today, who feel quite differently. Again, you must be invoking some personal unreasonable standard.
quote:
In other words, you are claiming "scientific" approach, which is not denied, but you are coming to a conclusion with your evidence with far too many facts missing. You cannot be certain of your conclusion scientifically because of the lack of overwhelming evidence and logic. Therefore, you are actually placing greater weight on a "belief" about the "correctness" of a particular theory. When more evidence is gathered, or other scientific breakthroughs occur, the theory may change again as it already has many times.
Therefore, a dogmatic approach regarding evolutionary theory is based more on belief than on actual evidence.
I do not deny that part of my belief affects my thoughts on these matters. I do deny that logic is on your side.
Ok, I'm just going to skip to the end. You make quite a few sweeping accusations but do zero to back them up. Basically, your post is nothing but empty rhetoric devoid of actual content--just like ID! What a surprise.
Evolution is the dominate theory today becuase it explains the evidence best. That isn't faith nor a reliance upon dogma, and simply calling so doesn't fool anyone, especially not judges.
Have you even read the Dover ruling? You might wish to before you spend any more time sticking your foot in your mouth.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/15/2006 20:47:38 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 20:46:27 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, just tell us the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and you'll be praised to the rafters for it.
Especially in light of the fact that Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Wells, Sarfati and the rest have been unable to propose a scientific theory of Intelligent Design. No ID proponent has been able to state such a theory, and some ID proponents are even on record bemoaning the lack of a theory.
ID is a sociopolitical religious movement, and nothing more. Its claims are nothing but arguments against evolution which have been around for decades, every last one of them originating with creationists. Every last one.
Please note that by assuming that none of us know anything about ID, or have only read about it from sources which distort ID, is nothing but insulting. Many of us are well-read on the subject, and reject ID because it fails to meet any definition of science (except those definitions in which astrology is also a science). This isn't a dogmatic adherence to evolution, but a simple realization that ID brings nothing to the science lab. Nothing at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 20:53:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Is there one of you who does not hold to the Naturalism (all physical, no spirit or soul or God)philosophy?
Yes: me. I find that worrying about such a philosophy would be a waste of my time.quote:
Can you deny that this philosophy affects your "scientific" viewpoints and limits your ability to accept the theory of intelligent design as scientific simply because it includes a belief in a higher intelligence behind the formation of living things?
As soon as someone can actually tell us what the theory of Intelligent Design is, then we can worry about whether or not people reject it because it includes religious beliefs.quote:
Isn't it also true that you believe anyone who claims to be scientific in their approach but holds a contrary philosophy to naturalism, such as any belief in a higher being, is automatically a less respected scientist than a naturalist scientist? If I am presumptious in making this statement, tell me why.
The statement is presumptive because Kenneth Miller, a fantastic biolgist and a devout Catholic, exists.
The fact of the matter is that your are, like so many other ID proponents, purposefully confusing philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism in a failing attempt to paint evolutionary science as necessarily atheistic. It isn't.
Now, why don't you tell us what the scientific theory of Intelligent Design is? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 20:56:51 [Permalink]
|
Someone submitted a research paper by a certain biologist to me to read. This biologist observed a mutation in a small creature that seemed to make decendants of that particular creature into a "new species", howbeit, just changing color. The biologist stated this was conclusive evidence of "evolutionary theory." I begged to differ from his conclusion. I believe God created all things and gave them the ability to evolve within their environment, to adapt, to survive. The biologists conclusion was not based on conclusive evidence, but belief. Yes, we agree that what he observed happened. We do not agree with his conclusion as to why it happened.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 21:06:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Isn't it also true that you believe anyone who claims to be scientific in their approach but holds a contrary philosophy to naturalism, such as any belief in a higher being, is automatically a less respected scientist than a naturalist scientist? If I am presumptious in making this statement, tell me why.
All right, trott your higher being out here and lets have a look at it.
Oh, What's that? I'm supposed to just take your word and a lot of other like minded believers word for this higher beings existence? Why should I find it compelling that a lot of people believe in something for which they have no evidence?
Oh. You also have the 1700 year old collection of poorly edited little books written by mostly anonymous authors? Well that certainly is pathetic. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 21:09:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Your argument is not a reasonable scientific explanation. It has been brilliantly shot down by well qualified scientist. Your argument is more a statement of personal incredulity. You can't understand how evolution could be possible, and I personally doubt that you have ever tried. says Moakley
Oh but I have. I am not willing to relinquish reason and logic when looking at a scientific theory. When someone simply denies my logic, I ask, "why?" Why must I throw out logic when talking about science? I thought logic was a large aspect of scientific study. When some biologist writes of some mutation they've observed and then concludes that their study supports evolutionary theory, I say, hmmm. I can think of several other explanations.
Can you provide a link to a specific evolutionary study and state why you disagree with its conclusion?
quote:
I would suggest that many of you are swayed by circumstantial evidence that others tell you is physical evidence because they have actual data and observance which seems to be physical evidence of evolutionary theory.
And I would suggest that you are swayed by no evidence what so ever on your supernatural sky daddy. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 02/15/2006 21:12:59 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 21:10:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
I believe God created all things and gave them the ability to evolve within their environment, to adapt, to survive.
Who cares? Your beliefs are not science and should not inform science.
quote:
The biologists conclusion was not based on conclusive evidence, but belief. Yes, we agree that what he observed happened. We do not agree with his conclusion as to why it happened.
No, the biologist is using a scientific theory to make sense of an observation. You are using a religious faith to make sense of the observation. The two processes are fundamentally different, and you aren't exercising a bit a of logic when coming to your conclusion. But of course a great many people are able to look at a piece of evidence and make sense of it through both the dominant scientific theory and their religious faith.
Why do you think the two are incompatible for you? Perhaps your faith is a very narrow and limited one.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/15/2006 22:19:14 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 23:08:35 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, why is it that you won't tell us what the scientific theory of Intelligent Design is?
I think it's because you don't know what it is, either, simply because no such theory exists. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 23:49:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Someone submitted a research paper by a certain biologist to me to read. This biologist observed a mutation in a small creature that seemed to make decendants of that particular creature into a "new species", howbeit, just changing color. The biologist stated this was conclusive evidence of "evolutionary theory." I begged to differ from his conclusion. I believe God created all things and gave them the ability to evolve within their environment, to adapt, to survive. The biologists conclusion was not based on conclusive evidence, but belief. Yes, we agree that what he observed happened. We do not agree with his conclusion as to why it happened.
A mutation changing the color of a animal can hardly be regarded as the birth of a new species. Not by any species definition I know of. This does not sound like a "research paper" submitted by a "biologist".
Any references?
If you have any questions about evolution or the Theory of Evolution I will do my best to give you an answer. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 02:00:43 [Permalink]
|
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible had this quote which seemed appropriate here:
"Why should the Bible be believed concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when it is considered to be erroneously written as to points which admit of direct demonstration or unquestionable reasoning?" -- St. Augustine De Genesi ad literam i, 19 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 15:41:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The biologist stated this was conclusive evidence of "evolutionary theory." I begged to differ from his conclusion.
Did he really say that this was conclusive evidence of "evolutionary theory"? Can you give the exact quote from the paper (or even better a reference for the paper)? What he/she might have said was that this was in accordance with evolutionary theory. Is it in accordance with "God theory"? Sure!!! EVERYTHING IS!!! Any observation you can possibly make is in accordance with "God theory". In other words: in "God theory" evidence means NOTHING - you can ALWAYS say that God did it.
Let's go back to your courtroom analogy to try to discover not how evolution occurred, but who commited crime X (let it be rape and murder for arguments sake). At the crime scene was found: Tire tracks similar to those from Mr Y's car, a knife similar to one Mr Y USED to have, Mr Y's wallet and semen whose DNA matches that of Mr Y. All the evidence (non of which is totally conclusive) points to Mr Y being the perpetrator. Using scientific logic, you would conclude that Mr Y did it. Using Doomar logic, you would conclude that God did it. Marvellous. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 22:23:09 [Permalink]
|
Starman said:
quote:
A mutation changing the color of a animal can hardly be regarded as the birth of a new species. Not by any species definition I know of.
If the color change caused reproductive isolation between the different colors of the animal you'd technically have a new species.
A color shift could trigger a behavioral change in sexual selection, for example.
A simple mutation is not likely to achieve this effect though.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 02:42:40 [Permalink]
|
Logic in science....
It works excellently well, that is, right up until we come upon something utterly illogical.
So, at that juncture do we throw up our hands and delve into some supernatural explanation lacking in any evidential support? No, we do not. The illogical example cropping up, and gibbered about in the tabloids (SCIENTISTS STUNNED!!), has shown us that some part of our logic is flawed, and must now be reconsidered.
It happens all the time, and will happen even more often as our methods of inquery become more exacting. Consider: 20 years ago, the idea of finding remenents of soft tissue in 70 myo fossil bone would have been considered illogical to the point of hilarlty. But today, that very tissue is being studied in the lab, and if what I have read is accurate, such tissue might not be all that uncommon.
It happens in astronomy even more often. How many times have we read of statements, recent statements, issued by astronomers saying essentially: "We need to rethink our theories on this." Quite a few since Hubble became operational.
When someone speaks of logic, I immedatly begin to wonder: whose logic and how did he/she develope it?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
