Can a person actively reject something they don't understand?

[inquiring mind]

As far as I'm concerned they could have stopped at #14, unless abiogenesis is brought into the discussion, then stopping at #17 would pretty much do it.

 

[Shemjaza]

So you're playing the 'Deep Time' card here.

No, I'm playing the "faulty, deceptively worded logic" card.

There is no evidence that whatever hypothetical processes that might lead to abiogenesis are known, likely or easily reproducible in a modern lab, let alone one from the 60's.

They were addressing point #1 in the Scopes trial (I think). They state early that they don't disagree with all scientific processes.

I had a look at the reference and it's from a court case in 1982... it even in that case it was not used as a definition of the Theory of Evolution, but instead as a description of a catchall term called "Evolution-science".

Personally I think it's a particularly poor definition as it contains terms and terminologies that are unclear and often misused, mainly "uniformitarianism" and "kinds".

 

[Shemjaza]

Well, a thesis involves personal research, so you're going to get different flavors on any subject.

No, it's literally false statements.

You can honestly disagree about whether evolution occurs or not, but if you misrepresent someone else's position you are lying. Also referred to as bearing false witness.

No different from the impression many creationists get with all the 'maybe, possibly, and could haves' in many evolutionist papers.

Conviction against reason, evidence or justification are not generally respected in any area outside spirituality.

 

[inquiring mind]

There is no evidence that whatever hypothetical processes that might lead to abiogenesis are known, likely or easily reproducible in a modern lab, let alone one from the 60's.

True, but you have to admit a lot of scientific papers draw conclusions from conditions in deep time.

I had a look at the reference and it's from a court case in 1982

Thank you

 

[Shemjaza]

True, but you have to admit a lot of scientific papers draw conclusions from conditions in deep time.

Yes. Deep time is the result of multiple independent fields of scientific research.

It's not an assumption used to support the theory of evolution, it's an established conclusion that predates it.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, it's literally false statements.

You can honestly disagree about whether evolution occurs or not, but if you misrepresent someone else's position you are lying. Also referred to as bearing false witness.


Conviction against reason, evidence or justification are not generally respected in any area outside spirituality.

Like I said before, as far as I'm concerned they could have stopped at #14 or #17, but all in all a pretty good quasi-scientific attempt (?), making some good points, from the creationist (supernatural) bleachers.

 

[Shemjaza]

Like I said before, as far as I'm concerned they could have stopped at #14 or #17, but all in all a pretty good quasi-scientific attempt (?), making some good points, from the creationist (superatural) bleachers.

It's still extremely flawed logic.

The assertion that, if possible, abiogenesis should be trivial to demonstrate in a lab is completely unjustifiable.

The problem with supernatural explanations is that they render investigation and understanding pointless. Once you expand the range of causes to the possible and the impossible literally anything can be true.

 

[Smokie]

I found the thesis pretty interesting myself. What in particular strikes a sour note with you?

Evolution clearly happens, so I really do not know why any rational adult rejects the concept fully, that said nothing can not evolve, and the simplest organism has thousands of genes that could not form from nothing. That being true even the simplest organism was logically and scientifically created. If this organism had and or still has the ability to morph itself into star hopping humans over time then God could recreate himself on any planet that could be habitable to a microbe that would evolve into massive ecosystems. Simplified evolution is proof of God

 

[pitabread]

I found the thesis pretty interesting myself. What in particular strikes a sour note with you?

A number of the statements in that list are false, misleading or subjecive.

 

[Smokie]

A number of the statements in that list are false, misleading or subjecive.

That is true of anything that anyone says on the topic of God, creation or evolution because no one knows fully

 

[Speedwell]

I have issues with numbers five and six:

5. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.

6. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.

In the first place, the American public school system has no authority to originate a definition of science. Further, science by any definition does not exclude supernatural explanations a priori. It accepts any explanation for which there is evidence. Finally, the scientific method is not used to determine "truth" in an absolute sense but to discover the most likely explanation for natural phenomenon.

These two theses smell rather like the creationist whine, "They're teaching my kiddies that evolution is absolute truth and that there is no God." In other words, political propaganda.

 

[Smokie]

I have issues with numbers five and six:

5. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.

6. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.

In the first place, the American public school system has no authority to originate a definition of science. Further, science by any definition does not exclude supernatural explanations a priori. It accepts any explanation for which there is evidence. Finally, the scientific method is not used to determine "truth" in an absolute sense but to discover the most likely explanation for natural phenomenon.

These two theses smell rather like the creationist whine, "They're teaching my kiddies that evolution is absolute truth and that there is no God." In other words, political propaganda.

Actually the public school system does allow for supernatural explanations because they endorse and teach about Darwins magical DNA writing pond

 

[Speedwell]

That is true of anything that anyone says on the topic of God, creation or evolution because no one knows fully

Unless you're a right-wing fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant and what you say is based on a literal reading of the King James Bible. Then whatever you say on the topic of God, creation or evolution is absolute truth.

 

[Speedwell]

Actually the public school system does allow for supernatural explanations because they endorse and teach about Darwins magical DNA writing pond

What in the world is Darwin's magical DNA writing pond? Where do you people get this crap?

 

[pitabread]

That is true of anything that anyone says on the topic of God, creation or evolution because no one knows fully

I'm not explicitly referring to those subjects in terms of what they describe. Rather, I'm talking about things in that list are objectively false.

This includes points #16 and 17.

16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
​

The theory of evolution only requires that we have populations of living things. That's it. There is no strict dependency on any "theory of abiogenesis".

I suspect this just a case of the author of the list applying a Biblical literalist mindset to science. E.g. Biblical literalists often claim that removing a literalist interpretation of Genesis effectively negates Christian theology as a whole. They view Christian theology as dependent on a literal Genesis.

Applying the same mindset to science, Biblical literalists likely view evolution as being dependent on evolution. And that if you falsify one, you falsify the other. When in fact that's completely untrue.

 

[pitabread]

16 is actually true because a theory that can not be disproven or proven remains a theory until one of those two things occurs

I'm talking about "theory" in the scientific usage of the word. Theories are not strictly proven in science. Rather, they are substantiated by evidence.

If the author of that list is not using the term "theory" in a scientific sense, then they are just equivocating.

Same for 17. God is also a theory, but since we know that DNA is informational code and that code does not write itself God is more plausible according to Ockham's razor

God is not a scientific theory. And that's not how Occam's Razor works. Occam's Razor depends on the fewest number of variables. Adding "God" to the equation doesn't actually simplify the explanation; it complicates it (especially since nobody has any clue how God actually did anything).

(If you want to get into the whole DNA as coded information and therefore requires God, we can go to school on that one. But I already know exactly where that discussion will end. It always ends up at the exact same place: a brick wall brought about be either an over-dependence on argument-via-analogy and/or equivocation over words like "information" insofar as they apply to DNA.)

 

[Speedwell]

16 is actually true because a theory that can not be disproven or proven remains a theory until one of those two things occurs.

Scientific theories are explanations for natural phenomena which have been confirmed by repeated testing. They are never "proven" but merely confirmed provisionally pending further evidence. They can, however, by disproven by conflicting evidence.

Same for 17. God is also a theory, but since we know that DNA is informational code and that code does not write itself God is more plausible according to Ockham's razor

The existence of God is not a theory, it is an unfalsifiable proposition.

 

[pitabread]

Again a theory is a theory until proven or disproven, at such time the theory simultaneously vanishes

So both God and evolution are theory's

Again, that's not how the word "theory" is used in science.

You're just equivocating.

 

[pitabread]

The definition of theory is as follows.

a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

Words in scientific context aren't strictly bound by dictionary definitions. In a scientific context, a theory is a comprehensive explanation that has undergone repeated scientific testing and backed by scientific evidence.

As God is not a concept that is subject to scientific testing (in that it's not bound by any natural constraints), it cannot be a scientific theory. As Speedwell says, God in just an unfalsifiable proposition.

The problem is not the definition but the human reading it as some people find it plausible that the most complicated code in the known universe wrote itself one day because nothing got bored doing nothing and decided to write code, and that other people know that the only thing that nothing produces is more nothing

This is just a gobblygook strawman. Is this really the road you want to go down?

 

[pitabread]

while you think that you are arguing with me, you are actually arguing with known human history as Darwins pond is part of this. So your rejection of history as recorded and accepted indicates a delusional

I'm agreeing with Speedwell here. In Darwin's letter to hooker there is nothing about DNA or magic. So your characterization of Darwin's words as such is just editorial parody on your part.

 

[Smokie]

I'm agreeing with Speedwell here. In Darwin's letter to hooker there is nothing about DNA or magic. So your characterization of Darwin's words as such is just editorial parody on your part.

Darwins letter is the basis of evolutionary theory, the concept was even scientifically tested and proved a failure.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Darwin's warm pond idea is tested

Darwin's Warm Little Pond: Searching for the Chemical Origins of Life | Bioinformatics Graduate Program at Georgia Tech (gatech.edu)

So you are arguing with known and accepted history.

Odd, but the desperation of fools never ends

 

[Speedwell]

Darwins letter is the basis of evolutionary theory, the concept was even scientifically tested and proved a failure.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Darwin's warm pond idea is tested

Darwin's Warm Little Pond: Searching for the Chemical Origins of Life | Bioinformatics Graduate Program at Georgia Tech (gatech.edu)

So you are arguing with known and accepted history.

Odd, but the desperation of fools never ends

So what's your point? Darwin was wrong, so we have to abandon all scientific advancements made in biology since his time?

 

[pitabread]

Darwins letter is the basis of evolutionary theory,

No it isn't.

 

[inquiring mind]

I have issues with numbers five and six:

5. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.

6. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.

In the first place, the American public school system has no authority to originate a definition of science. Further, science by any definition does not exclude supernatural explanations a priori. It accepts any explanation for which there is evidence. Finally, the scientific method is not used to determine "truth" in an absolute sense but to discover the most likely explanation for natural phenomenon.

These two theses smell rather like the creationist whine, "They're teaching my kiddies that evolution is absolute truth and that there is no God." In other words, political propaganda.

 

[inquiring mind]

I have issues with numbers five and six:

5. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.

6. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.

In the first place, the American public school system has no authority to originate a definition of science. Further, science by any definition does not exclude supernatural explanations a priori. It accepts any explanation for which there is evidence. Finally, the scientific method is not used to determine "truth" in an absolute sense but to discover the most likely explanation for natural phenomenon.

These two theses smell rather like the creationist whine, "They're teaching my kiddies that evolution is absolute truth and that there is no God." In other words, political propaganda.

But, how would you answer #5 and #6 on a True & False test?

 

[Speedwell]

But, how would you answer #5 and #6 on a True & False test?

False. I thought I had made that clear.