cDK Theory

[AV1611VET]

So now that we've established that, give Tiberius' question a go.

Tiberius' question can take a hike.

Look at it this way, Cabal -- what does it really matter to you guys?

Let's say, just for the sake of this discussion, that I am wrong.

God didn't embed age into His creation, and the earth is 4.57 billion years old because it went around the sun 4.57 billion times.

Evolution is indeed His method of choice for bringing mankind into the universe; Noah's flood was local, not global; the Bible has errors in It, and so on and so forth.

Now -- here's my question for you:

What does that matter to an atheist or agnostic?

We are still saying "God did it", are we not?

So what, then, would be your next step, if I were to start agreeing with TEs?

I'll tell you what the next step would be.

You guys then would want us to jettison God out of the picture and become atheists and agnostics like you guys are.

In my opinion.

Do you see my point?

 

[Delphiki]

Tiberius' question can take a hike.

Look at it this way, Cabal -- what does it really matter to you guys?

Let's say, just for the sake of this discussion, that I am wrong.

God didn't embed age into His creation, and the earth is 4.57 billion years old because it went around the sun 4.57 billion times.

Evolution is indeed His method of choice for bringing mankind into the universe; Noah's flood was local, not global; the Bible has errors in It, and so on and so forth.

Now -- here's my question for you:

What does that matter to an atheist or agnostic?

We are still saying "God did it", are we not?

So what, then, would be your next step, if I were to start agreeing with TEs?

I'll tell you what the next step would be.

You guys then would want us to jettison God out of the picture and become atheists and agnostics like you guys are.

In my opinion.

Do you see my point?

Hmmm... You seem to know a little bit about which questions you should ask, but you apparently haven't bothered to ever ask yourself these questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hmmm... You seem to know a little bit about which questions you should ask, but you apparently haven't bothered to ever ask yourself these questions.

How about this, Del?

If it bothers you guys so much that I'm an embedded ager -- and you want me to switch to theistic evolution -- does it bother you guys that theistic evolutionists aren't gap theorists?

And does it bother you that gap theorists aren't embedded agers?

No -- what I think really bothers you guys, is that we factor God into our equations, and use Him to pwn evolution.

This is why I don't think you guys go after the likes of Lucaspa or Faith Guardian -- because your agenda is evolution ... not God.

Put another way, you'll be able to tolerate us Christians, so long as we agree with you guys on evolution.

Again, in my opinion.

 

[Delphiki]

How about this, Del?

If it bothers you guys so much that I'm an embedded ager -- and you want me to switch to theistic evolution -- does it bother you guys that theistic evolutionists aren't gap theorists?

It bothers us that you reject evidence and try to spread your mythology to others who might not yet be educated on the facts.

And does it bother you that gap theorists aren't embedded agers?

They both reject reality and the evidence, and therefore both oppose the virtues of education and knowledge. I couldn't care less which of those two creationist camps someone belongs to, they both seek out to undermine the education of children.

No -- what I think really bothers you guys, is that we factor God into our equations, and use Him to pwn evolution.

Wouldn't it bother you if we factored Thor into our equations regarding meteorology? For one, it'd be very unreliable... kind of like if we used the bible to explain away speciation and everything we know about biology.

This is why I don't think you guys go after the likes of Lucaspa or Faith Guardian -- because your agenda is evolution ... not God.

Lucaspa at least acknowledges the evidence, and doesn't let his religious beliefs cloud his judgment or intentionally omit what was observed.

Put another way, you'll be able to tolerate us Christians, so long as we agree with you guys on evolution.

The only things creationists have in common is they deny biological, geological, and cosmological evidence. However, there are thousands upon thousands of versions of what creationists believe in regarding origins of the universe and life. Not even all creationists are Christian, either.

If we can get you to understand cosmology, geography, and biology, then we'd already be in agreement. Lucaspa seems to already have an understanding of these. I really don't care what his religion is. We still don't agree on some things like burden of proof, and he makes some reasonably thought out arguments, but this only pertains to our differing thoughts on whether or not a god exists, not science.

You, on the other hand, go into a sub-forum about Physical and Life Sciences and reject evidence outright in favor of your religious texts because you've invented your own set of "boolean standards". You come here with every intent on being stubborn and ignorant, and not open for discussion. You come here with every intent on not offering anything useful, and only offering your own invented ideas regarding origins, most of which, don't even appear in the bible, let alone what's been observed in scientific fields.

In fact, you very often contradict your own boolean standards in order to maintain your version of creationism. If I'm not mistaken, your standard is to check the bible and scientific theory, and where they contradict, assume the bible is the one that's correct? Things like Neptunian waters, and Noah living in New Jersey don't appear neither in the bible or in any history or scientific documentation.

 

[Cabal]

Tiberius' question can take a hike.

Look at it this way, Cabal -- what does it really matter to you guys?

Let's say, just for the sake of this discussion, that I am wrong.

God didn't embed age into His creation, and the earth is 4.57 billion years old because it went around the sun 4.57 billion times.

Evolution is indeed His method of choice for bringing mankind into the universe; Noah's flood was local, not global; the Bible has errors in It, and so on and so forth.

Now -- here's my question for you:

What does that matter to an atheist or agnostic?

We are still saying "God did it", are we not?

So what, then, would be your next step, if I were to start agreeing with TEs?

I'll tell you what the next step would be.

You guys then would want us to jettison God out of the picture and become atheists and agnostics like you guys are.

In my opinion.

Do you see my point?

I think I do.

So not only do you not question your beliefs, you're also holding to your beliefs because of how other people will react, not whether they're true or not?

You have even poorer reasons for believing what you do than I thought.

 

[Cabal]

How about this, Del?

If it bothers you guys so much that I'm an embedded ager -- and you want me to switch to theistic evolution -- does it bother you guys that theistic evolutionists aren't gap theorists?

And does it bother you that gap theorists aren't embedded agers?

It bothers me that Christians are Christians. But some are wronger than others, and we have to start somewhere.

No -- what I think really bothers you guys, is that we factor God into our equations, and use Him to pwn evolution.

That doesn't really bother us, as you pwn nothing - apart from yourselves, obviously.

This is why I don't think you guys go after the likes of Lucaspa or Faith Guardian -- because your agenda is evolution ... not God.

Why should it be otherwise? Atheists don't exactly care for the idea of God. When those users you named contribute here however, they are generally talking about science, whereas you can't ask a creationist a question without getting a whole bunch of other god-nonsense-claims being thrown in too.

Put another way, you'll be able to tolerate us Christians, so long as we agree with you guys on evolution.

Pretty much.

But on that note, what does our tolerance levels have to do with your (un)willingness to question your beliefs?

The Bible literally instructs you to question everything, does it not? It sure doesn't say "question everything, but only if you're sure those meanie atheists aren't going to bother you"

 

[Loudmouth]

I accept that disease exist because we experience it.

You failed to answer my question. Do you accept the scientific theory which states that diseases such as chicken pox are caused by microorganisms?

I do not accept that man evolved from ape or bird from dinosaur because we do not experience it. It's all ASSUMED based on the evidence.

So you claim that we can not convict anyone based on forensic evidence because we did not experience the murder?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think we should be clearer about when we are talking about interesting/potentially important correlations and our speculations about the reasons for the correlations, as opposed to talking about methodologically rigorous studies of causation, so that the distinction is made.

I think we should be careful when interpreting correlations, that our categories may need adjusting, that the picture we have may be missing something very important, that causation isn't proven because of correlation.

Scientists are cautious about linking correlation with causation. That is why so many studies are being done, including those that focus on proposed causes. Showing the correlation is only the first step, but one can not pursue the cause without finding a correlation first.

But all of this is moot for this conversation. There is this insidious nature of creationism where the correlations can be completely ignored because the data doesn't really exist. This seems like a step backwards to me. You say you are cautious about following the evidence, and yet you don't seem that cautious with the idea that a supernatural deity magically poofed the data into being. The idea of a "creation in mid-state" really is a last ditch Hail Mary from creationists. It failed when Phillip Henry Gosse wrote "Omphalos" in the 19th centry, and it fails now.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Scientists are cautious about linking correlation with causation. That is why so many studies are being done, including those that focus on proposed causes. Showing the correlation is only the first step, but one can not pursue the cause without finding a correlation first.

I think it's useful to distinguish between solid, well articulated speech about research and methodology, as contrasted with rhetorical games used in popular writings.

I also think it's useful to remember that when really doing a slam-dunk study of causation, one has a proper lab set up that isolates whatever other causes are identified, etc. We simply don't have a lab that is large/complex enough and isolating causes well enough, to really put MACRO-evolutionary theory to a proper test re: causality.

But all of this is moot for this conversation. There is this insidious nature of creationism where the correlations can be completely ignored because the data doesn't really exist.

I'm not claiming anything particular about the quality of research or methodology by creationists.

You say you are cautious about following the evidence, and yet you don't seem that cautious with the idea that a supernatural deity magically poofed the data into being.

At what level are we making our assertions? Am I arguing that God has been viewed with a telescope? No. Is anyone claiming that they have seen multiple independently verified peer-reviewed examples of macro-evolution happen from start to finish in their lab? No. In both cases we are talking about our interpretation at some other level.

So is intelligence studied as a 'hard science'? Are the analysis of design or systems 'hard science'? It's not Newtonian physics. There's a bit of abstraction and there are lots of inferences with inexact qualitative assessments made. And what of the 'hard science' levels of such study? Do we really understand intelligence fully by the most objectively quantified mathematical studies? In analyzing the interaction and functioning of elements of systems or of design, does it reduce to clear observation and completely verified/verifiable formula, or would this standard leave us with little to go on?

Then there's questions of whether or not our scientific deductions and pattern identification from mathematics and observation hold up under conditions such as the hypothetical big bang or the origin of life.

====

So in the case of "what happened at the beginning" of the origin of the universe, or of the origin of life, I do not see that we can confidently suppose that our prevailing understanding of science, physics, biology, are sufficient or even relevant.

If Newtonian physics does not apply when the scale is the size of the universe or smaller than an atom, or when speeds approach the speed of light -- what of the origin of the universe or a big bang or the origin of life or intelligence?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think it's useful to distinguish between solid, well articulated speech about research and methodology, as contrasted with rhetorical games used in popular writings.

This is why many of us warn against reading popular press articles and instead urge people to read the scientific papers written by the scientists themselves.

I also think it's useful to remember that when really doing a slam-dunk study of causation, one has a proper lab set up that isolates whatever other causes are identified, etc. We simply don't have a lab that is large/complex enough and isolating causes well enough, to really put MACRO-evolutionary theory to a proper test re: causality.

We already have that lab. It is called Nature. We have a record of evolution, and that record is the genomes of living species. We have a record of the changes in morphology through time in the fossil record. We have real life species that are evolving into new species in Nature, and they do so through evolutionary mechanisms.

At what level are we making our assertions? Am I arguing that God has been viewed with a telescope?

You are making the assertion that a false history was implanted into the Creation. Creationists do this so they don't have to deal with the evidence.

Is anyone claiming that they have seen multiple independently verified peer-reviewed examples of macro-evolution happen from start to finish in their lab?

There are examples in the wild:

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

No one has yet to see a supernatural deity create a new species.

In both cases we are talking about our interpretation at some other level.

What good is data if it is not interpretted? Are we supposed to just walk away from all of this data and do nothing? Have you read my signature?

So is intelligence studied as a 'hard science'?

Absolutely. The field of neurobiology is dedicated to it.

Do we really understand intelligence fully by the most objectively quantified mathematical studies?

Absolutely not, WHICH IS WHY SCIENTISTS ARE RESEARCHING IT.

In analyzing the interaction and functioning of elements of systems or of design, does it reduce to clear observation and completely verified/verifiable formula, or would this standard leave us with little to go on?

This is all word salad. Can you show how ID makes clear, risky, and testable predictions that can be verified in the lab? Let's use ERV's as an example. What pattern of orthology and LTR divergence does ID predict for ERV's shared by chimps and humans, and why? Evolution makes very clear, risky, and testable predictions. Does ID?

Then there's questions of whether or not our scientific deductions and pattern identification from mathematics and observation hold up under conditions such as the hypothetical big bang or the origin of life.

Evolution occurs after both. Geology occurs whether life is present or not, and it also occurs after the BB. Galaxy formation occurs after the BB, not during or prior to it. There is so much of science that you reject that has nothing to do with either the origin of life or the BB.

So in the case of "what happened at the beginning" of the origin of the universe, or of the origin of life, I do not see that we can confidently suppose that our prevailing understanding of science, physics, biology, are sufficient or even relevant.

I completely agree that models for both the origin of the BB and life are not well supported. However, this doesn't shake the confidence scientists have in how life changed once it was here, or the history of geology on Earth over the last 4.5 billion years.

If Newtonian physics does not apply when the scale is the size of the universe or smaller than an atom, or when speeds approach the speed of light -- what of the origin of the universe or a big bang or the origin of life or intelligence?

You reject Newtonian physics when it is applied over 6,000 light years away. The BB is hardly your only problem.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

We already have that lab. It is called Nature.

When a scientist really wants to demonstrate causality, instead of just saying "nature is the lab", they come up with a controlled lab environment and try to find ways to eliminate all causal factors/influences other than the one they are testing, so they can really isolate the alleged casual factor and demonstrate it's existence, it's working, etc.

"Nature itself" is NOT a controlled lab environment.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

I'm talking about change from one KIND of thing to another KIND -- not these little changes.

What good is data if it is not interpretted? Are we supposed to just walk away from all of this data and do nothing?

No, we can apply various methods and interpret, and try to communicate what we've seen and results.

But what good is such abstract interpretation if we do not acknowledge the degree of abstraction or interpretation that is involved?

Absolutely. The field of neurobiology is dedicated to it.

Again, has 'person' been quantified to everyone's satisfaction and placed in a test-tube?

And of what value are neurons without living things, persons, etc.? There is so much going on that is qualitative, not very well quantified, not very well studied by neurobiology.

Can you show how ID makes clear, risky, and testable predictions that can be verified in the lab?

I'm not claiming that the study of intelligence or of design, or of intelligent design as a combination subject applied to origins and development of the universe/life/consciousness has arrived at a particular quality of research, methodology, etc.

I'm saying that neurobiology has not adequately dealt with qualitative aspects of mental/emotional phenomenon or questions of consciousness, conscience, intelligence, design, etc.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Nature itself" is NOT a controlled lab environment.

It doesn't need to be in order to demonstrate macroevolution.

I'm talking about change from one KIND of thing to another KIND --

Then you are talking about creationism, not science. When you want to talk about science, let me know. "Kinds" are a complete invention that have no meaning in biology.

No, we can apply various methods and interpret, and try to communicate what we've seen and results.

Using your methods and interpretations, I can't even trust what I see. That's the problem.

But what good is such abstract interpretation if we do not acknowledge the degree of abstraction or interpretation that is involved?

What good is it until you show what is abstraction within the interpretation?

We observe that retroviruses insert randomly into the genome. We observe that retroviral sequences are inherited. Therefore, a retroviral sequence that is found at the same position in two genomes is due to inheritance of a single retroviral insertion. Where is the abstraction here? What am I interpretting incorrectly?

Again, has 'person' been quantified to everyone's satisfaction and placed in a test-tube?

Why would it need to be?

And of what value are neurons without living things, persons, etc.? There is so much going on that is qualitative, not very well quantified, not very well studied by neurobiology.

Science does not apply value. That would be us. What science can do is tell us how neurons communicate with each other which can be done with neurons grown in vitro. This knowledge can then be extended to brains. Is there something you object to here?

I'm not claiming that the study of intelligence or of design, or of intelligent design as a combination subject applied to origins and development of the universe/life/consciousness has arrived at a particular quality of research, methodology, etc.

So why are you using it to discount real scientific research? Why are you using biblical kinds as a requirement in biology?

I'm saying that neurobiology has not adequately dealt with qualitative aspects of mental/emotional phenomenon or questions of consciousness, conscience, intelligence, design, etc.

Perhaps you should read some of the research being done in neurobiology. I really doubt that you have. The experiments with fMRI are very interesting:

Mind Reading with Functional MRI - Technology Review

There are still obvious limitations to this research, but it does give us a glimps of how our minds work.

Also, we now have a long list of chemicals that are specifically tailored to change our neurobiology. There is no denying the implications.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

It doesn't need to be in order to demonstrate macroevolution.

Are you claiming that there is a cause for such change? Are you doing a controlled study in a lab to isolate that causal factor and exclude all other causal factors? No.

So you aren't able to do the strongest sort of lab experiment for causation. You have to settle for something weaker.

Then you are talking about creationism, not science. When you want to talk about science, let me know. "Kinds" are a complete invention that have no meaning in biology.

How about Kingdom, Phylum, or Class, then? Genus?

Using your methods and interpretations, I can't even trust what I see. That's the problem.

You aren't seeing anything from over 6000 years ago with all that much clarity and understanding, I'd hope we can agree to that -- you don't have a time machine or a big enough telescope or a lab that spans anywhere near enough time.

So why are you using it to discount real scientific research? Why are you using biblical kinds as a requirement in biology?

When I say "kind" simply replace that with something more significant than minor species differences. See above.

 

[Tiberius]

Tiberius' question can take a hike.

So you concede the point. Thank you.

Let's say, just for the sake of this discussion, that I am wrong.

God didn't embed age into His creation, and the earth is 4.57 billion years old because it went around the sun 4.57 billion times.

Evolution is indeed His method of choice for bringing mankind into the universe; Noah's flood was local, not global; the Bible has errors in It, and so on and so forth.

Now -- here's my question for you:

What does that matter to an atheist or agnostic?

We are still saying "God did it", are we not?

So what, then, would be your next step, if I were to start agreeing with TEs?

I'll tell you what the next step would be.

You guys then would want us to jettison God out of the picture and become atheists and agnostics like you guys are.

In my opinion.

Do you see my point?

Well, your opinion is wrong. I only want you to look objectively at the evidence from the real world. You wanna believe in God, that's fine with me. But it's intellectually dishonest to ignore evidence just because you have already decided that something else is true.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you claiming that there is a cause for such change?

Yes. Imperfect replication and limited resources. Baby bunnies have mutations. There is not enough food for all the baby bunnies. Some die and some do not. Both of these causes have been shown to exist both in and out of the lab.

So you aren't able to do the strongest sort of lab experiment for causation.

I guess you are unaware of mutations, and the fact that the amount of food on the earth is limited?

How about Kingdom, Phylum, or Class, then? Genus?

Also arbitrary distinctions. The only objective division in biology is at the population level (i.e. species level) as defined by genetic flow. The decision of what species goes in what Genus is an arbitrary decision.

You aren't seeing anything from over 6000 years ago with all that much clarity and understanding, I'd hope we can agree to that

We don't agree at all. You have heard of the Hubble Space Telescope, have you not?

-- you don't have a time machine or a big enough telescope or a lab that spans anywhere near enough time.

Nature is our laboratory.

When I say "kind" simply replace that with something more significant than minor species differences. See above.

There is nothing more significant. The divergence of a single species into two new species is macroevolution. Minor species differences accumulating over time IS macroevolution. You are asking me to show you macroevolution that has occurred in our lifetimes, but you are not allowing me to use examples of macroevolution that have occurred in our lifetime.

 

[AV1611VET]

I only want you to look objectively at the evidence from the real world.

Kinda hard not too, isn't it?

Especially here, where we have you guys to thank, eh?

You wanna believe in God, that's fine with me.

You mean it's fine with you, as long as we have a passive belief in Him, right?

But as soon as we step on sacred ground (science), your 'fine' becomes 'intolerant', doesn't it?

But it's intellectually dishonest to ignore evidence just because you have already decided that something else is true.

Ya -- our 'faith' is your 'intellectual dishonesty', isn't it?

And if you'd like to understand our position better -- (LOL) -- change the last word in your post to 'truth', instead of 'true'; and you'll get a better perspective -- ()

(Sorry, I can't say that with a straight face.)

 

[Cabal]

Kinda hard not too, isn't it?

Especially here, where we have you guys to thank, eh?

You mean it's fine with you, as long as we have a passive belief in Him, right?

But as soon as we step on sacred ground (science), your 'fine' becomes 'intolerant', doesn't it?

Ya -- our 'faith' is your 'intellectual dishonesty', isn't it?

And if you'd like to understand our position better -- (LOL) -- change the last word in your post to 'truth', instead of 'true'; and you'll get a better perspective -- ()

(Sorry, I can't say that with a straight face.)

So you don't question your beliefs then?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ya -- our 'faith' is your 'intellectual dishonesty', isn't it?

It is when it is used to ignore evidence as you have done in almost every thread I have seen you post in (counting threads excluded).

 

[AV1611VET]

So you don't question your beliefs then?

That's your job.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is when it is used to ignore evidence as you have done in almost every thread I have seen you post in (counting threads excluded).

Good to see consistency is my trademark.

And I think this is a good time to bring up a point I made once before.

How much evidence is ignored, when someone prefers one theory over another?

For example, how many comet/asteroid impacts are ignored, when one prefers the Accretion Theory of our moon's formation, over the Impact Theory?