Creationists and research

[Pete Harcoff]

You have the first premise right but you have ignored the latter, special creation.

Could you clarify this? Are you trying to assert that the biological history of the Earth was a result of divine creation, but made to look like it evolved?

I did not conclude that natural selection is a transendental philosophy I said that unless it is a natural law it is the premise of a philosophy. It can be no other kind of a philosophy except transendental since it transends all living systems.

No, you said unless *I* point to natural selection as a natural law, it is transcendental philosophy. But I have pointed to empirical evidence that demonstrates the existence of natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. Are you denying it?

 

[phaedrus]

Natural selection is the short-hand for a naturally occuring process by which those creatures best adapted to their environment will have the best chance to survive. It is an observed phenomena.

Fine, show me the mathmatical formula for calculating this and natural selection can be a law like the Mendal laws of inheritance.

 

[phaedrus]

Could you clarify this? Are you trying to assert that the biological history of the Earth was a result of divine creation, but made to look like it evolved?

No, you said unless *I* point to natural selection as a natural law, it is transcendental philosophy. But I have pointed to empirical evidence that demonstrates the existence of natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. Are you denying it?

To answer your first question: No, I'm saying that creationism like evolution is a philosophy applied to science. What it looks like is a matter of subjective opinion.

Now as to your second statement, my point stands unchallenged. Natural selection as a mechanism for evolution is metaphysics, not natural science.

 

[danaman5]

Fine, show me the mathmatical formula for calculating this and natural selection can be a law like the Mendal laws of inheritance.

First of all, biology usually can't be calculated with mathematics. Secondly, it is a common myth that all theories in science eventually become laws. This is false, evolution will never become a law, because laws are something entirely different.

 

[Bushido216]

Fine, show me the mathmatical formula for calculating this and natural selection can be a law like the Mendal laws of inheritance.

Sigh. There is no mathematical formula. Biology doesn't work on formulas, it is much more practical than that. You're asking me to provide you with an orange peel and only providing me with an apple. Take football, American or otherwise, is there a formula for determining which team will win? The team with the better team will have the better chance of winning, but it won't be definite.

As well, Mendel's law is still just a theory. However, it is given the status of "law" because it is very commonly accepted. If Evolution didn't go against some creationist's beliefs, then evolution would also be given "law" status.

 

[phaedrus]

No, it isn't.

'Zen and the art of creationist gibberish'?

Yes it is! Zen and the art of evolutionist circular reasoning.

 

[Bushido216]

You just keep thinking that...

 

[phaedrus]

First of all, biology usually can't be calculated with mathematics. Secondly, it is a common myth that all theories in science eventually become laws. This is false, evolution will never become a law, because laws are something entirely different.

Show me one science that does not lend itself to mathematical calculations and I'll shut up. The laws of inheritance are mathematical formulas BTW.

 

[toff]

Oh Please! These people are scientists that know how it works. Morris was an accomplished scientist who commited the carnal sin of asserting that the earth was not umpteen million years old. My point is that if you say that evolution is science you dont know what you are talking about. I see no reason to think otherwise

Sorry, none of what you posted above has anything to do with the post to which you are replying. If you say that evolution isn't science you don't know what you are talking about (yup, again easy to make unsupported assertions).

 

[Pete Harcoff]

No again! Everything in philosophy is predicated on a premise and natural selection is a premise. The only 'la-la land' is the circular reasoning that asserts that natural selection is science.

But with respect to specific traits in a population, natural selection can be demonstrated. For example:

Multiple Duplications of Yeast Hexose Transport Genes in Response to Selection in a Glucose-Limited Environment

When microbes evolve in a continuous, nutrient-limited environment, natural selection can be predicted to favor genetic changes that give cells greater access to limiting substrate. We analyzed a population of baker’s yeast that underwent 450 generations of glucose-limited growth. Relative to the strain used as the inoculum, the predominant cell type at the end of this experiment sustains growth at significantly lower steady-state glucose concentrations and demonstrates markedly enhanced cell yield per mole glucose, significantly enhanced high-affinity glucose transport, and greater relative fitness in pairwise competition. (full paper)

So again, how is this not science?

 

[Bushido216]

Show me one science that does not lend itself to mathematical calculations and I'll shut up. The laws of inheritance are mathematical formulas BTW.

a.) I just did.
b.) No, they're really not.

 

[phaedrus]

Sigh. There is no mathematical formula. Biology doesn't work on formulas, it is much more practical than that. You're asking me to provide you with an orange peel and only providing me with an apple. Take football, American or otherwise, is there a formula for determining which team will win? The team with the better team will have the better chance of winning, but it won't be definite.

As well, Mendel's law is still just a theory. However, it is given the status of "law" because it is very commonly accepted. If Evolution didn't go against some creationist's beliefs, then evolution would also be given "law" status.

Mendal's laws of inheritance are scientific because they are both predictable and have an identifiable null hypothesis. Natural selection has neither.

 

[phaedrus]

a.) I just did.
b.) No, they're really not.

No you didnt and yes they really are.

 

[napajohn]

I am not asking Parker, Behe, or Morris. None of them, as far as I know, post on this forum. I'm asking YOU. And by not even answering the question, you've answered it. Thanks for playing; your intellectual dishonesty is revealed.

Intellectual dishonesty?..Often you like all others here rely on information that YOU HAVE NOT GATHERED..rather you have learned this from some other sources..cut the BS toff..if you ask a question expect an answer..Actually you weren't asking a question but making a statement: if you can't get info from non-creationists literature, what is left? Pro slant evolutionary resources..You've limited all points of view by saying Creationists have no credibility as scientists (that sounds like a stmt doesn't it)..besides before I and most other creationists became one, all one learned growing up was the evolutionary slant on origins..so the answer is yes..i do get info on the evolution from evolutionists...(you watch enough Discovery and Nature and read Nature and Scientific American, one gets the evolutionary spin all the time...what else are you going to accuse me of toff?

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Wow which one of these guys is worse.

The moron who can't spell or the fool who is so entrenched in Creationist lies.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Biology doesn't work on formulas, it is much more practical than that.

Actually, there are mathematical formulas with respect to biology, including evolution.

 

[Larry]

This isn't the first time I've seen people trying to apply attributes such as 'religion' or 'philosophy' to the theory of evolution. This is an attempt to place both religeous/philosophical belief systems in the same arena with the scientific method. This tactic is used as kind of an equalizer, giving religeous/pholosophical belief systems the same foothold as the scientific method in the discussions. This is like trying to mix water with oil.

In this particular thread, I see the invocation of the transcendental philosophy. That philosophy has nothing to do with the scientific method. It is a philosophy dealing with what is percieved as 'truth', the pure mind, what is percieved as goodness, and that which transcends natural observations. It applies to doctrines of metaphysical idealism.

The scientific method has nothing to do with such ideologies.

 

[Bushido216]

No you didnt and yes they really are.

You do realize that arguing with you is like arguing with an eight year old?

 

[Bushido216]

Actually, there are mathematical formulas with respect to biology, including evolution.

Indeed, formulas abound. However, anyone who wishes to make the claim that every thing in biology can is quantified in the some respect as physics is making a very bold claim.

 

[phaedrus]

Sorry, none of what you posted above has anything to do with the post to which you are replying. If you say that evolution isn't science you don't know what you are talking about (yup, again easy to make unsupported assertions).

Sure its easy, if you do not qualify your assertion by saying that both evolution and creationism are philosophy. You are arguing from a premise (aka presuposition).