"Dilbert" Demonstrates Evolution

[choccy]

By the way -- I find it amusing that your defense is "your sources aren't scientific and mine are" as if that means anything.

On a science forum I would say that means something.

Choccy

 

[npetreley]

If we were discussing this on a science forum, and not on a Christian forum with the subsection science, creation and evolution, then yes, it would mean something.

 

[Morat]

 So here's the big question for Nick: Since your objection to science is philosophical (you object to the methodological naturalism that forms the basis of science), why do you not object to all branchs of science equally? Why the hypocrisy? It seems you only object to methodological naturalism when it contradicts something you desperatly want to be true.

 

 

[Shel]

I do not believe that the Bible specifically rules out evolution, and therefore I believe it is possible to believe in Jesus and Evolution at the same time. Also, since we will not be asked to explain the history of the animal kingdom on the day of judgment, I do not believe that it makes a difference in that sense.

So take the religious implications out of it all together. Forget Creationism and take Evolution on it's own merit.

It doesn't work.

There are a multitude of reasons why, but when they are presented, evolutionists say....."but that's the only explanation"......

Perhaps, instead of taking evolution because "it's the only explanation", they should admit they were wrong, go back to square one, and start looking again.

~Shel~

P.S. I just opened a big ol' can of worms, didn't I?

 

[Morat]

  No. You made an assertation of "It doesn't work". However, the people who actually work with evolution (population biologists, for instance) work with it daily and use it constantly. They think it does work.

  Now, who should we trust on this? You? Or someone who uses it daily?

   However, you might be right. It's possible, after all. So please explain how it doesn't work. You sorta didn't in your post.

 

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat
So here's the big question for Nick: Since your objection to science is philosophical (you object to the methodological naturalism that forms the basis of science), why do you not object to all branchs of science equally? Why the hypocrisy? It seems you only object to methodological naturalism when it contradicts something you desperatly want to be true.

Actually, methodological naturalism stems from people desperately wanting something to be false, and some so-called scientists even admit it. (Recall the "cannot allow a divine foot in the door" quote?)

What you fail to admit (I can't imagine that you don't see this, so I'm not saying you fail to see it) is that it is not science I object to at all. I object to calling evolution science. When someone goes into a lab with chemicals, subjects them to natural environmental conditions and comes out with a kangaroo, then evolution will be science. So the problem with evolution is not only that it attempts to explain things from an a-priori position of naturalism, but that evolution is built ONLY on these a-priori assumptions. You cannot apply the scientific method to evolution because you can't reproduce your results. Therefore evolution is purely metaphysics, not science.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Shel
I do not believe that the Bible specifically rules out evolution, and therefore I believe it is possible to believe in Jesus and Evolution at the same time. Also, since we will not be asked to explain the history of the animal kingdom on the day of judgment, I do not believe that it makes a difference in that sense.

So take the religious implications out of it all together. Forget Creationism and take Evolution on it's own merit.

It doesn't work.

There are a multitude of reasons why, but when they are presented, evolutionists say....."but that's the only explanation"......

Perhaps, instead of taking evolution because "it's the only explanation", they should admit they were wrong, go back to square one, and start looking again.

~Shel~

P.S. I just opened a big ol' can of worms, didn't I?

I disagree - I do believe the Bible rules out evolution. But I agree 100% with your conclusion that even if it didn't, evolution still doesn't work. Just because it's the most palatable explanation of things for some people doesn't make it true. And I agree that the best course of action would be to go back to square 1 and start looking again.

 

[Morat]

Actually, methodological naturalism stems from people desperately wanting something to be false, and some so-called scientists even admit it. (Recall the "cannot allow a divine foot in the door" quote?)

  You mean the one you couldn't seem to understand? The one explaining some of the reasoning behind choosing methodological naturalism? The one talking about how all explanations become untestable once you invoke God?

  That one?

  Odd, it doesn't seem to say what you think it says. No, I'm going to need some evidence of this "desperatly wanting something to be false" thing. I won't hold my breath.

So the problem with evolution is not only that it attempts to explain things from an a-priori position of naturalism, but that evolution is built ONLY on these a-priori assumptions.

  The same is true of every branch of science. Every branch. The rest of that paragraph was mere handwaving. Why the hypocrisy, Nick?

   You just admitted what your problem with evolution is: Your problem with evolution is that it is science. Because all science attempts to explain things from an a-priori position of naturalism.

  *laugh*. My favorite part is the bolded section. Quick, Nick...name me one branch of science that isn't built solely on naturalism, and list what other a-priori assumptions it makes.

  Somehow, I'm guessing I'll be chasing you arround with that challenge for awhile.

 

 

 

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
You cannot apply the scientific method to evolution because you can't reproduce your results.

Here is a definition of the scientific method (taken from the first link I found on Google):

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Please point out to us, Nick, which step cannot be applied to evolution.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
Actually, methodological naturalism stems from people desperately wanting something to be false, and some so-called scientists even admit it. (Recall the "cannot allow a divine foot in the door" quote?)

Wrongo. Methodological naturalism stems from people desperately wanting science to be useful. We already tried methodological supernaturalism, remember? Human sacrifices? Offerings to the gods? It didn't work worth squat.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
Actually the evidence for creation is the same for evolution. The difference is in interpretation.

Please explain to us again how one "interprets" concordant radiometric dating data to support a YEC conclusion.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
Not credible in your esteem. Big deal, what would one expect? Neither do I think any of your evidence for evolution is credible. So it's a draw.

It's not my judgement that makes your evidence not credible -- it's the basic rules of logic and common sense.

But IMO there's plenty of evidence that gives evolution trouble, not the least of which is the fossil record.

Start a new thread then, lay out the evidence, and explain why it refutes the theory of evolution.

Analyzed from the a-priori position of natural causes? Absolutely, therefore the conclusions reflect the bias of the people analyzing the data. And yes, that goes for Christian "scientists", too (not "Christian Scientists" as in reading room). Despite their profession of faith, they most often believe it is proper to take the position of interpreting evidence through the a-priori position of natural causes. I think they're wrong for doing that, but I'm glad they usually admit it. And it explains why they are professing Christians yet believe in evolution.

Well, if you think they're wrong, then let's hear your alternative. Please explain how we are to conduct science in a manner that considers both natural and supernatural causes.

Edited addition: By the way -- I find it amusing that your defense is "your sources aren't scientific and mine are" as if that means anything.

You misinterpreted my response then. You trust the Bible (not science). I trust the evidence (science).

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
I trust the evidence (science).

No, you trust your interpretation of the evidence (not science).

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Here is a definition of the scientific method (taken from the first link I found on Google):

Please point out to us, Nick, which step cannot be applied to evolution.

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

Nobody has ever observed macroevolution. Nobody has observed a single-celled organism evolve into a human. Nobody has even observed a chimp evolve into a human, which you say are very close.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

You have to have ONE observation in order to have new ones. You don't have either.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

You can't reproduce results independently if you haven't produced them in the first place.

 

[chickenman]

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

Nobody has ever observed macroevolution. Nobody has observed a single-celled organism evolve into a human. Nobody has even observed a chimp evolve into a human, which you say are very close.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

You have to have ONE observation in order to have new ones. You don't have either.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

You can't reproduce results independently if you haven't produced them in the first place.

1) We have observed mutation, natural selection and speciation.

3) from these observation we can and have made predictions about other observations and phenomena, including the hypothesis that since humans and chimps diverged and and are the result of macroevolutionary change, that the differences in chromosome number are due to a chromosome fusion event;

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

predictions were made based on the theory of evolution, predictions were vindicated. I'm sure you know about this npeterly, you've ignored it before if I remember correctly

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

Nobody has ever observed macroevolution. Nobody has observed a single-celled organism evolve into a human. Nobody has even observed a chimp evolve into a human, which you say are very close.

This step does not read "observation of the theory in action". It just says "observation of a phenomenon". For Darwin, an observed phenomenon was the speciation pattern of Galapagos finches. Today we observe phenomena in genetics, the fossil record, comparative anatomy, biogeography, etc. etc. ad infinatum.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

You have to have ONE observation in order to have new ones. You don't have either.

Well you were just flat wrong on that one eh?

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

You can't reproduce results independently if you haven't produced them in the first place.

Let me reacquaint you yet again with the predictions of evolution that have been repeatedly tested by experimenters:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Morat]

 Oh NICK! You forgot to back up one of your statements! Here it is again.

 You stated:

So the problem with evolution is not only that it attempts to explain things from an a-priori position of naturalism, <B>but that evolution is built ONLY on these a-priori assumptions</B>.

The same is true of every branch of science. <I>Every branch</I>. The rest of that paragraph was mere handwaving. Why the hypocrisy, Nick?

&nbsp;&nbsp; You just admitted what your problem with evolution is: Your problem with evolution is <I>that it is science</I>. Because <I>all science</I> attempts to explain things from an a-priori position of naturalism.

&nbsp; *laugh*. My favorite part is the bolded section. Quick, Nick...name me one branch of science that isn't built <I>solely</I> on naturalism, and list what other a-priori assumptions it makes.

&nbsp; Somehow, I'm guessing I'll be chasing you arround with that challenge for awhile.