flaws

JavaMan · Feb 2, 2007

AV1611VET:

This is just one example of many, many, many --- with a 100% rate of accuracy!

Of course, like all the other miraculous stories, the stories of these magical predictions were written down after the events predicted had happened, weren't they?

(Apologies for the similar comment to Bandersnatch. You must have posted when I was reading).

AV1611VET · Feb 2, 2007

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
And how do you know when the supposed prophecy was actually written? (Added in edit: Or that it wasn't modified by a later translator or editor?)

As I said before, those are just two of numerous prophecies. That would have been far too much modification to escape the detection of the Jews, who guarded their writings with zeal.

Also, I'm sure by now someone would have produced the original writings and said: "See --- ain't so!"

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
Added in a second edit: And your appologetic still has nothing to do with supposed flaws in the theory of evolution.

Yes it does - in a roundabout way. Prophecy is a means of validation of the very Book that shows [four] major flaws in evolution.

If I did my math right, evolution would have had to occur at a rate of 745,900 times the rate given.

4,550,000,000 / 6100

AV1611VET · Feb 2, 2007

JavaMan said:
AV1611VET:

Of course, like all the other miraculous stories, the stories of these magical predictions were written down after the events predicted had happened, weren't they?

No --- let's use the prophecy concerning Cyrus as an example --- and let's say you're right, and I'm wrong.

[bible]Isaiah 45:1[/bible]

This means that this passage, which predicts that a Persian king would become world ruler, was inserted at least 175 years after it was written.

But why insert it in Isaiah 45, which was written in 712 B.C., when the Persians were nobodies?

At the time that was written, the Egyptians were the dominant force, until they were defeated at the Battle of Carchemish by Nebuchadnezzar's forces (i.e. Babylon).

It was Babylon that took the Jews captive, not Persia.

As I have said before --- to borrow a line from Jaws:

You yell PERSIANS! and everybody says HUH? WHAT? You yell BABYLONIANS! and you've got a panic on your hands on the 4th of July!

So my point is, that would have been an awful strange place to insert that prophecy if it was inserted after-the-fact, don't you think?

Frumious Bandersnatch · Feb 2, 2007

AV1611VET said:
As I said before, those are just two of numerous prophecies. That would have been far too much modification to escape the detection of the Jews, who guarded their writings with zeal.

Also, I'm sure by now someone would have produced the original writings and said: "See --- ain't so!"

Yes it does - in a roundabout way. Prophecy is a means of validation of the very Book that shows [four] major flaws in evolution.

The prophecies that are fullfilled are either vague or apparently fullfilled by the Bible itself, which is quite easy to do as long as you can modify the text after the events have supposedly come to pass or modify the story to make the events appear to have come to pass. Some concrete prophecies such as Ezekiel predicting that Nebuchadrezzar would conquer Tyre failed completely. (I know you have some ridiculous appologetics based on a much later conquest by Alexander but IMO that is just an excuse for Ezekiel's blunder. ) There are long lists of Biblical problems that require convoluted appologetics, hardly a good recommendation for a book that is supposed to be infallible but appologetics are irrelevant here.

If I did my math right, evolution would have had to occur at a rate of 745,900 times the rate given.

4,550,000,000 / 6100

Hmm. Didn't acknowledge that the earth is 4.55 billion years old. Isn't 4,550,000,000/4,550,000,000 = 1?

Frumious Bandersnatch · Feb 2, 2007

AV1611VET said:
No --- let's use the prophecy concerning Cyrus as an example --- and let's say you're right, and I'm wrong.

[bible]Isaiah 45:1[/bible]

This means that this passage, which predicts that a Persian king would become world ruler, was inserted at least 175 years after it was written.

But why insert it in Isaiah 45, which was written in 712 B.C., when the Persians were nobodies?

At the time that was written, the Egyptians were the dominant force, until they were defeated at the Battle of Carchemish by Nebuchadnezzar's forces (i.e. Babylon).

It was Babylon that took the Jews captive, not Persia.

As I have said before --- to borrow a line from Jaws:

You yell PERSIANS! and everybody says HUH? WHAT? You yell BABYLONIANS! and you've got a panic on your hands on the 4th of July!

So my point is, that would have been an awful strange place to insert that prophecy if it was inserted after-the-fact, don't you think?

Not if you were trying to prove that your book was prophetic.

grimbly · Feb 2, 2007

AV1611VET said:
As I said before, those are just two of numerous prophecies. That would have been far too much modification to escape the detection of the Jews, who guarded their writings with zeal.

Also, I'm sure by now someone would have produced the original writings and said: "See --- ain't so!"

Yes it does - in a roundabout way. Prophecy is a means of validation of the very Book that shows [four] major flaws in evolution.

If I did my math right, evolution would have had to occur at a rate of 745,900 times the rate given.

4,550,000,000 / 6100

Well I see where you got the age that the earth existed right but whats this 6100 number thingie. Look AV seriously, there is no more question that the earth has been in existence for approximately 4.5 billion years than there is that the earth is a sphere. I know, you don't want to look at the evidence. That's fine but do you really think that you are going to convince somebody living in the 21st century that the earth is only 6000 years old. What with the internet, television, books, a higher rate of literacy, a multitude of colleges and universities, do you really think you can keep on denying reality and expect to attract a following. Even if you get them while they are young, eventually they are going to be exposed to reality and then what do you do. What I'm afraid of is that when they get exposed to reality, some will become so disenchanted with what you are preaching, that they will abandon religion entirely. And that will be on you!!!
Some Great Commission.

Godfixated · Feb 2, 2007

Elduran said:
Are you aware of the following two facts:

Science does not deal with "proof", it simply deals with evidence, which the theory of evolution has in abundance

In science, a theory is the highest level an explanatory model can reach. You cannot get higher than a theory, and evolution is one of the best supported theories in science.

Sorry, this doesn't work on many levels. The first being that in origin theory, evidence is more in the eye of the beholder than it is "fact." In an experiment, the researcher must have a control to test against. The problem with a theory such as evolution, there is no control, just the idea of what should be the control. This, in turn, inhibits the ability of evolution to be truely testable. This leads to your assumption that evolution is one of the most best supported theories in science. This is a blatant error. Because of the lack of a control among other things, evolution is only supported by hypotheses and theories, something that does not make it well supported. Plus, one can look at the millions of scientific theories out there and see the vast majority to have much harder evidence then evolution. Science has an abundant amount of the theories that have books worth of testable evidence. Look at stem cell research, tumor serveillence theory, theories surrounding the effect of neurotransmitters on different areas of the body, theories of the effect of drugs on human fetuses, and the list goes on and on. Everyone of these theories has so much more support for them than does evolution. Another thing is that a Law is the highest level you can get to.

RedAndy · Feb 3, 2007

Godfixated said:
Sorry, this doesn't work on many levels. The first being that in origin theory, evidence is more in the eye of the beholder than it is "fact."

I disagree. By "origin theory" I will assume you are referring to evolution since that is the topic of the rest of your post, rather than abiogenesis of which "origin theory" would be a better (but by no means perfect) description.

There is evidence for evolution. Lots of it. You cannot dispute that organisms have changed over time - that is what evolution is, and it is an observed, undisputable phenomenon. The theory of evolution is what is disputed, and even that is only disputed by theists who believe it contradicts their beliefs. And again, there is plenty of evidence for the currently accepted theory of evolution - take a look here, here and here for examples of such evidence.

In an experiment, the researcher must have a control to test against. The problem with a theory such as evolution, there is no control, just the idea of what should be the control. This, in turn, inhibits the ability of evolution to be truely testable.

Your basic argument here is that evolution cannot be replicated or falsified. Firstly, while we cannot replicate the evolutionary processes that led to the evolution of, say, humans from their ancestors, science does not require that we do this. Science requires that there are observations that can be replicated. Such observations are abundant in the human fossil record.

Furthermore, evolution is falsifiable. Yet an observation of a fossil, say, that contradicted the theory of evolution would mean that we would have to throw out the theory. In the immortal words of J.B.S. Haldane, finding a fossil rabbit in Precambrian rocks would serve to falsify evolution.

This leads to your assumption that evolution is one of the most best supported theories in science. This is a blatant error. Because of the lack of a control among other things, evolution is only supported by hypotheses and theories, something that does not make it well supported. Plus, one can look at the millions of scientific theories out there and see the vast majority to have much harder evidence then evolution. Science has an abundant amount of the theories that have books worth of testable evidence. Look at stem cell research, tumor serveillence theory, theories surrounding the effect of neurotransmitters on different areas of the body, theories of the effect of drugs on human fetuses, and the list goes on and on. Everyone of these theories has so much more support for them than does evolution.

Evolution is supported by the fossil record, the geologic record and numerous other lines of evidence - some of which are pursued in the links I gave above. All of this is concrete evidence, not resting on "theories and hypotheses" as you contend. The fact that evolution itself cannot be replicated is no grounds for claiming that there is no evidence for it.

Another thing is that a Law is the highest level you can get to.

A law describes mathematical relationships between observed phenomena (for example, F=MA is a law.) L.S. Berg notwithstanding, there is little indication that the theory of evolution will ever be formed into a law, because the phenomena described in the theory of evolution cannot be mathematically linked. This does not, however, mean it is less useful, less valid or less supported than a law. All it means is that it cannot be reduced to a set of mathematical constants and variables: this has not harmed the viability of evolution in the past and I doubt it will in the future.

Elduran · Feb 3, 2007

Godfixated said:
Sorry, this doesn't work on many levels. The first being that in origin theory, evidence is more in the eye of the beholder than it is "fact." In an experiment, the researcher must have a control to test against.

How exactly is the formation of a nested hierarchy of ERVs in any way subject to the eye of the beholder, especially when the hierarchy formed is exactly the same as the one predicted by evolution?

How is the fusion of chromosomes 2a and 2b from chimp DNA into one chromosome in our own DNA open to interpretation when all the termination points are perfectly maintained but inactive in our own genome?

In short, the evidence for evolution is not only there in abundance, but also completely objective. This evidence speaks for itself and fully supports evolution UNLESS some other explanation comes along with a better suggestion AND supporting evidence for why that suggestion should be used instead.

However, this is unlikely to happen, as evolutionary theory has the most evidence of pretty much any scientific theory out there, all of which objectively points to both small scale evolution and common descent.

The problem with a theory such as evolution, there is no control, just the idea of what should be the control. This, in turn, inhibits the ability of evolution to be truely testable.

Science doesn't need control in order to to experiment. We can't control reaction kinetics or cosmology either, but we study them. I fail to see what your point is.

This leads to your assumption that evolution is one of the most best supported theories in science. This is a blatant error. Because of the lack of a control among other things, evolution is only supported by hypotheses and theories, something that does not make it well supported.

See above for why this point is incorrect.

Plus, one can look at the millions of scientific theories out there and see the vast majority to have much harder evidence then evolution.

Millions? You can name millions of theories? And you can state which ones have better evidence than evolution, which the scientists themselves consider to be the unifying theory of biology, with more evidence than any other?

I have to say, I doubt it.

Science has an abundant amount of the theories that have books worth of testable evidence. Look at stem cell research, tumor serveillence theory, theories surrounding the effect of neurotransmitters on different areas of the body, theories of the effect of drugs on human fetuses, and the list goes on and on. Everyone of these theories has so much more support for them than does evolution.

No, not really. Evolution has 150 years of solid research, including many attempts to knock it down (all unsuccessful). At this point in town, the number of individual pieces of evidence supporting evolutionary theory probably outnumbers most other theories you can name by an order of magnitude.

Another thing is that a Law is the highest level you can get to.

This is outright false, as a simple google search on the scientific method would have shown you.

Just so there's no confusion or excuse:

Law: a mathematical relationship between certain characteristic variables. A direct observation, usually with no explanation accompanying it. Limited range, accepted through some degree of experimentation.

Hypothesis: a tentative suggestion put forward to explain a phenomenon (and sometimes a law), subject to the scientific method's requirements for testing

Theory: the end result of one or more hypotheses being rigorously tested according to the scientific method (subject to peer review), never shown to be false in that time. Still a tentative explanation insofar as it can be updated to incorporate new data, but until updated with new evidence, this is the best explanatory tool for science.

Law doesn't even come close.

Godfixated · Feb 3, 2007

RedAndy said:
I disagree. By "origin theory" I will assume you are referring to evolution since that is the topic of the rest of your post, rather than abiogenesis of which "origin theory" would be a better (but by no means perfect) description.

There is evidence for evolution. Lots of it. You cannot dispute that organisms have changed over time - that is what evolution is, and it is an observed, undisputable phenomenon. The theory of evolution is what is disputed, and even that is only disputed by theists who believe it contradicts their beliefs. And again, there is plenty of evidence for the currently accepted theory of evolution - take a look here, here and here for examples of such evidence.

Your basic argument here is that evolution cannot be replicated or falsified. Firstly, while we cannot replicate the evolutionary processes that led to the evolution of, say, humans from their ancestors, science does not require that we do this. Science requires that there are observations that can be replicated. Such observations are abundant in the human fossil record.

Furthermore, evolution is falsifiable. Yet an observation of a fossil, say, that contradicted the theory of evolution would mean that we would have to throw out the theory. In the immortal words of J.B.S. Haldane, finding a fossil rabbit in Precambrian rocks would serve to falsify evolution.

Evolution is supported by the fossil record, the geologic record and numerous other lines of evidence - some of which are pursued in the links I gave above. All of this is concrete evidence, not resting on "theories and hypotheses" as you contend. The fact that evolution itself cannot be replicated is no grounds for claiming that there is no evidence for it.

A law describes mathematical relationships between observed phenomena (for example, F=MA is a law.) L.S. Berg notwithstanding, there is little indication that the theory of evolution will ever be formed into a law, because the phenomena described in the theory of evolution cannot be mathematically linked. This does not, however, mean it is less useful, less valid or less supported than a law. All it means is that it cannot be reduced to a set of mathematical constants and variables: this has not harmed the viability of evolution in the past and I doubt it will in the future.

Your logic, however, is circular and based on your perception of what the origin of life is. Just because you can put similar fossils together does not in any way mean that they are steps on an evolutionary ladder. Like I said before, there is no control, and no natural example of this transition, actually, happening. Basically your evidence is based on the very assumption you are trying to prove. In, actuality, evolutionary thinking is the scientific method in reverse. I am entitled by scientific reasoning to disagree with your theory.

Dragar · Feb 3, 2007

Godfixated said:
Another thing is that a Law is the highest level you can get to.

Then why does Newton's Law of Gravity not work under certain conditions, and is instead replaced by Einstein's theory of general relativity, which works for all observed conditions?

Why does Coulomb's Law for charged particles not work for certain conditions, and is instead replaced by the theory of QED?

You're flat out wrong, you're ignoring the evidence, and you are coming across like you don't know what you're talking about.

Godfixated · Feb 3, 2007

Elduran said:
How exactly is the formation of a nested hierarchy of ERVs in any way subject to the eye of the beholder, especially when the hierarchy formed is exactly the same as the one predicted by evolution?

How is the fusion of chromosomes 2a and 2b from chimp DNA into one chromosome in our own DNA open to interpretation when all the termination points are perfectly maintained but inactive in our own genome?

In short, the evidence for evolution is not only there in abundance, but also completely objective. This evidence speaks for itself and fully supports evolution UNLESS some other explanation comes along with a better suggestion AND supporting evidence for why that suggestion should be used instead.

However, this is unlikely to happen, as evolutionary theory has the most evidence of pretty much any scientific theory out there, all of which objectively points to both small scale evolution and common descent.

Science doesn't need control in order to to experiment. We can't control reaction kinetics or cosmology either, but we study them. I fail to see what your point is.

See above for why this point is incorrect.

Millions? You can name millions of theories? And you can state which ones have better evidence than evolution, which the scientists themselves consider to be the unifying theory of biology, with more evidence than any other?

I have to say, I doubt it.

No, not really. Evolution has 150 years of solid research, including many attempts to knock it down (all unsuccessful). At this point in town, the number of individual pieces of evidence supporting evolutionary theory probably outnumbers most other theories you can name by an order of magnitude.

This is outright false, as a simple google search on the scientific method would have shown you.

Just so there's no confusion or excuse:

Law: a mathematical relationship between certain characteristic variables. A direct observation, usually with no explanation accompanying it. Limited range, accepted through some degree of experimentation.

Hypothesis: a tentative suggestion put forward to explain a phenomenon (and sometimes a law), subject to the scientific method's requirements for testing

Theory: the end result of one or more hypotheses being rigorously tested according to the scientific method (subject to peer review), never shown to be false in that time. Still a tentative explanation insofar as it can be updated to incorporate new data, but until updated with new evidence, this is the best explanatory tool for science.

Law doesn't even come close.

I am not going to even address your first argument. I've been over it before and your attempt to use big words doesn't scare me.

It seems that you misunderstand what a control is. Dictionary.com says that a control is, "to test or verify (a scientific experiment) by a parallel experiment or other standard of comparison." A control is something that you test your experiment against. A control is what is known to absolutely happen and thus can be tested against. A common control that is tested against is the placebo effect. A clinician, when testing a new therapy, knows that a person's beliefs in the effectiveness of a therapy can have an extreme effect on the success of the therapy, this is called the placebo effect. Thus, clinicians know that they have to test against the placebo and thus do a blind experiment where the participants don't know whether they are partaking in a therapy or a placebo.

In addition, while that is one definition of scientific law, there is another defined in dictionary.com, "a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon." This definition is in line with what I am saying.

Godfixated · Feb 3, 2007

Dragar said:
Then why does Newton's Law of Gravity not work under certain conditions, and is instead replaced by Einstein's theory of general relativity, which works for all observed conditions?

Why does Coulomb's Law for charged particles not work for certain conditions, and is instead replaced by the theory of QED?

You're flat out wrong, you're ignoring the evidence, and you are coming across like you don't know what you're talking about.

Just because you can discredit a law does in no way disagree with the fact that a law is on a higher plane than a theory.

Dragar · Feb 3, 2007

I call Poe!

Yeah, just because the laws are approximate, simplistic and often purely emprical in no way makes them worse than theories which generally replace laws, explain them, and tie them together in an overarching framework.

Elduran · Feb 3, 2007

Godfixated said:
I am not going to even address your first argument. I've been over it before and your attempt to use big words doesn't scare me.

So you CAN address it, you're just too lazy too?

I don't believe you, so I'll just assume that you have nothing to discredit either ERVs or chromosome fusion with.

It seems that you misunderstand what a control is. Dictionary.com says that a control is, "to test or verify (a scientific experiment) by a parallel experiment or other standard of comparison." A control is something that you test your experiment against. A control is what is known to absolutely happen and thus can be tested against. A common control that is tested against is the placebo effect. A clinician, when testing a new therapy, knows that a person's beliefs in the effectiveness of a therapy can have an extreme effect on the success of the therapy, this is called the placebo effect. Thus, clinicians know that they have to test against the placebo and thus do a blind experiment where the participants don't know whether they are partaking in a therapy or a placebo.

I know exactly what a control is, I did a 4-year science-based degree. My point still stands, however, as it is IMPOSSIBLE to design a control group for an experiment on reaction kinetics or cosmology.

Control groups are important when conducting clinical trials or the like, but they are far from necessary in scientific investigation of natural phenomena, which you'd know if you knew much about science.

In addition, while that is one definition of scientific law, there is another defined in dictionary.com, "a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon." This definition is in line with what I am saying.

Using a dictionary to try and get around the fact that you're wrong won't help. In this case the dictionary largely agrees with what I've said, but you've conveniently ignored that fact. The only thing it's outright wrong about is the part about "proven", which is a term that doesn't exist in this context of science because proof requires certain stringent mathematical processes which cannot include observation of a phenomenon.

As I said before, a law is simply a mathematical relationship between variables that has been observed and seems to hold true for certain limited conditions. To claim that this is above a theory is to ignore the scientific method itself.

This link gives quite a good description of the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory. As you might note, both are considered to be true by scientists for all intents and purposes, but a theory is much more complicated, much more explanatory and much more evidenced than a law:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Godfixated said:
Just because you can discredit a law does in no way disagree with the fact that a law is on a higher plane than a theory.

It isn't. You are outright wrong on that one.

RedAndy · Feb 3, 2007

Godfixated said:
Your logic, however, is circular and based on your perception of what the origin of life is. Just because you can put similar fossils together does not in any way mean that they are steps on an evolutionary ladder. Like I said before, there is no control, and no natural example of this transition, actually, happening. Basically your evidence is based on the very assumption you are trying to prove. In, actuality, evolutionary thinking is the scientific method in reverse. I am entitled by scientific reasoning to disagree with your theory.

Did you read the links I gave? The one entitled "Observed Instances of Speciation" is in itself a very good list of examples of "this transition actually happening."

Please learn about the evidence for evolution before you go and tell us there isn't any.

AV1611VET · Jul 23, 2015

Here's an oldie-but-goodie:

AV1611VET said:
I know of 4 major flaws:

Evolution requires too much time to operate.

God didn't leave room for improvement.

There was no death prior to Adam and Eve.

Jesus "taught" its antithesis - (creation).

Shemjaza · Jul 23, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Here's an oldie-but-goodie:

Not exactly profound though, is it?

IF one assumes that a literal reading of Genesis in the KJV is correct, then the common descent of all life by natural selection and random mutation is wrong.

It's a poor opening gambit for a discussion with any one who doesn't already thing the universe was created a few thousand years ago by the God of Abraham.

AV1611VET · Jul 25, 2015

Shemjaza said:
It's a poor opening gambit for a discussion with any one who doesn't already thing the universe was created a few thousand years ago by the God of Abraham.

Depends on what the conversation is about.

OliviaMay · Jul 25, 2015

Intelligent adults need to even stop trying to engage the petulant that endeavor to argue observed reality with magic and mythology. It is just silly. Steven Hawking couldn't convince someone that Dumbledore isn't real if they believed it.

flaws

Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

Contributor

Regular Member

Regular Member

Teapot agnostic

Disruptive influence

Regular Member

Like the root of -1

Regular Member

Regular Member

Like the root of -1

Disruptive influence

Teapot agnostic

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency