MY Darwin Challenge.

[Astrid]

Charles Darwin gave us polychlorinated biphenyls?

Not that Im aware of. What do you know of this?

Nonono the tetraethyl lead guy

 

[Astrid]

There's nothing in music professionally that throws up intellectual challenges to YEC. I know from experience.

Not sure about bowling tho.

Tatting. It's tatting that blows evos outta the water.

 

[durangodawood]

Nonono the tetraethyl lead guy

Ah. Wires crossed.

I meant Darwin by "He seems like he was a decent guy in addition to being a terrific scientist".

 

[Mountainmike]

You are excellent at projection.

Perhaps when you produce a bit of evidence for your claims instead of loads of negativity we can converse. I don't hold my breathe.

So you don’t know why you quoted Darwin’s falsification criterion in post 47

Then the rest you posted at a tangent to it. A cookie cutter attack on “ creationists” .

Sadly if you don’t know why you posted what you posted , how can the rest of us? *sigh*

Claims?
What claim specifically?

As for your facile view on scientific method / model and whether or not that is compatible with creation , I think you need to start a LOT further back. Study what science IS.

It might surprise you to know that some of the cleverest folk around are both creationist and scientist. How can that be in your simplistic world?

You would do well to read (such as ) science before science (quantum physics professor rizzi) to go back to the root of what it is possible to know or possible for science to tell you. or such as “quantum reality” bagot to test your understanding even of what existence means.

Science is two things:

A Method and an observation model.
It derives the model from patterns found in causal repeatable things, limited to our senses and what we can observe which inevitably is only a projection of the universe.
From which science finds patterns to develop an axiomatic model of the universe ( much as a video game aircraft simulator is a model of an aircraft and local environment). The video game mimics the World. It is not the world. The world foes not have 100000 lines of program pretending to be it!

For sure The model is good.
It is good enough to blur the distinction between the universe it models and the model. But what gets lost in philosophy of scientific realism is that the model is man made and limited in scope , the concepts in it are man made. You can only take out of it what you put in. It is in a state of flux. And as wise philosophers tell us, the phenomena of observation and concepts of model and what underlies them as “ noumena “ ( Kant ) are unknowable.

Science is also a lot stranger than most armchair commentators think.
Basic questions “does it exist anywhere before it is observed” ? ,” does it exist everywhere before it is observed” ? , “ do multiple instances exist in all possible states before it is observed”

There are many things science cannot easily model or decide .

It is better at inanimate things than beings which can choose to act in a patterned or arbitrary way. So for example consciousness and human experience are documented only by unrepeatable anecdotes. They are no less real than the things that repeat. The twin who senses the death of the other twin remotely, is not a repeatable experiment!

So your “ theories “ are indeed a part of the model. But what you miss is - the lack of an ability to test a theory in the limited scope of the model - has no bearing on the validity of existence of things out side the model. It limits only your ability to test them .

Let me take three of your sacred (you say ) unscientific cows.
I say only constrained by the limitation of science to decide them.
The cows are real. Despite the ability of science to conclude.

sacred cow 1
Just as the first non prime number is not one. There can be an irreducible complexity for any purpose.

Eg The minimum self evolving , self replicating cell ( the definition of life) has a minimum therefore irreducible complexity. Eg It needs the complexity to possess and read a modifiable genome. Plus many support services.

A hydrogen molecule neither self evolves nor self replicates. It isn’t complex enough.

At an information theoretic level it must be true. An expression of identity of an organism is encodable as a minimum entropy. Optimal coding or structuring however clever cannot reduce the information content below entropy. The minimum complexity.

The question of how to attain that minimum is often complex but the size of a structure needed for a function is irreducibly complex. I’m still waiting for abiogeneticists to define a structure less than the size of a chemical factory that can evolve to our minimum cell.

As geeks in a geek department in days of low memory we used to run competitions to write the smallest simplest program to do a task. There is always a finite limit minimum however hard it is to find it.

sacred cow 2.
Intelligent design.
There is now debris of humanity on moons and planets.


Let’s take a left over block of metal. Of which there are many.
A notional green man landing would see the block, May( rightly) decide it is a product of intelligent design.

It doesn’t repeat. It can’t be repeated. The act of design does not inevitably leave an indelible mark that can be found. So there is a limit to what science can say. But science is not rejecting the design agency, it is rejecting the ability of itself to define the agency.

sacred cow 3.
The one off event. Science can’t analyse it. But that does not disprove the fact.

At Fatima in 1917 a “ miracle “ was prophesied at a date time and place. 3 months before It happened. It was not autosuggestion or mass hypnosis. It was witnessed by many not expecting it and far away. The physical factors were agreed by many trained witnesses including many who went to debunk it.

What happened in physical terms is irrelevant: it was a one off. Never repeated or reported elsewhere. But it was extraordinary , and it happened at a prophesied time and place.

Science cannot “explain” it. ( by which science means it does not fit in the model) Science can neither observe a repeat, nor can it be repeated. So the scientific method is useless. But it clearly did fit in the world, it happened! The model and universe are not the same thing.

So that is a limitation of science not the underlying reality.
The one who announced the prophesy , and decided to do it, only chose to do it ONCE ! That’s the problem with beings and humans.

Science is not good at one offs, or a being deciding to act once in a while. Like a “ creator”.
That’s a limitation of science, not the universe.

 

[sjastro]

Didnt he also gift us with PCB?

The guy had a natural talent for causing disasters.
If it wasn't his invention of tetraethyl lead leading to 1.2 million premature deaths per year, his other invention was developing the first CFC which ultimately lead to a hole in the ozone layer.

 

[Astrid]

The guy had a natural talent for causing disasters.
If wasn't his invention of tetraethyl lead leading to 1.2 million premature deaths per year, his other invention developing first CFC which ultimately lead to a hole in the ozone layer.

Ah, chloro fluoro etc.
I remembered wrong.
Was worse than pcb

 

[Frank Robert]

Claims?
What claim specifically?

Your miraculous claims for one.
You are grasping at straws. Not that I doubt that there are seemingly miraculous events. I even wrote, in this thread of Marie Colman Nelson's hamburger cure for cancer which was adequately explained as a therapeutic paradigm. In my younger days I followed and learned from the Psychiatrist, Paul Sacerdote who has written of several cancer cures using hypnosis. I myself have personally, helped people alleviate chronic pain using variations of Dr. Benson's Relaxation Response (RR). I have no doubt that the mind is a miraculous organ.

Quora has several discussions on Fatima and they are just what would be expected, it all comes down to belief and/or lack of belief. I view the miracle of Fatima, whether is happened or not, as potential comfort and peace of mind for those who believe. If I were treating a believer for chronic pain I might introduce Gregorian chants to elicit the RR. Gregorian chants can elicit the RR even for non-believers.

As an agnostic, if a deity does exists and if that deity chooses to make himself known then he can.

A scientist follows the scientific method with evidence and predictions from testable hypotheses and I can imagine you have done so yourself. The problem with miracles is they are not subject to the scientific method yet people believe and that could be a good thing.

 

[Mountainmike]

Your miraculous claims for one.
You are grasping at straws. Not that I doubt that there are seemingly miraculous events. I even wrote, in this thread of Marie Colman Nelson's hamburger cure for cancer which was adequately explained as a therapeutic paradigm. In my younger days I followed and learned from the Psychiatrist, Paul Sacerdote who has written of several cancer cures using hypnosis. I myself have personally, helped people alleviate chronic pain using variations of Dr. Benson's Relaxation Response (RR). I have no doubt that the mind is a miraculous organ.

Quora has several discussions on Fatima and they are just what would be expected, it all comes down to belief and/or lack of belief. I view the miracle of Fatima, whether is happened or not, as potential comfort and peace of mind for those who believe. If I were treating a believer for chronic pain I might introduce Gregorian chants to elicit the RR. Gregorian chants can elicit the RR even for non-believers.

As an agnostic, if a deity does exists and if that deity chooses to make himself known then he can.

A scientist follows the scientific method with evidence and predictions from testable hypotheses and I can imagine you have done so yourself. The problem with miracles is they are not subject to the scientific method yet people believe and that could be a good thing.

I note you fail to respond to ANY of the valid points made about the cleat limitations of science, which is only a limited model of the universe. You clearly think science is something it is not. Study it. Start with for example rizzi.

Nor did you comment on the clear inability of science to comment on intelligent design ( either way) But it can comment on irreducible complexity, I gave a sketch of the problem. You do not answer.

I gave multiple examples of why science cannot comment on one off events, and why it struggles with beings/ humans who have a choice to act , so are not repeatable.

As for Fatima you clearly have not studied it, using “ quora “ as a reference says it all. I suggest you study the evidence. An astrophysicist recently wrote a book that accepted the reality of the event and the prophesy ( if you actually study it, for once you can hardly deny it happened and was extraordinary)

Science cannot repeat it and it does not repeat , science cannot comment, it can only conjecture. But that does not invalidate the event. It just means science has little to say about it. Other than it doesn’t fit the usual model.

If you use critical thinking ALL that matters that what occurred was extraordinary , and indeed it has not repeated in similar fashion anywhere before or since, then the real issue is the undoubted PROPHESY not the event itself. Which is a problem for the model of science.

What the astrophycist did do is calculate the odds of the prophecy becoming true by random chance . ( based on his presumption of the type of astronomic event it might have been ) It is staggering.

Tell me - if your simplistic view of creationism being an antithesis of science were true: why are so many high qualified scientists also creationists?

It’s because your view of what science is is wrong. .

 

[Frank Robert]

I note you fail to respond to ANY of the valid points made about the cleat limitations of science, which is only a limited model of the universe. You clearly think science is something it is not. Study it. Start with for example rizzi.

I do purposely because I avoid discussing beliefs. No matter what either of us say it will not change your religious beliefs or my knowledge of the scientific method,
but will only make want to avoid you more than I already do.

My partner is a devout Catholic who spends several days a week at his church working with SVDP ministries. I support everything he does for his church and parishioners and I never question his beliefs. He has even gotten me involved and his pastor and I have become very good friends. The difference between the pastor and you is the good Father has no axe to grind and he appreciates the help I can provide in spite of being a gay agnostic. As aside, I sometimes describe our relationship as us switching from therapist to patient.

If you want to pontificate you will need to find someone willing to listen.

 

[Astrid]

I do purposely because I avoid discussing beliefs. No matter what either of us say it will not change your religious beliefs or my knowledge of the scientific method,
but will only make want to avoid you more than I already do.

My partner is a devout Catholic who spends several days a week at his church working with SVDP ministries. I support everything he does for his church and parishioners and I never question his beliefs. He has even gotten me involved and his pastor and I have become very good friends. The difference between the pastor and you is the good Father has no axe to grind and he appreciates the help I can provide in spite of being a gay agnostic. As aside, I sometimes describe our relationship as us switching from therapist to patient.

If you want to pontificate you will need to find someone willing to listen.

Blame the audience? People here are remarkably patient
about listening.

The problem is not with what what "is is", it's that there's
no there there.

AKA a nothingburger.

That kind of pontificationalism is merely tiresome.

 

[Mountainmike]

I do purposely because I avoid discussing beliefs. No matter what either of us say it will not change your religious beliefs or my knowledge of the scientific method,
but will only make want to avoid you more than I already do.

My partner is a devout Catholic who spends several days a week at his church working with SVDP ministries. I support everything he does for his church and parishioners and I never question his beliefs. He has even gotten me involved and his pastor and I have become very good friends. The difference between the pastor and you is the good Father has no axe to grind and he appreciates the help I can provide in spite of being a gay agnostic. As aside, I sometimes describe our relationship as us switching from therapist to patient.

If you want to pontificate you will need to find someone willing to listen.

WHat knowledge have you of scientific method? - so far you demonstrate you don’t understand that science is only a model.
The method is used to establish the model , which is limited in scope and extent. It cannot answer the questions you think. You seem to avoid dialogue on what science IS.


You scoffed at intelligent design. However science cannot comment either way on what is designed or not - my analogy of debris on a planet. You scoffed at irreducible complexity, yet simple logic and information theory says it must be true. A “ self evolving reproducing cell” ( aka life) has an irreducible complexity.

There are many events which simply do not fit the model, nor as one offs or experiential are they amenable to scientific method,
But that does not discount the reality ( or not ) of what happened. Science has little to say.

Let’s take something closer toyour home ground: I already referenced interesting association of twins. One sensing the death of the other. Because such events are not testable, or repeatable , they are not amenable to scientific method, but that has no bearing on whether they happen.

You will note Greyson who researched out of body, ( the book “ after”) and established the standard clinical assessment, got involved because of inexplicable experiences as an ED clinician.

The one that got him interested was a patient with a non functioning cortex at the time who described his meeting with another, and even details of stains on his tie.
she was conscious of a far off place. It is easy to discount experience as only anecdotal. But that does not invalidate it: some of it is way beyond random chance, as greyson notes. All it does is make it hard for science to comment.

What such experience does do is potentially blow the idea out of the water that consciousness is just a brain chemical process, and with that many of the present ideas of what life IS.

The “ scientific model” and method are limited to what they can address. After all- if the body is the only means for a “ spirit” to interact with the environment, then spirits out of body can observe but not be detected. The “ great cloud of witnesses” . Science accepts models of none or weakly interacting things. There is no reason to believe we detect all is tgere. It would be arrogance to think we do.

 

[Frank Robert]

WHat knowledge have you of scientific method? - so far you demonstrate you don’t understand that science is only a model.

If you haven't figured it out, you are wasting your time as it is not in my nature to discuss your beliefs.

If you want to pontificate then you need to find someone who will listen or least read past the first couple of lines.

 

[Mountainmike]

If you haven't figured it out, you are wasting your time as it is not in my nature to discuss your beliefs.

If you want to pontificate then you need to find someone who will listen or least read past the first couple of lines.

My last post was nature of science, not belief.

So you are willing to make non scientific assertions but not defend them. You are willing to make baseless attacks on creationists, using a tool - science - that does not conclude as you think, nor is it what you think it is.

Anything goes with agnostic scientific realists huh?
It’s why the world is in such a mess. People leaning on a crutch of science - or at least - what they mistakenly think science is.

I’ve offered a middle ground closer to your home ground.
Grayson , and out of body experience.
Your thoughts are? What?

 

[Frank Robert]

My last post was nature of science, not belief.

So you are willing to make non scientific assertions but not defend them. You are willing to make baseless attacks on creationists, using a tool - science - that does not conclude as you think, nor is it what you think it is.

Anything goes with agnostic scientific realists huh?
It’s why the world is in such a mess. People leaning on a crutch of science - or at least - what they mistakenly think science is.

I’ve offered a middle ground closer to your home ground.
Grayson , and out of body experience.
Your thoughts are? What?

You would likely have a better reception if wrote articles for DI or one of the other apologetic sites. They are always looking for young scientists.

 

[Mountainmike]

You would likely have a better reception if wrote articles for DI or one of the other apologetic sites. They are always looking for young scientists.

I’m not writing apologetics.
I’m discussing the nature of science on a supposed science forum.

What it can say - what it cannot, and I am challenging unscientific
“ statements made ( this case) by you that creationism and science are de facto in opposition. ( which is a faith statement - it’s what you believe.)

Real scientists expect to have holes shot in their arguments.
I just did in yours!
I can’t get an answer.

Tackle a middle ground… eg greysons out of body.
it causes real problems for scientific method and model.
And If consciousness is separable it shoots holes in all evolutionary theory about what life “ is”, so how it came to be.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dude's dead.

And he's in Aitch now.

 

[AV1611VET]

What it can say - what it cannot, and I am challenging unscientific “statements made ( this case) by you that creationism and science are de facto in opposition. (which is a faith statement - it’s what you believe.)

Mike, just out of curiosity, what role did science play during the six-day period that God created the universe?

 

[Frank Robert]

I’m not writing apologetics.
I’m discussing the nature of science on a supposed science forum.

I never claimed to be a scientist so instruct me.
What is the testable hypothesis for greysons out of body..., what predictions does it make and what evidence has been collected/found to support the hypothesis.

 

[Frank Robert]

Mike, just out of curiosity, what role did science play during the six-day period that God created the universe?

What role...? Depends.

Let's look at it logically. God could have created the universe in at least 2 ways. 1. A literal interpretation of Genesis or 2. An allegorical interpretation of the Bible. The similarity between the two ways is that, which ever one is true, assuming one is, they both are based on belief and in both cases God would have had an active role. The main point for Christians is that God created the universe. A phase comes to mind: God works in mysterious ways.

 

[Frank Robert]

Tell me - if your simplistic view of creationism being an antithesis of science were true: why are so many high qualified scientists also creationists?

It’s because your view of what science is is wrong. .

Gee. Do you really want to save me work? Naw! Can't be.
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism
"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" (or "Dissent from Darwinism") was a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute."

In 2019 it reached 1000 signature. WoW 1000 in only 18 years. Go DI

In response: Project Steve {2003} is a list of scientists in which all signatories (1) support evolution, (2) oppose intelligent design, and (3) are named Steve or a variation of that name. As of September 27, 2018, 1432 Steves have signed the statement.

There are 6.9 million scientists and engineers employed in the US. I'll let you do the math as to the percentages.