Purpose of Mosquitos and other pests

[Mark Quayle]

You'd think if creationism had any merit in the real world there would be some evidence we could get for it from a systematic investigation of reality...

Why?

The first cause argument has been debunked.

News to me! Show me the argument? Link?

I went to the movies the other day and had some popcorn. I noticed I had the nice big fluffy bits at the top, but when I got to the bottom of the box, all that were left were the little crumbs and the other icky bits. And it wasn't a one off - it happens EVERY time I have popcorn, whether at the cinema or at home.

This is a clearly highly ordered situation, so there must be some intelligence at work. After all, we can see the effect (the popcorn being clearly sorted), so there must be a cause. I suspect that there are popcorn fairies who are responsible.

Oh woe is me! You have laid low my faith in one fell fluff!

Please support this claim.

Thought I already had. Gravity is real, with real, obvious, immediate effects; it needn't be proven to be real. The THEORY of Gravity does not make what goes up come down. Gravity does. The theory of gravity does not question or prove the fact of gravity, but seeks to explain it.

You don't seem to understand what "theory" means when used in a scientific sense. Please refer to the following website. Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

From your linked website: "In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be". And yet, Darwinian Evolution was a theory, full of mistakes that have supposedly been corrected, when he wrote the book.

Also: "This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

"Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory."

In the last paragraph above, the author appears to conflate Gravity itself being only what it is, with the Theory of Gravity. Gravity makes what goes up come down. The Law of Gravity is a description of Gravity and what it does. The theory of Gravity attempts to further describe and explain Gravity. Neither the Law of Gravity, nor the Theory of Gravity, are Gravity.

Then: "Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

"Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5

"Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!"

But, evolution is not the same. Everyone pretty much agrees with what Gravity is, or at least what effects we can see from it. Not everyone pretty much agrees that Evolution has the breadth of effects (change) that apparently most of the scientific community claims it has, from somewhere after a pre-life chance complex molecule, to modern life-forms to include human.

 

[Bradskii]

But, evolution is not the same. Everyone pretty much agrees with what Gravity is, or at least what effects we can see from it. Not everyone pretty much agrees that Evolution has the breadth of effects (change) that apparently most of the scientific community claims it has, from somewhere after a pre-life chance complex molecule, to modern life-forms to include human.

Put it this way. Things evolve. The amount of evidence is gargantuan. Se we call that evolution. Things fall in a downward direction. Also a fair amount of evidence. We call that gravity.

How do they work? Well, we have a theory for each of them which explains that.

 

[Kylie]

What is it that @Clare73 says? —au contraire? No, the "first cause" argument does not claim that everything needs a cause. It only claims that all effects need a cause (do you want a link to the Law of Causation? First Cause is by definition not an effect.

Ha! I could almost make a joke about predictive power! (from the pov of first cause)

Yet every bit of science depends on cause-and-effect. Logic. I don't know how true it is, but I've even heard that some are even using cause-and-effect, and math, to attempt to show that cause-and-effect is not pervasive, and that math doesn't work on the quantum level. Logic (reasoning) is always used to predict and conclude, nevermind to produce an experiment for testing a hypothesis. Logic is also very simple, and I have found no way around it, that everything that is not first cause, descends logically from first cause. Everything, except first cause, is an effect.

Then what's to stop us from saying that the universe is not an effect and thus positing the universe itself as the first cause?

Why?

Because any valid description of the real world should have evidence to support it that stems from the real world.

News to me! Show me the argument? Link?

Problems with the “First Cause” Argument

Argument from first cause

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-first-cause-argument-prove-the-existence-of-God

https://www.skeptical-science.com/atheism/debunking-argument/

Oh woe is me! You have laid low my faith in one fell fluff!

I'm pointing out that highly ordered and specific results can come about without any specific cause. Being sarcastic doesn't help you.

Thought I already had. Gravity is real, with real, obvious, immediate effects; it needn't be proven to be real. The THEORY of Gravity does not make what goes up come down. Gravity does. The theory of gravity does not question or prove the fact of gravity, but seeks to explain it.

Evolution is real, with real, obvious, immediate effects; it needn't be proven to be real. The THEORY of evolution does not make species evolve. Evolution does. The theory of evolution does not question or prove the fact of evolution, but seeks to explain it.

From your linked website: "In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be". And yet, Darwinian Evolution was a theory, full of mistakes that have supposedly been corrected, when he wrote the book.

Ah yes, if it's not absolutely perfect when it's first thought of, it can't possibly be true! For crying out loud, Darwin didn't even know about genes or DNA, and you complain that it wasn't complete? And his basic theory - that species evolve due to selective pressure - has NEVER been refuted.

Also: "This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

"Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory."

In the last paragraph above, the author appears to conflate Gravity itself being only what it is, with the Theory of Gravity. Gravity makes what goes up come down. The Law of Gravity is a description of Gravity and what it does. The theory of Gravity attempts to further describe and explain Gravity. Neither the Law of Gravity, nor the Theory of Gravity, are Gravity.

Then: "Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

"Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5

"Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!"

But, evolution is not the same. Everyone pretty much agrees with what Gravity is, or at least what effects we can see from it. Not everyone pretty much agrees that Evolution has the breadth of effects (change) that apparently most of the scientific community claims it has, from somewhere after a pre-life chance complex molecule, to modern life-forms to include human.

A whole lot of words just to say, "Yeah, but evolution's different!"

 

[Shemjaza]

Why?



News to me! Show me the argument? Link?



Oh woe is me! You have laid low my faith in one fell fluff!



Thought I already had. Gravity is real, with real, obvious, immediate effects; it needn't be proven to be real. The THEORY of Gravity does not make what goes up come down. Gravity does. The theory of gravity does not question or prove the fact of gravity, but seeks to explain it.



From your linked website: "In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be". And yet, Darwinian Evolution was a theory, full of mistakes that have supposedly been corrected, when he wrote the book.

Also: "This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

"Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory."

In the last paragraph above, the author appears to conflate Gravity itself being only what it is, with the Theory of Gravity. Gravity makes what goes up come down. The Law of Gravity is a description of Gravity and what it does. The theory of Gravity attempts to further describe and explain Gravity. Neither the Law of Gravity, nor the Theory of Gravity, are Gravity.

Then: "Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

"Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5

"Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!"

But, evolution is not the same. Everyone pretty much agrees with what Gravity is, or at least what effects we can see from it. Not everyone pretty much agrees that Evolution has the breadth of effects (change) that apparently most of the scientific community claims it has, from somewhere after a pre-life chance complex molecule, to modern life-forms to include human.

I think you'll find plenty of "Yeah, but density!" and "Why don't we fly off if the Earth is spinning so fast?" and "Why does moonlight mysteriously make things cold?" posted on these forums as if they were refutations of physics in general and gravity in particular.

Typically the arguments against the facts of evolution are just as well researched and just as compelling.

 

[Astrid]

I like that. Well put.



True. But it says a lot about those who equate the scientific community with science.



Agreed.



Whoa! So you've got the whole list of missing links discovered now? News to me!



No, I didn't get that from some creationist site.



Uh.... Ok, if you say so...



It only comes remotely near, though, as far as I know. But, again, I could be wrong.



Excuse me? You are equating the validity of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution with math, for reliability?

Find someone who equates the scientific
community with science and I will find
tha you are not simply making things up.
At best you will have found an idiot.

"Holes in the theory of evolution". My
bad for giving too much credit. I thought
it was a statement that there are potentially
fatal deficiencies in the ToE.
Instead it's idiocy on the level of denying the
Theory of a Roman Empire because not every.
single citizen and event is recorded in every
possible detail. Holes in the History! Horrors!

Not from a creationist site? Typical creationist
site nonsense doesn't come from study of science.
The exact source of garbage does not improve
the odor.

I'm don't excuse you for deliberately coming up
with something I didn't say or imply.
It's a zero- class , zero content way of responding
to my observation re how absurd a person
is when they attempt to argue against something
the don't begin to understand- like a kid struggling
with multiication trying to find holes in calculus.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Put it this way. Things evolve. The amount of evidence is gargantuan. Se we call that evolution. Things fall in a downward direction. Also a fair amount of evidence. We call that gravity.

How do they work? Well, we have a theory for each of them which explains that.

Still ignores the differences. Yes, the fact that things change may be as evident as the fact that there is a force bringing material masses together. But the scope of the change is not as evident, nor as immediate, as gravity.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Find someone who equates the scientific
community with science and I will find
tha you are not simply making things up.
At best you will have found an idiot.

"Holes in the theory of evolution". My
bad for giving too much credit. I thought
it was a statement that there are potentially
fatal deficiencies in the ToE.
Instead it's idiocy on the level of denying the
Theory of a Roman Empire because not every.
single citizen and event is recorded in every
possible detail. Holes in the History! Horrors!

Not from a creationist site? Typical creationist
site nonsense doesn't come from study of science.
The exact source of garbage does not improve
the odor.

I'm don't excuse you for deliberately coming up
with something I didn't say or imply.
It's a zero- class , zero content way of responding
to my observation re how absurd a person
is when they attempt to argue against something
the don't begin to understand- like a kid struggling
with multiication trying to find holes in calculus.

Fair enough.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then what's to stop us from saying that the universe is not an effect and thus positing the universe itself as the first cause?

Many do that.

Because any valid description of the real world should have evidence to support it that stems from the real world.

Do you believe that if some of the evidence is not available to our minds, so that we are not able to fully describe, that the claim is false? Or is merely unsupported from our human empirical viewpoint?

Problems with the “First Cause” Argument

Argument from first cause

Does the first cause argument prove the existence of God? - Quora

Debunking the First Cause argument • Skeptical Science

I'm pointing out that highly ordered and specific results can come about without any specific cause. Being sarcastic doesn't help you.

I expect you merely misspoke, here, to make your point, because "highly ordered and specific results" always result from cause. —In the case of the popcorn, several causes, every last one of which is very specific, and all but one of which is itself a result of other causes.

Evolution is real, with real, obvious, immediate effects; it needn't be proven to be real. The THEORY of evolution does not make species evolve. Evolution does. The theory of evolution does not question or prove the fact of evolution, but seeks to explain it.

It also delineates its SCOPE. There's the difference. The theory of gravity does not attempt to describe a debatable range of inclusion.

Ah yes, if it's not absolutely perfect when it's first thought of, it can't possibly be true! For crying out loud, Darwin didn't even know about genes or DNA, and you complain that it wasn't complete? And his basic theory - that species evolve due to selective pressure - has NEVER been refuted.

If I remember correctly, my objection was not only that Darwin's data was incomplete, but faulty. But being ignorant, I suppose I should not point out the likelihood that that is still going on today, since we are at the apparent pinnacle of knowledge.

"Because any valid description of the real world should have evidence to support it that stems from the real world."

A whole lot of words just to say, "Yeah, but evolution's different!"

Those were quotes from an article to which I was directed. Not my many words. But, "yeah, evolution's different."

 

[Astrid]

Still ignores the differences. Yes, the fact that things change may be as evident as the fact that there is a force bringing material masses together. But the scope of the change is not as evident, nor as immediate, as gravity.

As if any two things are identical or that
exactly how immediately obvious something
is to you has the slightest bearing or effect on
the reality of any natural phenomenon.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Problems with the “First Cause” Argument

Argument from first cause

Does the first cause argument prove the existence of God? - Quora

Debunking the First Cause argument • Skeptical Science

Forgot to respond to these. In every last one of these I find unsupported arguments, and didn't finish reading all of them.

For example, one of them goes into the notion that the cosmological argument self-contradicts, because if it claims that everything has a cause, then how could first cause be the first cause? But it doesn't claim that everything has a cause.

 

[Mark Quayle]

As if any two things are identical or that
exactly how immediately obvious something
is to you has the slightest bearing or effect on
the reality of any natural phenomenon.

Are they different or not? No use in moving the goalposts at this point.

 

[Astrid]

Are they different or not? No use in moving the goalposts at this point.

Can't you read? I just got through saying they are different

What is your goal?
To establish that no two things are identical?
That you can make statements so vague that
they are unanswerable?
To argue for the sake of arguig even if
you have to make things up to argue against them?

Do you just not grasp the purpose of the
comparison or are belabouting the
obvious (no two things are identical)
to avoid responding to the point of the
comparison?

 

[Astrid]

Forgot to respond to these. In every last one of these I find unsupported arguments, and didn't finish reading all of them.

For example, one of them goes into the notion that the cosmological argument self-contradicts, because if it claims that everything has a cause, then how could first cause be the first cause? But it doesn't claim that everything has a cause.

So there is a "Law of cause and effect" except when
there isnt.
Thats quite a law!
And you speak of "holes" in a theory.

Honestly, people in America.

Don't even know that no theory could ever be
based on a complete data set.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think you'll find plenty of "Yeah, but density!" and "Why don't we fly off if the Earth is spinning so fast?" and "Why does moonlight mysteriously make things cold?" posted on these forums as if they were refutations of physics in general and gravity in particular.

Typically the arguments against the facts of evolution are just as well researched and just as compelling.

Those are not —to me, anyhow— typical of the arguments against modern Darwinian evolution. (Not at all saying those don't happen all the time, but...) Just for one: Reasoning of what "might be", (or from your point of view, "probably is"), is substituted for the many missing links in the progression of evolution, is it not? When I brought that up in arguing with one evolutionist, he said something to the effect of, "Well, from time to time, evolution takes a huge leap forward." I asked, "Where is the evidence of that?" He said that it was in the fossil record. Really?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Can't you read? I just got through saying they are different

What is your goal?
To establish that no two things are identical?
That you can make statements so vague that
they are unanswerable?
To argue for the sake of arguig even if
you have to make things up to argue against them?

Do you just not grasp the purpose of the
comparison or are belabouting the
obvious (no two things are identical)
to avoid responding to the point of the
comparison?

What was my original objection?

You said, "Gravity is also ONLY a theory, and yet I don't see people rejecting it and jumping off buildings determined to fly away up into the air." I am saying that Gravity is not ONLY a theory.

 

[Astrid]

Those are not —to me, anyhow— typical of the arguments against modern Darwinian evolution. (Not at all saying those don't happen all the time, but...) Just for one: Reasoning of what "might be", (or from your point of view, "probably is"), is substituted for the many missing links in the progression of evolution, is it not? When I brought that up in arguing with one evolutionist, he said something to the effect of, "Well, from time to time, evolution takes a huge leap forward." I asked, "Where is the evidence of that?" He said that it was in the fossil record. Really?

Evolution does not and could not make any " leaps",
still less, huge ones. So, no. Not really.
Arguing against idiotic statements supposedly made
by person's unknown is awful lame.
But it provides some dim amusement to go
along with the wholly unnecessary demonstration that
nobody has one datum point of evidence to disprove
the ToE.
Talk of "holes" without being able to identify one
or say why it matters is just pathetic.

 

[Astrid]

What was my original objection?

You said, "Gravity is also ONLY a theory, and yet I don't see people rejecting it and jumping off buildings determined to fly away up into the air." I am saying that Gravity is not ONLY a theory.

You do depend so on strawmen. I didnt claim you did, with or without the scrambled phrasing of it being
"not only a theory".

Do you mean it's more than a theory?
Do explain.

And of course, ignoring or not even comprehending why words like " merely" or "only" applying so poorly to scientific theories that people saying those just reveal how clueless they are.

Which is why gravity was mentioned.

You clearly did not understand the reason for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution does not and could not make any "leaps",
still less, huge ones.

Unless, of course, they label it "punctuated equilibrium."

And those that do so would disagree with you.

 

[Astrophile]

But, evolution is not the same. Everyone pretty much agrees with what Gravity is, or at least what effects we can see from it. Not everyone pretty much agrees that Evolution has the breadth of effects (change) that apparently most of the scientific community claims it has, from somewhere after a pre-life chance complex molecule, to modern life-forms to include human.

What explanation, other than descent with modification (evolution), can you offer for the observed facts of anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, biogeography, and palaeontology? So far as I know, the only naturalistic explanation for these facts that does not postulate some form of evolution is spontaneous generation, and that was conclusively disproved more than a hundred years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

What explanation, other than descent with modification (evolution), can you offer for the observed facts of anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, biogeography, and palaeontology?

Descent by modification.