You seem overly hostile to me, and unfairly I believe too. Possibly, it seems, due to a misunderstanding of philosophy and an exaggerated view of the place of science in the area of knowledge.
Late_Cretaceous said:
See I provide refences for my statements.
Late_Cretaceous said:
Like what. You seem fond of making claims, but I dont see anything to back them up.
It's very interesting that you can claim a trend in my style - "seem fond of making claims [without backing them up]" - having only seem one and a bit posts from me. Barely enough for an introduction in an article in a magazine.
Regardless, here is what I said in the previous post:
tyreth said:
Late_Cretaceous said:
Would you care to point out some of these so called illogical conclusions?
Not really, not here. Innapropriate thread. Or, more precisely, I've run out of time at the moment to get into details. I did post just recently in this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2865387-which-human-race-is-the-most-evolved.html
If there's one thing I've learned, it's to pick my fights so that I have time to addres them all appropriately. So I directed you to a thread where I have already committed. Evidently, you chose not to follow it and instead claim that I don't like to back up what I say.
Late_Cretaceous said:
Thats right you really don't know.
You seem to think that only experimental data is valid. Not true. Many phenomenon in nature are studied in a scientific way through observation. Ever try to study a supernova in a lab? Even so, evolution is not strictly an observational science, it is done in the lab. Microbiologists . Evolutionary algorithms also are being employed to develop new technology
Your above argument, in relation to the court case, misunderstands me. I don't think that experimental data is the only data that is valid. I'm saying when you move out of the testable, repeatable and observable (yes, I forgot observable - sorry), it moves into the realm of other fields. Such as the field of historians, or of philosophers. I accept data from other fields beyond science.
For example, the area of logic, while employed by scientists, falls squarely into the domain of philosophers. And when logical inconsistencies are found in a court case, someone may be found guilty or innocent based on this. A drawing together of the results from science and history by the laws of logic.
It is also philosophy that decides how much evidence is sufficient to render a verdict, not science.
Late_Cretaceous said:
Science does not make claims on truth. It provides explanations (which can always be falsified), that best match the data available.
Science attempts to describe reality, eg, terminal velocity. When the findings of science correspond with reality, we have found some truth. Science is ultimately to learn the fundamental laws of the universe. Here is a quote commenting on the thoughts of C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity:
The notion of truth employed in Lewis's statement is called the correspondence theory of truth, roughly, the idea that truth is a matter of a proposition (belief, thought, statement, representation) corresponding to reality; truth obtains when reality is the way a proposition represents it to be."
Which seems to me could be applied easily to scientific propositions. Though I admit that the word 'fact' is probably more common among scientists.
Late_Cretaceous said:
We would reject it on scientific grounds, not philisophical ones. THe conclusions from the concept of common decent match the data, it doens't matter if we "like" it or not.
Fact of science: Apes and humans share anthropomorphic qualities
Extrapolation: Apes and humans share a common ancestors
Fact of science: There are changes in allele frequencies in a population over time
Extrapolation: These changes resulted in life from a simple single celled organism to what we see today
It is these extrapolations which are open to philosophers to interpret. Perhaps then this will seem clearer:
Late_Cretaceous said:
Where do you draw the line on what you accept or reject? It appears that you do so based on what personally affronts your preconceived ideas. Remember, bias is the worst enemy to anybody trying to reach a scientific conclusion.
I draw the line beyond what is reasonable and verified, and that which is inferrred and seems unreasonable. To do the latter we test such claims with the laws of logic.
Late_Cretaceous said:
tyreth said:
I don't know anything about atomic theory or Raleigh Scattering, so I wouldn't presume to write what I can or can't know through philosophy about them.
It appears you could apply the same logic to evolution.
That would only be true if I didn't know anything about evolution.
Late_Cretaceous said:
Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate but related thoeries. Evolution is not dependant upon abiogenesis. Evolution would occur even if the first life had been put here by magic.
Which if true, of course, would contradict what you earlier said about the nature of our universe:
Late_Cretaceous said:
I belived that all phenomenon in nature can be described by naturalistic explanations. We live in a material word, therefore material explanations can be found for all we see. The scientific method is the best way to go about discovering the reality of nature.
If abiogenesis occurred by "magic" then your naturalistic view of science would be invalid. Do you have an a priori objection to "magic" (aka. God) being the cause of abiogenesis, or are you open to the possibility of supernatural explanations for natural phenomena? If the latter, it seems to me that you should reject your naturalistic assumptions and be open to the miraculous (such as the resurrection of our Saviour).
Late_Cretaceous said:
What, God isn't talented enough to make matter that can become alive all by itself? Give Him some credit. God created nature, why can't a naturalistic explanation in of itself be seen as a miracle?
It's not a question of what God could do, but rather what He has done. In our world, the observable data demonstrates that life never comes from non-life.
Late_Cretaceous said:
It is a fallacy that evolution stipulates increasing complexity. Evolution means change nothing more. Besides, are our bodies more complex then a salamanders'?
Arguably. But that's not the point. Compare humans, or any of the larger living things today to their supposed single celled ancestor. We are more complex than that. And there should be progressive steps that show an increase in complexity on the way to get where we are. So Zzub's statement saying
Zzub said:
In fact, any animal becoming more complex through evolution has NEVER been observed,
is an important statement.
You can say "evolution means change nothing more" and be correct. But the Darwinian theory of evolution, as described today, requires more. It requires mutations that result in an increase in complexity, not just a change.
Zzub is saying, I believe, that the observable data shows either a plateau or a degeneration of creatures over time. This process is the inverse of what is requiered by Darwinian evolution.
One problem that people who believe life came from single celled organisms to where it is today seem to confuse is the difference between what is observed and what is not.
Natural selection, changes in allele frequencies, mutations - these all occur. Changes do occur. Species do adapt. You can argue for as long as you want for these things and I won't disagree with you - we have observational data to support it. The difference between the Darwinian model of evolution and the Creationist one is a question of direction:
* Darwinian evolution describes an increase in complexity in species over time through the mechanism of genetic mutations
* Creationist evolution describes a decrease in the diversity of a gene pool in a population as it adapts to an environment
The Creationist model shows, basically, a degeneration of a species or population over time, until diversity is lowered to a point where there is little left in the gene pool to help adaptation.
Darwinist model extrapolates from this mutations that presumably introduced more diversity into the gene pool again, allowing a climb.
Incidentally, the Creationist model corresponds to reality, while the Darwinist model extrapolates beyond what we observe.
(As a side note, when I speak of the Darwinist model I refer to the modern versions of it which include genetic mutations as a mechanism to produce diversity. I am well aware that when Darwin proposed his theory that this was not at all known or a part of it.)
