Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-_- omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent are all actual words (even though my computer likes to treat the last one as if it isn't and underline it with an angry red scribble).One cannot just stick "omni" in front of an adjective describing the mundane and expect the combnation to mean something.
Look, find 1 reason, one single reason, that you would create things, want them to know that they are created, and yet, make it seem like they even could have formed without your intervention.
Incorrect; if I can conceive of it, surely an omniscient being must also be able to think of it, and an omnipotent being would be able to make it reality.
One cannot just stick "omni" in front of an adjective describing the mundane and expect the combnation to mean something.
DNA contains the instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce. It is essentially the construction manual for living things.
If two living things have 80% of the same DNA, that demonstrates:
A. Common design
B. Common descent
C. Common characteristics.
Think about it for a moment.
Design presumes a designer. Common descent presumes an original progenitor. Neither is proved by the DNA. Both conclusions are based on your world view. The only true conclusion is the observable characteristics. Ancestry is not provable.
Agreed. But what I see most often here is that when someone claims a result that differs from the conventional answer, they are accused of "purposefully rigging" that result.
Proving intentional deception is very difficult to do, and I doubt you have evidence that would meet a legal test. Why must we so often assume that those who are different from us have evil intentions?
The paper you mention may have been poor science. It may have been a game with definitions. Feel free to reject the conclusions and discuss why, but all the other stuff just isn't necessary. In fact, it approaches defamation. So, unless you see a need to press a fraud case against this guy, I'd let it drop.
No, I read your entire post. I didn't want to descend into an argument over chimps.
IMO YEC needs to give that one up. So we're biologically similar to chimps. Big deal. I knew that when I was 5 years old, so I don't need DNA to "prove" it. I've also been aware for a long time that there are important differences between us and chimps.
IMO, the hangup on chimps is a holdover from exceptionalism ideas (white exceptionalism, western exceptionalism, Christian exceptionalism). To be marked as similar to a chimp is taken more as a personal insult than anything to do with evolution.
Similarity does absolutely nothing to establish common ancestry. It's a reasonable trigger to go looking for common ancestry, but it does nothing to establish it. If common ancestry is what you want to argue, evolutionists have much better arguments than similarity.
But, as I said, I don't really want to digress into that discussion. I was more interested in hearing you answer my question: Does failure mean a creationist wasn't doing science?
... twelve paragraphs.The OP was ...
Too long for you?... twelve paragraphs.
Affirmative.Too long for you?
The research in question failed because, IMO, it was fraudulent. Not that it wasn't 'science,' as such, I suppose. That should have been clear. I don't consider 'fake' science to be science.
Now, about the topic of the OP:
Was Mitchell lying? Or does she just have horrible reading comprehension? Or is she just incompetent?
1. You used ID and evolution as the two alternatives to creation. I pointed out that ID has support neither with science nor religion. It is an attempt to combine two mutually exclusive things. It's not that science or religion contradict each other, it's that they address things from a completely different and incompatible world view.If you are going to respond again, I would ask you to respect two things:
- Address what I have said, not what you think I said, or what you would like to think I said.
- Don't try to tell me how I formed my conclusions, unless you are prepared to submit detailed evidence to support your assertions as to how I reached them.
Your scepticism isn't the issue here. Your bias is. It's all but transparent as to the reasons you're applying such barricades of scepticism over this. The unevenness with which you apply your scepticism is as subtle as a kick to the head. For example, have you ever seen an intelligent designer at all, let alone one do anything with life forms? If not, why do you reserve your belief of a process observed in nature that's well documented and well understood which is concordant with all of the evidence and contradicted by none of it, yet your unevidenced 'intelligent designer' seems to be your null hypothesis?Oh, please. Let's not do this. I make my living using science. Skepticism is a common element, but when that skepticism comes from a particular type of person and regards a particular theory, suddenly it's cast as a lack of trust.
Of course, and if I had the time to learn something about the topic, I'm sure I probably could, or would be able to justify why it couldn't be done and/or suggest areas of research/clarification to pursue before this experiment you suggest could be done. All well within science and the scientific method(s).Why not? I listed the generalized form of the scientific method for you. If it's such a great method, why can't you answer the question I asked? Anyone can do it - right?
I agree. This has been the same for all fields of science, the further we progress, the further we refine - rinse and repeat ad-nauseum to get to our current state of play.Of course not. But I'll bet you that if we had a fleet of engines with people all working independently, they wouldn't all get the same result. Given that science involves a continual striving for improvement, the solution we have at any particular moment is conceded to be less than perfect - and there are often multiple less-than-perfect solutions that will fit within the defined requirements bands. Picking the one best engine from that pool is a process of debate, concession, and eventual agreement - not a process of reaching the perfect answer.
Of course there's variability in the process and very few, if any will get exactly the same results in statistical analysis. That said, there's often a very focused bell-curve for individually derived results from experimentation, although still concordant to, or supportive of the one theory (....in this case, that race engines are fast??) - it's generally when outsiders suffering fits of dunning-kreuger involve themselves in the conversation that the fog descends and confusion among the laypeople ensues.If science brought everyone to the same answer, then supposedly we could put a series of those identical engines in identical cars with identical autonomous drivers. They would then face the same conditions on the same track, and races would have no winner.
But if you're willing to entertain the notion that the pool would produce a spectrum of answers, I'll ask you: why did that happen?
Sure, I agree with this - but exactly as I did above, I know scant to nothing about your field of Mechanics so wouldn't presume at any point to try and tell you that these engineers (including you) aren't doing 'science' then claim you all have it wrong and none of it works about the vast quantities of engineering notes, applications and procedures in place to produce the actual working products you do - yet this is exactly what you're propositioning to the scientific community in these fields you are armchair critical of, such as biology, palaeontology, cosmology, geology, etc!Simple examples can work as long as we avoid simple assumptions and reasoning that lead to a foregone conclusion. You actually can create a null hypothesis for this example. The reason you may have thought there wasn't one is exactly because of the point I'm trying to make about multiple methods. These multiple methods emphasize different facets of the more general method. Those working toward the engineering end of the spectrum are often working with a null hypothesis that was formulated years - decades - centuries ago. What has changed are the boundary conditions, so engineers focus on the testing step. That doesn't mean they're not doing science. At the other extreme are people with bold new questions who spend a lot of time in the observation/definition phase of the method and do little to almost no testing. That doesn't mean they're not doing science. But it is in that observation/definition phase where differences between people make the most obvious differences in the science being done.
Sure. If however you feel you know more about the collective scientists of all backgrounds and beliefs that have devoted their professional lives to the research in a particular field of science coming to the same general conclusions, then it's on you to demonstrate why the science is 'bad'. Everyone else in the scientific community has to do it, you aren't exempt. Until then, don't cry 'foul' claiming bias because your ideas (or representatives of your pet cause) are consigned to that special area marked "irrational" in the mean time.But we also have to be careful that we don't drift into the attitude that everything we do (or that certain enlightened people do) is science. Some people think that way, and that is a fallacy.
Biology has been making progress for quite some time, the field was making discoveries and producing fruitful results (no pun intended) well before any of us were around to see it. Perhaps you didn't really understand it? Your observation regarding the stricter disciplines of the scientific method though is the same for all of the sciences - we've been able to refine the age of the earth to around 4.567 billion years, the universe to around 13.82 billion years, we've witnessed the birth and death of stars, discovered black holes of all shapes and sizes, we've discovered and verified many predictions made by many scientists (who in some cases never thought it'd be observed let alone verified - see Darwin and Einstein for example), we've even peered back in time to see the early universe only hundreds of thousands of years after it began! We understand with much finer fidelity how little we actually know about quantum theory while simultaneously expanding what we do know about it, we continually improve our understanding of our environment and the effect we have on it is being understood with greater certainty (except the Republican party, they're exempt from participating in reality apparently...)and technology and the medical science continues to progress at an almost exponential rate, so on.Don't know why you're repeating this. I already acknowledged there is always a desire to minimize bias. However, it can take a loooooooooong time to get to a point where everything is packaged in a way that allows for a formal description of how that is to be achieved. Biology was once primarily a qualitative science and in danger of going the same wishy-washy route as the social sciences. It's only within my lifetime that I've seen it find a quantitative basis - or at least that quantitative approaches have become more widespread.
Don't take it personal, sorry if you took it that way. I'm sure you'll understand I was highlighting a point regarding your belief, and not you personally.Again, let's skip these kinds of comments.
or better still, the Theory gets by just fine without the need of any 'intelligent designer'....It sounds like you're trying to argue that the current data excludes an intelligent designer. If you are, I'll simply note that such an attempt will encounter the same problems as arguing there is data that supports an intelligent designer.
Codons are redundant. A designer would have to make organisms similar to each other on a genetic scale meticulously and on purpose to result in DNA that matches up with evolutionary pattens sans evolution. I have yet to hear a single person justify a designer doing that. Especially considering that the non-functional junk also matches up between organisms (do not derail this into an argument against junk DNA, it's irrelevant if it has a function because clearly, the specific sequences of it aren't relevant to any function it could have, seeing as mutations on it don't do anything unless they turn it into a gene).
The "common trends because common design argument" only works if you think the designer was lazy and decided to reuse genes whenever possible. That doesn't even work if you think the designer was both omniscient and omnipotent (for such a being, they'd have the knowledge available to make the maximum amount of variation in created organisms, and the power to apply that knowledge effortlessly).
Your scepticism isn't the issue here. Your bias is. It's all but transparent as to the reasons you're applying such barricades of scepticism over this. The unevenness with which you apply your scepticism is as subtle as a kick to the head. For example, have you ever seen an intelligent designer at all, let alone one do anything with life forms? If not, why do you reserve your belief of a process observed in nature that's well documented and well understood which is concordant with all of the evidence and contradicted by none of it, yet your unevidenced 'intelligent designer' seems to be your null hypothesis?
or better still, the Theory gets by just fine without the need of any 'intelligent designer'....
it's generally when outsiders suffering fits of dunning-kreuger involve themselves in the conversation that the fog descends and confusion among the laypeople ensues.
Of course, and if I had the time to learn something about the topic, I'm sure I probably could, or would be able to justify why it couldn't be done and/or suggest areas of research/clarification to pursue before this experiment you suggest could be done. All well within science and the scientific method(s).
Sure, I agree with this - but exactly as I did above, I know scant to nothing about your field of Mechanics so wouldn't presume at any point to try and tell you that these engineers (including you) aren't doing 'science' then claim you all have it wrong and none of it works about the vast quantities of engineering notes, applications and procedures in place to produce the actual working products you do
... it's on you to demonstrate why the science is 'bad'.
Biology has been making progress for quite some time, the field was making discoveries and producing fruitful results (no pun intended) well before any of us were around to see it.
@Bugeyedcreepy ... my apologies for overlooking the question that @tas8831 is referencing. That was an oversight on my part. Before answering, I'll have to point you back to some of my other comments. First, I am not a YEC and disagree with their premise. Second, failing a falsification test does not mean someone isn't doing science. If you share that attitude with tas8831, you share his fallacy. Third, this is not an all-or-nothing thing. I view evolution as more a field of study (a collection of many theories) rather than a single theory. Fourth, my specialty is mechanics, not biology. So, I'm not claiming expertise in biology. In fact, it doesn't really interest me. I've only looked at it because so many people talk about it that I felt compelled to be informed.
What early work did Dembski do? As far as I understand it, it can pretty much be summarised as "We don't know how some of this came about and it looks too complex to be natural, so it might be Intelligently Designed" ... <ignores evidence showing how it could've come about> - which is pretty much summarises 'ID' in its entirety. They haven't done anything since! As much as it might be a political football, if there were legitimate science in there anywhere, then it would stand up to scrutiny.So, rolling all that together, you'll not find me rejecting every theory in biology point by point simply because someone chose to place the label "evolution" on it. In the same way, you'll not find me touting some particular study by a creationist as the thing that will sink the evolutionary ship. All I said was that I think creationists have raised some legitimate questions. An example would be Dembski's early work on intelligent design before it became a political football. As I also have said before, unfortunately his idea runs aground and will never make it to a test.
Oh, Wow! This I'd be interested in - is it possible to post something about this, or even PM it to me if you're not overly keen to throw it into the wild...?I've even formally formulated my own hypotheses and proposed them to some selected scientific organizations. I got a lot of encouraging feedback until it came time for someone to pay the bill, then my own ship ran aground due to a series of procedural details ... and I burned out on trying to push it further.
I guess I prefer evidence over Providence.1. You used ID and evolution as the two alternatives to creation. I pointed out that ID has support neither with science nor religion. It is an attempt to combine two mutually exclusive things. It's not that science or religion contradict each other, it's that they address things from a completely different and incompatible world view.
2. I said that "like many, you believe that we live in a world governed by physical laws. That's why you are seeking proof and require physical evidence to support what you believe. You are wrong. The supreme force in the universe is God's will. If He wanted to reverse the spin of the earth today he could do so without consequence. The absolute authority of the Lord is like an author writing, "Looking up, I saw a sky filled with stars." God wanted a sky filled with stars and it happened just that fast. Anyone who met Adam the day after he was created would insist that he was a mature man just as they would insist that the world he lived in was mature. God did not create over millions of years, he did so instantly and it was good.
3. The world was perfect until Adam sinned, and then the world became cursed. Before there was no death, and after there was only death. Nothing died before Adam lived. No fossils predate him. You have been taught a lifetime of untruths based on the world view that everything came about by natural processes. That comes from over 2,000 years of a new covenant where mankind is saved through faith. Previous to that God performed many miracles so that all would know He was the Lord. After Christ was crucified God became secretive and could only be found through faith in Christ. He still performed miracles, but mostly they dealt with things that were unbelievable co-incidences; like a nail finding its way into a tuna fish can which got shipped to Africa and opened by a missionary right after praying to God for a way to demonstrate the crucifixion.
4. I address posts, not posters. I have no delusions that anything i say will resonate with you or in any way impact your world view. I write for those who might otherwise be swayed by the insistence of the evolution proponents who feel the need to preach their beliefs to all the lost Christians who still put their belief in God over the laws of physics. I stand in defense of the truth, and the truth lies with the word of God not the theories of man.
What happens when you see irrefutable evidence of the supernatural?I guess I prefer evidence over Providence.
Well I have seen ghosts on two occasions. I've had dreams that foretold the future. I've witnessed outcomes that matched the desires of prayers. But, it turns out they were all - sadly - refutable. I searched for the supernatural for many years without success. If you try arguing I wasn't sincere in my search I'll be tempted to slap you with a lawsuit for defamation of character. Fortunately, for you, I resist temptation most days.What happens when you see irrefutable evidence of the supernatural?
What happens when you see irrefutable evidence of the supernatural?
I can't force myself to be Christian, even though I'd much rather be a Christian than an atheist. Not even to save my own soul, because that's not how belief works. Not that I think souls are a thing, but you get my point.It's not likely to happen to you, because Satan prefers you believe he doesn't exist, but as people who have been Christians for a while what they have experienced. If the devil doesn't hate you, you aren't in the image of Christ.
yet you insist on including it in the scientific arena simply because it hasn't been disproven? Then you say this:This is funny. I don't think you've been reading what I wrote. I don't promote ID as scientifically feasible.
I tell you what else can't be established in the positive or negative - Flatulence-powered Magic Unicorns, Mars orbiting Teapots, Universe creating pixies, Magic sandwiches that grant wishes, Desktop lamps that answer prayers, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Republicans that accept the overwhelming evidence for, and scientific consensus on anthropomorphic climate change, etc. All these 'can't be excluded from science' too, should we treat them as actual contenders?Again, if you'll read what I wrote, the point I was making is that this statement can't be established in the positive or negative. ID can't be demonstrated scientifically, but neither can it be excluded. It's a question that can't be answered with science.
Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, Eric Hovind to name just a few...You have evidence to justify this is such a common occurence?
So, I said I don't know and would require further education on the topic before being able to do what you suggest, or give reasons why I couldn't , and that's Dunning-Kreuger?And evidence to justify that your certainty in the above statement is not Dunning-Kreuger? Oy vey. Let's clarify a bit here. Does everyone have the capability to do all the sciences? If not, why?
Subject matter familiarity is, yes. For the reasons why I wouldn't try making leaps into your (or anyone else's) area of expertise to make declarations of inadequacy about its much more experienced and knowledgable is whySo a priori knowledge is necessary for science? I don't recall that I've ever seen that included in all the proclamations of "scientific method" that list the magical steps.
Oh, Great!I never claimed otherwise.
The evidence is what demarcates the differing opinions - that's where the falsifiability test is brought to bear on a given hypothesis (or two). If something can be falsified, then we have the potential to learn of it being false, and then we can discard (or improve) the model as we apply the evidence to the test of falsifiability. This eventually produces a model that becomes a predictive framework with which we can make useful predictions - this then leads to things like drug testing and cancer research, vaccines, tiktaalik fossils, screening for genetic diseases before pregnancies, paternal testing & dna forensics, genome sequencing between organisms to determine last common ancestors, etc.Nor did I claim anything contrary to what you said above. My comment regarded qualitative vs. quantitative approaches. Even physics was largely qualitative until Newton came along, though one can find exceptions in the work of Archimedes, etc.
It's not that qualitative approaches can't provide invaluable insight, but they are much more prone to confirmation bias and much more difficult to debate when two people make varying claims.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?