exchemist
Veteran Member
The whole point of ID is its claim that it is science, rather than religion.
What you have produced is evidence of the influence of creationism. That is highly unwelcome I agree, but it is not evidence of ID making progress.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Note of Thanks to Creationists and Science Deniers
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
What you have produced is evidence of the influence of creationism. That is highly unwelcome I agree, but it is not evidence of ID making progress.
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
that is nothing more than dog barking up trees...are you an internationally recognised anything such that i should take your word above Myers given all of his degrees and publications? The man has certainly demonstrated a wealth of learning and knowledge...just becuase he is choosing a different interpretation to that of your own does not make yours more believable.
What you consistently fail to illustrate is this...a world view is driven by more than just third party wives tails. It involves a whole lot more and given we are thinkers, i would argue we conjur up questions before we go looking for answers. In light of that, our world views should be driven from the basic questions of existence...why are we here? where did we come from? what happens next?
I choose to accept that the best answers to all of those Epistomological questions are summed up in a single noun...God.
God reveals Himself through His inspired Word, the Bible. The Bible does not contain any theological or doctrinal errors because God doesnt make mistakes.
Therefore, my view of the world around me must stay in complete harmony with self revealing biblical doctrines.
I cannot choose to manipulate self revealing bible theology to suit what i see around me. If the bible literally says, "in six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, and he rested on the Seventh day, blessed the sabbath day, and sanctified it" (exodus 20:8-11) then that is exactly what happened.
That is the entire point of following the writings of the founder of a world view...it is gospel. That is how this works no matter what world view one has, what political party one votes for, or what is the best car on the road (in Australia, a national right of passage for the average male was to take a side on the Holden vs Ford debate...it was like a religion when i was growing up).
What i find really tiresome about naysayers, they rarely provide sound evidence for their naysaying...instead, they cite third hand wives tales ,many of which come from sources who also use their main argument based on other wives tails...and so the naysaying becomes a wives tails of wives tails of wives tails critique....its like a flock of seagulls squawking...a lot of unintelligent noise.
The really big problem here is that Christianity is not limited to just what the science says...its a philosophically driven world view. The interpretation of science therefore, must match and remain in harmony with the philosophy, not the other way round! If it does not, then the philosophy falls apart and the original Epistomological dilemma returns! One is left with apparently sound science, but for what ultimate purpose? It becomes pointless!
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
Meyer has a BS (rather appropriately) from some obscure Presbyterian college in the US that I've never heard of. But to be fair he did get a PhD from Cambridge in the history and philosophy of science. He is now apparently a prof at this same Presbyterian college.
Meyer has no qualification in biology, palaeontology, biochemistry or any other field relevant to the understanding of the development of life. He seems to have made it his life's work to promote the pseudoscience of "Intelligent [sic] Design" :Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia
But he is an evangelical Protestant of course, which is no doubt why he appeals to some people with no science education who want to bolster their pre-existing religious convictions, at the expense of learning the actual science.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The guy studied philosophy. He is not a biologist, geologist, anthropologist, physicist,...
So he has no claim to any kind of authority or expertise when it comes to those fields. There is no reason why laypeople would find him more trusthworthy then the consensus of the fields he disagrees with. I say "laypeople" because any actual academic will pay no attention to guys like Meyers' religious propaganda as if this propaganda is somehow "challenging" those fields. They aren't. There's nothing there.
In science, theories (=explanations) are driven by data and evidence coming from observation, experiment, research, data-gathering and analysis, testing over and over,... And not super-imposing ones a priori (religious) beliefs upon it as if one tries to draw the bullseye around the arrow.
Such a method of inquiry requires its practitioners to set aside some ego and make a few acknowledgements:
- human being are easily fooled / biased / fallible
- reality does not have to conform to your emotional needs
- be prepared to be shown wrong over and over again, and instead of seeing it as defeat, see it as a victory on the road to truth. Finding out you are wrong is the best; it means you get to learn something new. That's how you make progress.
So coming in starting with the dogmatic assumption that there is some infallible human / book who / which has "all the answers" and that we humans are the entire point of the universe and that some god-did-it-all... You're pretty much going to violate all those points and go forward in the most unscientific way imaginable.
The result of which is almost certainly going to be holding false beliefs.
Yep. Exactly like I described above.
In so doing, you are effectively taking yourself out of the circle of humans that actually learn new things and make progress
There you go. The infallible part. "Here are the answers, they can not be wrong"
Why would you even bother looking for evidence? You already decided what the answer is.
It's not like you are going to change your mind if you don't find evidence. You wouldn't even change your mind if you would find counter-evidence instead.
Whatever evidence you dig up, it's not going to sway you from your a priori beliefs, right?
And off course, this also means that you are not prepared to be shown wrong either, right?
Uhu. You could almost say, that you feel that reality has to conform to your emotional needs.
Yep. No matter the evidence. It's infallible and I believe it. Therefor, reality needs to support my personal beliefs. And if it doesn't, it's reality that is incorrect!
Says the guy who's waving a book with tales.
Why not the other way round?
Ow, right, because you have concluded in advance that your particular flavor of christianity is infallible and you hold to that claim dogmatically. Regardless of what the evidence says.
How is science pointless?
We are communicating right now tnx to a whole bunch of science. Science that goes back all the way to Farraday and beyond.
Science is extremely useful.
Regardless of where you are, look around. Literally every man-made object you see, exists only because through science we figured out how to make it.
First, Meyr is not internationally recognised in science. He has not degree in science, only a PhD in philosophy. Yes he has a Christian 'Intelligent Design' following. Unless you have a foundation in science the argument for Intelligent Design remains only a religious claim.
Dr. Wiens is an internationally well known Christian scientist:From a previous post here by @Colt : Dating fossils and rock formations by scientific methods,
I easily take Dr. Wiens word over Stephan Meyer who has no background in science.
"I've always directed people to Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective Dr. Roger C. Wiens for a comprehensive discussion of radiometric dating and other techniques.
"Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory." 2002"
These are philosophical and Theological Questions, which do not address the objective evidence of the physical nature of our universe.
The above is a rather long rant that fails to address the fundamental problems of objective evidence that is the basis of science and the physical nature of our universe. You have failed to respond to my post. Philosophical and Theological arguments remain subjective of th emind only without objective evidence.
True, but it should not directly conflict with the physical evidence of the nature of our physical existence. God does not Create contradictions.
No it is a theological worldview.
The interpretation of science must reflect the foundation objective verifiable physical evidence, and not any one of the many diverse and conflicting religious beliefs in the history of humanity.
The problem remains you are ignoring the actual science, for philosophical and theological interpretations without any support of objective evidence.
Last edited:
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
I don't think you understand what the term epistomology means if you believe that nonsense.
Yours is a statement that simply denies philosophy is important in discovery of new things in life.
I understand epistemology very well and I spell it correctly. There are two views of epistemology at issue here in broad terms epistemology of justification of 'belief' and the epistemology of science developed by Popper, which is the basis of Methodological Naturalism for scientific methods in science based on objective verifiable evidence to develop theories and hypotheses concerning the nature of our physical existence.
The first word of caution is your attempts to justify your beliefs based on epistemology. The justification of belief should not be necessarily circular to justify your own belief with assumption of your belief, which would lead to circular justification of an epistemology
What you are being challenged on is the epistemology of science based on the objective verifiable evidence and scientific methods, which is independent from your use or misuse of epistemology to justify your subjective beliefs, and philosophy.
You cannot rely on the epistemology of belief to justify a view of our physical existence. amd you cannot rely pn the epistemology ot science fo justify subjective beliefs,
You need to respond to your conflicting views with the epistemology of science.
Philosophy is important as subjective 'Thinking, and I have studied philosophy all my life, but not in determining the objective nature of our physical existence. This requires objective physical evidence based on the epistemology of science,, which philosophy lacks
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I think it's both interesting and telling that out of that rather big post full of points, THAT is the one line you choose to reply to while completely ignoring everything else.
Off course, if you did include it, it would off course expose how you just did your outmost best to completely dismiss the points risen there.
I made a rather elaborate case concerning how you effectively exclude yourself from finding valid answers to open questions for the sole reason that you have already decided on the answers BEFORE even asking the questions - let alone exploring the questions.
You don't just WANT all the evidence to conform to your a priori religious beliefs... no, you NEED it to be so.
And when it doesn't, you simply dismiss the evidence.
I can only repeat to you what I always repeat to people who engage in such foolishness:
When the evidence of reality contradicts your a priori beliefs, it is not reality that is incorrect!
Audie
Veteran Member
Tiresome about naysayers...
Yes, the evolution deniers are tiresome.
For all their yammering not one has ever
just stated one single fact contrary to ToE.
If it were false, that would be easy.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
I have a different approach from the two main sides of the creation versus evolution debate. I can accept the science carbon dating data, as well as the symbolism of the Bible. I have come to the conclusion that the story of Creation is connected to a change in the human mind; brain. The upgrade in human consciousness; brain, is symbolized by Adam and Eve and happened about 6000-10,000 year ago. This time scale does not preclude the older biological humans; over 50,000 year ago. These older biological humans lacked the neural upgrade. Both had human DNA, but symbolic Adam was the first human to have the new brain upgrade.
Evolution is based on natural selection, which makes sense. Civilization, which began about 6-10k years ago, is outside natural selection. It was more connected to human will and choice. Adam; symbolized by the brain update, allows for human will and chose apart from human instinct. Human instinct had connected humans to evolution, via natural selection; from 2 million years ago to about 6k to10k years ago.
The line in the sand by science is based on DNA evidence which can be seen before and after the rise of civilization. Evolution by natural selection cannot explain the rise of civilization. Civilization would create an unnatural human environment; squat instead of wander, where law and rules forced people to become less natural; more civilized for the crowded social life. This is part of human evolution, but not by natural selection. No where else in nature do we this without humans. There was an upgrade divergence to manmade selection, plus natural selection.
Let me give an example. Religion appears with civilization, with many of the first religions are still around today in some form. They had strict rules for behavior, which implies social selection was based on these rules of religion. This, like natural selection, would have funneled humanity, and thereby alter the collective DNA, along the lines of these man made selections.
Just as the lion is selected based its fitness for hunting in the fields, the new humans would be selected by their faith, imagination and their actions. My guess is Religious type behavior; spiritual imagination, is rooted in much of our human DNA due to 6000 years of selective social pressures and advantages. Heretics would be killed; not selected. There were also other man made selections such as wealth and power. If you kill off an enemy, their DNA selection is gone from the world, and your DNA is left at a higher human percent.
The question is when did the path of evolution and natural selection, diverge, so a path for manmade selection started to alter the original parameters of natural selection, through the human development of civilization? The dynamics of the DNA does not care what is selected, even if unnatural. This point of divergence of human and nature is called Adam; first human with the update in will power that was needed for the divergence; ego secondary center appear with autonomy.
As the symbolism goes, Adam is given authority over the plants and animals. Natural selection now included a branch of manmade selection that gets larger and larger, until we can alter all of nature via technology. The invention of writing language occur at this time scale and allows a way for human education to maintain a solid platform, for updating the natural genetic firmware; Changes we call the Ages.
I have no problem with evolution, other than water is a better 3-D variable to interface abiogenesis and consciousness. Without water as the main variable, it is still fine, but is rather cumbersome and can limit appeal. The main addended I added is symbolic Adam, who symbolizes the time of the divergence of evolution; new type of human, that includes manmade selection as part of evolution, which has altered man more than any other critter or pressure on the earth.
I like the Bible because it tells about the changes from eyewitnesses who were around for the change, but who did not understand how the brain works, so this could be correlated with science. I built a bridge to connect them that way
Evolution is based on natural selection, which makes sense. Civilization, which began about 6-10k years ago, is outside natural selection. It was more connected to human will and choice. Adam; symbolized by the brain update, allows for human will and chose apart from human instinct. Human instinct had connected humans to evolution, via natural selection; from 2 million years ago to about 6k to10k years ago.
The line in the sand by science is based on DNA evidence which can be seen before and after the rise of civilization. Evolution by natural selection cannot explain the rise of civilization. Civilization would create an unnatural human environment; squat instead of wander, where law and rules forced people to become less natural; more civilized for the crowded social life. This is part of human evolution, but not by natural selection. No where else in nature do we this without humans. There was an upgrade divergence to manmade selection, plus natural selection.
Let me give an example. Religion appears with civilization, with many of the first religions are still around today in some form. They had strict rules for behavior, which implies social selection was based on these rules of religion. This, like natural selection, would have funneled humanity, and thereby alter the collective DNA, along the lines of these man made selections.
Just as the lion is selected based its fitness for hunting in the fields, the new humans would be selected by their faith, imagination and their actions. My guess is Religious type behavior; spiritual imagination, is rooted in much of our human DNA due to 6000 years of selective social pressures and advantages. Heretics would be killed; not selected. There were also other man made selections such as wealth and power. If you kill off an enemy, their DNA selection is gone from the world, and your DNA is left at a higher human percent.
The question is when did the path of evolution and natural selection, diverge, so a path for manmade selection started to alter the original parameters of natural selection, through the human development of civilization? The dynamics of the DNA does not care what is selected, even if unnatural. This point of divergence of human and nature is called Adam; first human with the update in will power that was needed for the divergence; ego secondary center appear with autonomy.
As the symbolism goes, Adam is given authority over the plants and animals. Natural selection now included a branch of manmade selection that gets larger and larger, until we can alter all of nature via technology. The invention of writing language occur at this time scale and allows a way for human education to maintain a solid platform, for updating the natural genetic firmware; Changes we call the Ages.
I have no problem with evolution, other than water is a better 3-D variable to interface abiogenesis and consciousness. Without water as the main variable, it is still fine, but is rather cumbersome and can limit appeal. The main addended I added is symbolic Adam, who symbolizes the time of the divergence of evolution; new type of human, that includes manmade selection as part of evolution, which has altered man more than any other critter or pressure on the earth.
I like the Bible because it tells about the changes from eyewitnesses who were around for the change, but who did not understand how the brain works, so this could be correlated with science. I built a bridge to connect them that way
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
So many words to say the simplest things
Only geology? Amateur
_5o years working in geology specializing in environmental geology, geomorphology, geochemistry, and field work drilling in six states and three countries. I do use academic science references in my posts.
You? Ameteur in what? Creation Science? Maybe an ameteur carpenter with bloody fingers.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Critical thinking is not about bottom lines. It will try to show the lines of reasoning, evidence, and even the parallels needed to develop a thesis. Too many people simply repeat bottom lines and depend on group prestige, but do not supply enough analysis to make the thesis convincing.
The bottom line, here, is that the formation of sustainable civilization, about 6000 year ago, was a turning point for humans where manmade selection began to replace natural selection in terms of human evolution. This type of change would have been made easier if it involved a secondary POV, apart from natural instinct. In modern terms, it appears to be connected to the formation of the human ego; secondary or conscious mind, on top of the original or primary; inner self and unconscious mind.
For example, many people will not eat genetically modified food, since these are not natural but man made. Such food is not connected to natural selection, but to ego centric led evolution of food plants, for fun and profit. Dog breeds, today, are hardly ever chosen by natural selection, but mostly by human selection. However, if dogs are released in the wild and the conditions are survivable many will become ferule and will revert back to natural selection. But if the dog is left out on the large city streets, man made selection may put the dog in the dog pound, hoping it will be adopted, before the clock runs out and it is eliminated; man made selection. The start of the man made selection addendum, to evolution, is symbolized by Adam.
This offers a bridge between science and religion since religion has eye witness data to help science. This data is connected to early human choice and selections, that first led to a major decline in natural behavior, before it got better. It also occurred when both centers were conscious; god and man. The DNA test for human evolution is over simplified, since modern humans, with ego will and choice, allows for external education and choice, not on the base DNA, such as transgender training, that can even deny the the original birth DNA.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Why do you think that is the case?
Wrong. "civilization" is just the logical follow up of small settlements, which itself is the follow up of tribalistic social groups of early humans.
There is a logical progression there and it is directly connected to the social aspect of the human species. This deals with human behavior and social cooperation, which very much is subject to natural selection.
BS
Sure, civilization is unique to humans. That doesn't make it exempt from being natural.
Does it? What makes you think that?
There is much evidence that religion / religious beliefs predates "civilization".
It didn't.
Bottom lines are about critical thinking.Religion is about belief not eyewitness data. You over emphasis of dating civilization 6000 years ago does not reflect the actual history.
The evolution of civilization is not outside natural evolution or selection, and there is not evidence for "it appears to be connected to the formation of the human ego; secondary or conscious mind, on top of the original or primary; inner self and unconscious mind."This represents conjecture based a religious agenda. It is pretty much accepted that civilization evolved in response to environment climate change after the last Ice Age.
Selective Breeding | Encyclopedia.com
Selective Breeding Selective breeding [1] is evolution by human selection. As nineteenth-century British naturalist Charles Darwin [2] noted in Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, selective breeding may be methodical or unconscious.
The origin of civilization evolved over time, and began about 10,000 years ago with herding and domestication of animals and breading cereal crops.
The concept of villages dates back 10,000 years
People first learned the value of living in a village roughly 10,000 years ago, when several thousand nomads put down roots in a Turkish marsh.
www.irvinestandard.com
The earliest villages also date about 10,000 years ago
If you consider writing the standard of the beginning of civilization
The Evolution of Writing | Denise Schmandt-Besserat
sites.utexas.edu
Writing did not appear until about 3,500 years ago.
Last edited:
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Define the parameters of natural selection? These parameters is always left undefined and open ended in a nebulous way.
As a distinction to the more nebulous natural selection, man made selections are selections, made by only humans, apart from nature; choose transgender. You cannot choose and have transgender without manmade medicines and surgeries. Nature does not allow for human metamorphosis, induce by natural selection, as a function of the alignment of the sun and moon. Although some humans will use astrology to define the best time to surgically transgender.
Farming, for example, is done in all climates in all parts of the world. Which parameters of natural selection, which can found everywhere on earth, induced this selective need in humans? Why not just wander and gather where there is more food? Why did the first farmers struggle for months without food, guarding and waiting for the plants to mature? That would require long term vision apart from the immediate gratification of the human animal.
Wandering, gathering and hunting would be defined by natural selection. In this case it would be based on the local bounty of the natural environment, set by each environment. One would be forced to adapt to the availability of natural food supplies using one or more of three basic natural skills; wander, gather and hunt. But what in the natural environment make you stop, settle and farm, somewhere in particular, especially if farming requires waiting to eat, and can be done in almost any environment with human ingenuity? What are the natural environmental distinctions that could help funnel this very human behavior? It can be done with manmade pressures, such as education and tradition; man made parameters. Or by inner need; phobia of the gods.
The current theory of natural selection does not fully apply, once the human ego appears. The choice of settlement location would be more of a subjective human choice; beauty, reinforced by education; cultural traditions. Science can show the pre-humans migrating throughout the world and then stop in various locations of the widest variety.
In terms of civilization, there is evidence of earlier civilizations before the first sustainable, about 6000 years ago. Why didn't the earlier ones sustain? The easiest explanation is the ego or secondary center was starting to appear about 10,000 years ago. However, it was not yet stable on a large scale; constant loss of soul. This allowed for some manmade selection and innovation, but once the founders and doers passed, the next generation could not maintain. They reverted back to natural selection and went back to hunter gathering, abandoning the settlements. The ego does not solidify on a large scale until 6000AD then civilization becomes sustainable.
The analogy would be like having a father, who is very skilled at building. He builds a nice house and property for his young family. After the father passes, the children have no clue how to maintain the house and property to the same level, so it goes into disrepair. They lack the innate capacity to copy the father, since their lack of a steady ego makes it harder to watch and learn; impulsive.
It is much easier to correlate the change to civilization with an update in the brain than a new instinct by natural selection. An upgrade make sit easier to explain the wide variety of changes that occurred instead of one at a time. The science of evolution is weak when it comes to the evolution of consciousness, since DNA alone is not enough. Human DNA could be found in humans with or without the ego center.
Natural selection is specifically defined in the sciences of evolution. It is your intentional ignorance of science that is a problem.
Natural Selection
Natural selection is the process through which species adapt to their environments. It is the engine that drives evolution.
One note: Natural selection takes place in populations of life forms based on the genetic diversity of the population in response to changes in the environment. Yes humans use these "natural" processes in the past 10.000 years to improve farming and animal husbandry.
Not remotely related to natural evolution and natural selection. Note the key word is "natural" not by human manipulation, though some evolution has taken place under human efforts such as breeding animals and plants, In these cases humans represent the environmental influence on animal populations.
True, for about 10,000 years humans have used the natural processes of evolution to evolve populations of animals and plants for their purpose of producing food.
No
A bit of rambling here without addressing evolution and natural selection. Addressed adequately above.
Humans apply the principles of natural selection and evolution for their own purposes, by adapting plants and animals to the changing environment under human control.
Human breeding and using the natural processes of natural selection began about 10,000 years ago.
OK so what? Except for the opening statement about your confusion and ignorance of natural selection and natural evolution you have not addressed the question of "natural" selection and "natural" evolution.
False, and unwarranted conjecture and speculation based on your religious agenda,. A detailed scientific research on the recent history of humanity the development of farming, herding and using natural selection processes was a result of climate change at the end of "Ice Age" glaciation making the environment ideal for human development of using natural processes of natural selection in farming and animal husbandry.
You view of human evolution of the mind is in a way true, but it is not a specific change? 6000 nor 19,000 years ago. Human physical and nind evolution undergoes constant change over the hundreds of thousands of years of human existence, and the nillioms of yeaars before.
Last edited:
I will add sort on topic of the thread the evolution deniers amd bogus 'Intelligent Design' advocates inspire me to do my homework and research of the science literature to keep up to date. Also follow changes as to how Creationists deal with science. I have been retired from geology for some years, and it is good to keep the mind tuned on the subject.